We can't go back in time and see what would have happened without unions, but more than likely, the great leap forward in standard of living, rising wages, and the eight hour workday were made possible by business, not unions. Most businesses, and economies of scale especially, garner profits in the margin. It's not as if the government could step in, at the behest of unions, and by fiat make the enterprise successful enough to afford less time and less work from labor without adversely affecting the profit margin, which would threaten the entire concern.

The only thing unions can do, so long as capital is not efficient enough to afford the comfortable lifestyle modern people are accustomed to, is screw other laborers. They can restrict the labor supply, through their own efforts but mostly through help from the government, by excluding competition. And they continue to do so even today. Why else do they so hate scabs? Why else do they so violently oppose outsourcing and free trade?

Because the great enemy of the union is the excess supply of labor out there, waiting to be used, threatening to take away the precious benefits they've squeezed out of the Fat Cats.

I'll never understand this mindset. Perhaps, perhaps, unions were helpful for things like safety, which all the members, more or less, would agree upon, and where it's important things get done as soon as possible. And possibly, so that the bosses don't exploit individual workers' ignorance. Unions are an efficient means of spreading information in the labor market.

But as regards what most people praise the unions for: high wages, benefits, shorter workdays, etc., there was almost absolutely no need. What do people think, the Fat Cats had big piles of money they were sitting on, and only made the workers work on cumbersome or outdated machines, for long hours, with little pay, and at a subsistence leve because they loved their profits? Or, maybe, because they thought it was funny.

No, unions are supposed to artificially raise the price of labor by restricting its supply.

"Isn’t employment what unions are really all about"

Yes, unions are all about employment. They're all about securing employment for members of the union at the expense of other people. Also, securing employment for certain minorities within the union at the expense of other union members.

But then, I live in California, so I admit to a bit of bitterness where unions are concerned.

http://www.sag.org/history

Ironic that today's BH Open Thread would have one of SAG's founding members, Boris Karloff, as a subject.