I don't think unions exactly are the problem. What is a problem is special treatment for unions, which has been achieved by union influence over policy makers. Of course, the same argument applies to many other problems, so it's not all the fault of unions.
What I do think should be applied to unions is the freedom to work in an industry without being covered by a union agreement. There should also be competition between unions for members, which in most cases doesn't exist. Unions use their monopoly positions in particular industries to screw the members over and the industry in which they are entrenched. Competition between unions could allow workers to choose which union they belong to, and thus which agreement they wish to work under.
The freedom for employees to associate to increase their bargaining power isn't necessarily a bad thing, in many ways, it's a good counterweight to the ability for people who own capital to force people into bad deals.
What is a problem is protection of union monopolies and regulations that tend towards unions being able to control industries. This is the same as any other organisation or group that gets a government mandated monopoly.
However, it's good to see these things being civilly discussed. You shouldn't be ashamed to hold an anti-union point of view if you can express it by argument and not by insult.
As is always the case, the problem has many facets. Yes, you are right, the special treatment of unions is a problem. The other problem is what unions extract or obtain from employers by sheer force. In any other context this would be called extortion.
I'll grant that there are places where unionized labor is probably still justified. Once case that comes to mind is mining. I say this out of complete ignorance as I don't know the first thing about the mining industry. Maybe even that industry is beyond unions as well.
One place where unions do not belong is in government. Here unions create a "gang" of people who act against their employer --our government-- and, of course, us, the tax payers. This is a huge conflict of interest. It creates a never-ending need for more and more money rather than creating a competitive environment where creativity and efficiency are rewarded, just like anywhere else.
What I do think should be applied to unions is the freedom to work in an industry without being covered by a union agreement. There should also be competition between unions for members, which in most cases doesn't exist. Unions use their monopoly positions in particular industries to screw the members over and the industry in which they are entrenched. Competition between unions could allow workers to choose which union they belong to, and thus which agreement they wish to work under.
The freedom for employees to associate to increase their bargaining power isn't necessarily a bad thing, in many ways, it's a good counterweight to the ability for people who own capital to force people into bad deals.
What is a problem is protection of union monopolies and regulations that tend towards unions being able to control industries. This is the same as any other organisation or group that gets a government mandated monopoly.
However, it's good to see these things being civilly discussed. You shouldn't be ashamed to hold an anti-union point of view if you can express it by argument and not by insult.