Not so fast.
The Chicago school is about to encounter a few good arguments from Samuelson; and the Chicago school did NOT 'win' without a good deal of controversy.
We may agree that Big Labor had overstepped its bounds through the period 1950-1990 (circa.) On the other hand, since c. 1990, it has also taken its lumps, now only representing about 14% of US workers.
Two problems remain: 1) what is left of Big Labor is concentrated in Government. This does not bode well for either a reduction in regulation NOR in taxes (and I can demonstrate for you, easily, that RINOs are very adept at 'taming' gov't unions by hiring more gov't employees--thus maintaining "labor peace" through fleecing taxpayers...) and: 2) Labor STILL takes priority over capital in any system which observes moral laws.
This is not easily resolved, but there are people out there with common sense. Viz. the AFL's determined (and temporarily successful) effort to clean the Reds out of the CIO and the UAW.
Patriots agree. Self-interested people do NOT agree.
I'll stick with the Chicago School. It has won because its arguments are the most economically sound.
As an aside, I note that the Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded for 34 years. In that time, 22 Nobel Laureates have come from the University of Chicago.
Free trade, like it or not, is here to stay. It's not going anywhere.