Oh, I don't disagree entirely with what you're saying at all. I'm just aware that the actual core of these problems is human nature. I'm leery of anybody saying that it's "one side's" fault, and that the "other side" has no fault in it. Life doesn't happen in a vacuum. A LOT of bad things (socialism, communism, etc.) have come about as a reaction to other bad things (unbridled greed, ego, hunger for power). Which comes first~it all depends upon who's holding the power. I'm old and jaded enough to have seen it in everyone - including myself.
Not to get too philosophical on you, but the Golden Rule truly IS the only solution to all of these things. The fact that it is so rarely practiced is one reason you have such polarity in America. Everyone is either an Ayn Rand freak, or a communist. Like many other things in life, the answer to the labor/management problem is: Balance.
The Golden rule yes.
Employers are able to decided who to hire or not, just as employees have their right to choose who to work for or not.
Anything more or less infringes the rights of one side of the equation.
If you've ever heard the horror stories of union abuse in public contracting you might reconsider. They never served a useful purpose and still do not beyond union protectionism, the very reason they exist at all.
In a nutshell it boils down to the free choice of individuals - and whether employee or employer, unions prevent it. Not to mention the burying of merit, the foundation of free markets and the innovation that raises ALL our standards of living.
If you are a non-union tradesman, who moves to a non-right-to-work state - you will join the union or not work.
If our pathetic education system isn't enough to convince you of the folly of non-merit employment, I don't know what would.