I'm not slow on the uptake. I got the point. You don't seem to be getting mine. That or you're choosing not to.
The point, blatently put, is that when you don't like worker pay rate arrived at by market forces - including unions, then that's bad and was should all do something about it. On the other hand, the treason-lobby would largely scream at heaven if one suggested that executive pay, were it curtailed, might
fair better in the pockets of the people working to get that money in the first place.
The treason lobby doesn't want intervention unless it means gutting whatever leverage a worker holds in the market in order to placate greed.
Cases of unions overstepping bounds are not the rule, they are the exception. Just like every woman, from a male point of view, isn't a gold-digging tramp because the last one was. And it is the job of unions to do well by those they represent. That is part of the market at work. If that isn't functioning, you fix it. I don't see you screatching about Executive earnings as compared to employee earnings.
In fact, many in the treason lobby in past threads have tended to argue that market forces determine such things...
Sound familiar. If the unions didn't bargain for a better deal, they'd never see it trusting in the good ethics and appreciation of execs. You may have rested your case; but, resting without making your case is both unwise and counter productive.