Those gains so-called 'worker rights' were achieved in countries without unions as well. It's also unmentioned how much unemployment and misery unions also caused in this narrative.

Here's another link that I think has balanced coverage: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep...

Ford even wrote an article on the subject (which I can't seem to find at the moment). In it he discusses hiring private detectives to follow his workers to ensure that they spent the extra money he was paying him. He was worried that by paying his workers too much and giving them too much time off, he'd create another class of wealthy people. Instead his great experiment was to get them to spend their money, drive the economy and create a market for his cars.

So while I don't consider Ford to be a philanthropist for his moves, and while I recognise the achievements of unions in this area, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage and safe working conditions have always been a win-win situation for industry. There have been companies who realised this win-win much earlier than they were forced to. I think one might even be able to argue effectively that these moves may have occurred even without the participation of the unions. Indeed, it is possible that despite all the good work from the unions, that laws of this nature were only passed because this was rapidly becoming the concensus opinion in industry anyway.

Just an aside while I'm here... I once was asked to sign a new contract with my employer with really draconian terms. I was already under contract and none of the termination clauses had come into effect, so I politely declined. They threatened to fire me at which point I asked them if understood the legal consequences of getting people to sign contracts under duress. Their lawyer, who was present, promptly apologised and wrapped things up.

As I was leaving, I mentioned that it would be a good idea to have an ombudsman to review these kinds of contract changes. I was now going to go talk with the rest of my colleagues and there was no way that anyone would sign the new contract from that point on. However, if they had an intermediary, there was a good chance that whatever problem they were having with the old contract could be solved. The HR person replied, "We'll never allow a union here and don't even think about threatening it". The lawyer laughed nervously (I really didn't envy him that day).

And this is the thing that drives me crazy about both sides of the equation. It really is a win-win situation. There is no need to have a "both sides". The company wants a good contract that protects them from crappy stuff. The employee wants a good contract that protects them from crappy stuff. But as soon as one side or the other gets the upper hand, they just try to crush the other side. It's really frustrating. Even the mentioning the idea of working together seems to be crazy talk. While I only mention this anecdote, I am one of the few people who have worked in a union shop as a programmer before. Exactly same thing, other way around. The union would happily drive the company into the ground if it meant getting some pointless concession for its members....