The problem with Unions is the same problem everything has

They are run by people and people are the most corrupt thing on the planet.

Back then coprorations were smaller and worth much less.

A 50 million dollar salary certainly fair if the company is making 50+ billion a year.

For the most part, I'm not convinced unions led to improvements in safety that wouldn't have happened on their own ...

England was (one of) the earliest countries to pass child labour laws and they did so in 1833, which was before Unions (really) started to be formed, and it was primarily a result of people's attitudes changing due to the industrial revolution.

The changes would have happened under similar circumstances to how sexual harassment in the workplace has been (pretty much) eliminated. Likely the victims of dangerous workplaces (or their families) would sue the corporation for accidents/injuries, many of these corporations would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on legal settlements, and companies would increase safety standards to reduce financial risk and keep costs down.

With that said, I think the primary problem with unions is that they have become far too big (not that they exist) ... If there were no unions that spanned multiple companies it is likely that most companies could find a middle ground with their union so everyone can be successful. With gigantic unions they don't really care if any one company is successful because if a company (like Hostess) goes bankrupt due to a strike it just makes it easier for them to extort other companies.

Yes you are very wrong.

You want to eliminate a fundamental freedom: freedom of association. This is one of the most basic freedoms, as basic as freedom of speech. If employees want to organise and bargain collectively then all people who believe in freedom should defend that right, and the law should protect those people from being persecuted by employers for exercising that freedom. People are employees not slaves.

Hostess was fucked anyway. With or without unions.

Wow, this is wrong in so many ways.

Firstly, you make the case that democracy and Soviet are antonyms. This could not be further from the truth. The word Soviet means "An elected local, district, or national council in the former USSR." Democracy is, quite literally, there in the name. Adding the word Soviet to America's name only emphasises its democratic nature, at least to those of us who know what the word means.

Regardless, by the time Stalin was in power, (and had thoroughly destroyed the USSR's democracy), trade unionism was much more popular in the USSR than it currently is in the USA, despite the lack of democracy. In 1984, the USSR had 135 million trade union members!

So now you will adjust your point, no doubt. Unions do not represent democracy, but what then? Capitalism?

Again, this is far from the truth. Free market economists hypothesises that by bargaining individually, there is more competition, which leads to increased efficiency. (They of course miss the point that this is only a one sided argument, and thus just leads to an inbalance of bargaining power, which is the problem unions are needed to solve, but that is another matter entirely). Capitalism argues against Trade Unions.

So what do unions represent? Freedom? Are they a libertarian idea? Doubtless a libertarian would suggest that the government do nothing, and trust in the kindness of man to sort things out. As in every other matter, they are too trusting in mankind's heart and brain, but again, a matter for another day. A truly free society will have voluntary unionism, which of course leads to weak unions, as compared to when union membership is mandatory, so unions are hardly the hallmark of a free society.

No, the only true "ism"s that promote Trade Unionism are Socialism and Marxist Communism. They put power in the hands of the people, and take it away from the government. They promote a more fair distribution of wealth, much closer to "each according to their needs" than the alternatives. If the USA wants to earn the name "Soviet States of America", they should increase trade union membership.

Now, if there's one thing I want you to take away from my wall of text, it is below.

tl;dr - Do not simply call your enemies Communists and think you are clever. Because then, someone might actually call you out on the fact that you don't have a single damn clue what a communist is or what he believes.

On topic. America is concentrating more and more money into the richest members. Your national minimum wage is (in real terms) closer to the minimum wage in certain Chinese provinces than to the Scandanavian countries and Australia. Banning trade unions will only worsen these problems. 

Don't get rid of unions,just limit there power. They want all this money for doing nothing. A broom sweeper,probably makes $25hr. This is why all these companies are outsourcing jobs overseas,because of cheaper labor. In some cases if you get in with the right union,you pretty much have a job for life,because the company has to go through hoops,just to fire someone. Again,I don't agree that you should get rid of unions,just limit there bargaining power.

"Let them eat cake!"

All Unions were banned and voting was banned under both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, totalitarian dictatorships oppose democratic Unions that represent the workers interests. Unions fight for workers right  for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Time and time again it has been proven the corrupt and incompetent management made reckless decisions, rewarded themselves with huge  annual pay increases and bonuses regardless of the performance of the company. The rights and freedoms workers take for granted in a democratic society were fought for by Unions between the late 19th  century to the mid 20th century. 

Go on strike without a union and see how quickly you are replaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union

You are wrong.