Well, I think they should be, but only in the public sector and not in the private sector. Unions are a thing of the past, especially the 20th century. Today we are in a new type of market, in which unions are no longer necessary. With economic changes in the United States, nunos can no longer rely on numbers. Let's be realistic, the economy is moving toward white-collar jobs. Blue-collar jobs are disappearing because of machines. Their jobs can be replaced, but with a qualified worker, their job is protected. White-collar jobs tend to have all the benefits, wages, and protections sought in a job. What unions demand during collective negotiations harms the growth of the economy. With the desire for negotiations that these unions are demanding, to stop the growth of the economy and, frankly, to harm it as well. For example, the debate over raising the minimum wage to $15. Raising the minimum wage would hurt businesses and consumers. With higher wages, companies will have to hire fewer staff simply to keep profits down. Worse still, they have to raise product prices to take advantage of the sudden change in wages. Where things get tough, unions destroy the economy, but more primarily the private sector rather than the public sector. I think unions are only relevant in the public sector because wages come from taxes rather than profits. The public sector manages their affairs very differently from the private sector. Among public sector employees, salaries are paid by tax. So, if an employee wants a pay raise or more benefits, all they need to do is increase taxes to keep up with rising costs and prices. To make things more retrospective, new data indicates a shift from unionized manufacturing to unionized services, particularly within the public sector. Unions were founded on the basis of manufacturing jobs. With more and more manufacturing jobs