Hello T. A. Gardner,
Yeah, that's the right wing line. Hey. You guys gotta have something to believe to explain how badly improperly regulated capitalism has raped our land.
One has only to look at the disproportional rise in executive pay vs worker pay to see that capitalist union-busting made executives rich but mostly has created abject poverty in it's wake.
If your theory were true, then after the unions were gone, capitalists should have been able to move back into the blighted areas, rich with potential human capital, and exploit that human capital to create shared wealth in the region with the (fictitious) 'great' non-union well-paying jobs.
But that didn't happen, now did it?
No.
Instead, what we see is a wasteland of American cities with no-longer-unionized and willing workers languishing because greedy American capitalism is more interested in cheaper overseas labor.
The only capitalists to come in an utilize this vast untapped source of human capital are the online sellers who need to staff warehouses full of Chinese merchandise, forcing once proud and well-paid American workers to distribute the imported products manufactured in the countries where their previous well-paying jobs were shipped overseas. They work to near-death exhaustion, often unable to even take the time to use the bathroom because every single one of their very footsteps is counted by the computerized bean-counters. If they don't constantly hustle they are fired. American warehouse workers are afraid to even drink water while on the job because it will cause them to have to go to the bathroom, which will possibly get them 'written up' for retribution in the form of reduced wages, reduced hours, probation and the threat of job loss.
Most workers cannot possibly keep up the maddening pace of American warehouse work and never even qualify for the terrible jobs, or if they do, they don't last long. Those jobs have a high turn-over rate, for good reason. They are sweat shops.
IF the workers ever do manage enough time to organize and vote to unionize, the corporation is strongly likely to simply close down that warehouse, lay everyone off, and open up another warehouse in another capitalism-blighted area where they are sure to find plenty of applicants, most of whom are sadly unable to keep up the maddening pace. The greedy corporation will weed through the hundreds of applicants in order to find the few who can and are willing to keep up the breakneck pace demanded of them.
Those workers who do manage to 'cut it,' and keep those jobs for a while, don't last long. As soon as they get any injury or repetitive motion injury, they are outta there, unable to work. Burn-out is high, morale low. Anybody who has a problem with it will be shown the door and any one of 100's of applicants willing to give it a go for as long as they can last will be quickly ushered in to replace the burnt out fired ex warehouse workers.
This is too simplistic. Unions have their place, and in other areas are little more than a burden on the economy.
For example, unions have a place when workers really are exploited and paid a pittance for their work. Mining is a good example of this. Conditions are usually (historically speaking) dangerous and backbreaking. Mining companies often ran company stores--
As an aside, I've actually been in a couple of the last legacy Phelps Dodge ones decades ago. Interesting historical experience. No, my parents weren't employees, the stores were open to the public and existed in a number of all or mostly company towns in Arizona. Bagdad Arizona today is still an active company mining town too--
Anyway, those stores allowed employees credit towards purchases and often they had running bills that they would never pay off. So, unions got heavy support. I don't have a problem with that when employers are clearly taking advantage of employees.
On the other hand, many companies today pay good to reasonable wages for their workforce, particularly if at least some skill levels are involved. On the other hand, companies that can train a worker in a week or two to do some particular job have no particular reason to put a lot of effort into retention like higher pay or benefits. If anybody can do the job, then anybody is perfectly acceptable to the employer.
Socialism does no better either. I gave the example of British Leyland. They built crappy, poor quality, unreliable vehicles. The company was heavily unionized and the workers regularly struck for more pay and benefits. While striking they were entitled to welfare and other unemployment benefits from their employer the British government who owned British Leyland. The workers had little incentive to be efficient or produce a quality product. The union and worker's view was their jobs were guaranteed for life (much like the UAW position).
Morale was poor because both management and the union adopted an "us v. them" attitude towards everything.
In the end, as I stated, Margaret Thatcher decided along with Parliament that it was cheaper to close the business and put the workers on welfare.
In the late 80's and 90's in Germany right after the country reunited with the fall of Communism, the German government put a program in place to incentivize hiring ex- East German workers into West German corporations. At first these companies readily accepted and hired the East Germans. But once it was found that they had become used to Socialist conditions where working hard, being on time, producing a quality part, etc., were all things they didn't do the corporations stopped hiring them because they cost more in lost productivity than the incentives paid.
Capitalism can exploit workers and others no doubt in its quest for profits. But it will turn out an acceptable or quality products in quantity because if it doesn't it won't remain in business.
Socialism can exploit owners and others no doubt in its quest for equality. But it will turn out poor quality products in inadequate amounts because there is no incentive to do better.
I suggested none of that. 
