The unions are not responsible for all the workplace protections and benefits in place at non-unionized workplaces. In fact, in my time at a large DJIA company, that had union machinists, and non-union workers of other disciplines, it was most definitely the case that the lazy union bastards were taking compensation from the rest of us. They typically went on strike every time their contracts were up, got cushy packages, and then the rest of us got shafted because the company had nothing left after the union bent them over.
Ralph Nader single-handedly has won the American worker as much as all the major unions combined.
UAW workers make more than their southern counterparts, and ... wait for it ... get more in benefits, too. All told, that's a significant bump in total comp, despite the fact that an auto worker is an auto worker. UAW guys aren't any better at what they do than Toyota's guys. What makes your comment even more ridiculous is that it ignores the fact that those non-union counterparts in the South work for companies WHO ARE KICKING GM, FORD, AND CHRYSLER'S ASSES. Why should employees at underperforming companies make even a single dime more (plus more expensive benefits) than their competitors who are beating them soundly in the marketplace?
Finally, please don't ignore the fact that unions make companies less competitive, which indirectly brings down compensation for everyone at those companies. Don't agree with that statement? Please name for me one company who's leading their field, with a significantly unionized workforce, that competes against competitors who aren't unionized?