Interesting...maybe in an ideal world...but in the real world where business owners currently have the upper hand (and congressmen and congresswomen basically on payroll), I'm perfectly fine with unions acting as a counterweight to corporate power.
1. Unions are not often a counter balance. They are usually just additional monopolies[0] where there was none before. The airline industry is incredibly competitive but yet airline pilots still decided to unionize and price-fix.
2. Monopolies should be fought with regulations targeted at increasing competition and lowering barriers to entry - not with more monopolies. Fighting a monopoly with another monopoly just hurts the consumer and hurts our country in the global economy.
3. unions have congressmen "on payroll" too. In fact in some states some industries have state laws that forbid people from working outside of the union. Only 27 states have right to work laws.
[0] Per-company unions are the easiest monopolies to create because the scale of them is much smaller than the scale of the whole industry. Its very easy to get all your coworkers at company X to unionize and forbid company X from hiring elsewhere - and often new hires are happy to join the union too. But its very difficult for your company X to achieve a monopoly itself because it has to dominate an often much larger global market. For an example, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16489013
Nobody said that unions form only when the employer is a monopoly...I'm not sure what "point" you're trying to make here.
Nobody said they were...