Its an interesting question. I'm not a union guy and spent my youth working in construction so I've encountered my share of plodding union tradesmen who took remarkably long to do small things that could be finished in a few minutes if you rushed. When I was young and foolish I'd often shake my head at the snails-pace they worked at.

I'm older now, and arguably a smidgen wiser. I've reacted with shock at hearing about old acquaintances who have been killed on the job or now endure chronic pain and are no longer able to work. Broken backs, bum knees, busted nerves, missing fingers, the list goes on. The plodding, methodical 55 year-old union guy is looking less and less silly the older I get.

In short, perhaps one reason a union might push back against performance-based bonuses is that it often ends up coming at a long-term cost to the worker that is difficult to foresee when you're an invincible 25 year-old trying to make a few extra bucks for the weekend.

Agreed. Unions do get bad and unfair rap. They serve a purpose as an advocate and provide bargaining power for employees in the free market.

I feel people forget that unions are organizations, and like all organizations (companies, non-profits, religious orgs, etc), they can be good or bad.

Well, it is not the first time I hear such stories. Not only from the US either. At my own job we sometimes work at unionized places and it is the same everywhere. Horrendously en ridiculously inefficient work practices. It certainly gives me a very negative image of unions.

I feel like unions in the US are like everything else in the US: socially engineered up the wazoo, with nary a hint of any stable foundation.