Don't forget that wasting money on management is good, while wasting money on mere employees is bad. This has nothing to do with managers having an artificially strong negotiating position (they don't after all, generally produce anything) -- while individual employees have an artificially weak bargaining position (they do in general create the major value for any company).

It's sad that union has such a bad rep in the US. I'm not sure if that has more to do with right wing politicians colluding with organized crime to disrupt and discredit unions, or if there really are issues with unions in the US in general. My limited reading implies unions in the US are generally a net good for society. Then again, it's hard to discuss sane labour practices in a country where a number of states practice at-will employment.

It's so far distant from the work market in Norway that I have a difficult time trying to relate.

Yes, in my response I am trying to be as explicit as possible in saying that I think these inefficiencies are a net good. However, they are still inefficiencies. There will almost always be somebody willing to work for less, and things like union protection keep that from happening. The result is a net positive for the workers. However, that doesn't stop the process from being economically inefficient.

Unions and the lawyers who negotiate with them are actual inefficiencies, and they are both the inevitable result of exploitive business practices.

Providing a better outcome without the intermediaries would be a great way to improve the system.