What do you think the country would be like today if we hadn't killed the union leaders and installed a dictator friendly towards US business?
In particular, that discussion helps us define a "good" union: one that adds value for both the business and the workers it mediates between.
What makes a "bad" union, then? Well, in some industries, organization of labor won't add much value, so there won't be demand for their services. Union leaders will honestly believe they add value (like many organizations that can't acknowledge they're no longer in demand) and will lobby for laws to force unionization against the will of workers and businesses. That will become a bad union; its efforts will center preserving its own existence.
Worse, unions depend on solidarity, so the good unions will have to side with the bad unions if they want to be able to strike effectively.
And then their critics won't percieve any meaningful distinction between good and bad unions.
[1]: https://www.econtalk.org/mitch-weiss-on-the-business-of-broa...
Because unfortunately its much more profitable to exploit them.
That doesn't mean that I think the US was in the right. I don't. But it does not follow that all the problems in Guatemala are our fault.
My point is that a factory moving overseas isn't some platonic transaction. There is a history and a context to why labor is so cheap and regulations are so lax.
[Edit: Forming unions doesn't automatically lead to rising wages - or if it does, it may do so at the price of fewer jobs. It isn't automatically going to lead to all the subsistence farmers getting good-paying factory jobs.]
> There is a history and a context to why labor is so cheap and regulations are so lax.
In Latin America, perhaps. In China? Korea, back in the day? Vietnam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War
> CIA under Eisenhower overthrew the government of Guatemala when trade unionists were elected on the promise of eight hour workdays and better conditions for field workers.
This isn’t quite the whole story. A significant proportion of Guatemalan land was owned by the United Fruit Company (whose leadership/ownership included significant overlap with Eisenhower’s administration†), but the company was not using the land. The Guatemalan government wanted to buy the unused land back from the company at the price they declared it to be worth on their tax forms. The company went to the US government and whined that their private property was being expropriated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_900
† “John Foster Dulles, who represented United Fruit while he was a law partner at Sullivan & Cromwell – he negotiated that crucial United Fruit deal with Guatemalan officials in the 1930s – was Secretary of State under Eisenhower; his brother Allen, who did legal work for the company and sat on its board of directors, was head of the CIA under Eisenhower; Henry Cabot Lodge, who was America's ambassador to the UN, was a large owner of United Fruit stock; Ed Whitman, the United Fruit PR man, was married to Ann Whitman, Dwight Eisenhower's personal secretary.”