This isn't fair, because unions are still needed. A case of union damage and abuse doesn't discount the viability of unions in other situations.
There is an inherent flaw in true capitalism, and that is a strict adherence to supply and demand. The supply of an untrained workforce will almost certainly always exceed the demand, so jobs for an untrained workforce can pay very poorly, and people will still fill the positions, as it is the only thing available to them. Unions play a significant role in the "specialized" workforce, where people actually do develop and utilize a skill set, but that skill set is only beneficial for a very small amount of jobs. In these situations, an employee who does not operate with a union may develop the ability to provide a significant benefit to the employer, but the employer would have little, if any interest in increasing their pay scale, because that individual can not simply move on to the next job.
The issue at hand as always is more complicated than union vs. non-union. Many unions operate solely on the behalf of the workers, and while that seems beneficial, it is not. A union should represent the workers and the corporation, and strive to find a way to not only allow a company to succeed, but thrive, while making sure the employees they represent are treated fairly. There are examples I am aware of where this is the case, but the 2 unions I am thinking of are very small in scale. The iron worker's union is the only large union I can think of which also does a fair job, but they handle temporary jobs, so their game is significantly different than one like the aforementioned BCTGM. This isn't to say I have a ton of experience in labor and labor disputes, but enough to draw some broad conclusions.
Randophkeys pointed out that the corporation should bear some of the blame, and that is reasonable. The issue came about because of poor market adjustments and a struggling economy brought profits down, which meant pay cuts were needed. That is on the executives. But that doesn't discount that, if the employees were acting in good faith for the company, they could have offset their income and would have been able to maintain their jobs for the foreseeable future. The rigidity of the modern union prevents companies from adjusting to the market, and that is almost impossible to bear. We almost saw 3 major car companies collapse due to similar issues just 4 years ago.
Unions serve a purpose, but they are a check and balance on corporate America. Where is the check and balance on the union? They need to be held accountable as well. There is no good reason for this to have happened, and I'm not sure what is to be gained in any debate stemming from it. Today, almost 20,000 blue collar Americans lost their jobs in an economy that is having the most trouble employing blue collar Americans. Many of these people will likely struggle to find re-employment, especially those over the age of 45, and that is very sad.