.... bear in mind that if all bosses were like Cooper, unions would never be necessary.
I both agree and disagree. I think that, in a small company like Howard Cooper's, issues are easily resolved because the of the short lines between the top and the bottom. As well, in a small organization it is much easier for employees to understand the direct link between what they do and the company's survival.
In a large corporation, with layers of management and mission statements that may or may not be understood, there is more of a need for the employees and the companies to address their issues at a common table. Theoretically, it should work well for both the company and the union. Unfortunately, the theory hasn't become reality.
I've sat on both sides of the table, union and management, and have found that both unions and companies suffer from the way union/management relationships have evolved in North American culture.
They're both in an environment that is inherently confrontational, even in the suggestive terminology. Unions make "demands" and file "grievances" while companies "threaten" with things like "lockouts". As long as each comes to the table loaded for bear, they're doomed to having a fight.
And now we have the ultimate fight, with large corporations involved in union-busting. In the end, that won't be of any value to the companies or to the country. Other nations have found ways to make the relationship work better (e.g. Final Offer negotiations, Interest-Based Bargaining, et cetera). Perhaps the parties should look at those before going for the other's throat.