Right. The problem with companies is that internally they act like monopolies: unopposed and and anti-competitive. Some force must act upon them to keep them honest, which is to say to keep them from racing to the bottom at ruthlessly exploiting their employees while lining the owners' pockets with their stolen wages. If the government were competent at enforcing the rights of laborers, then unions would not be necessary. Sadly the government is owned by those same companies and thus has little incentive to do so, thus unions (as flawed as they are) have a necessary role to fill.
TL;DR: it is possible to believe the unions are less than ideal while also acknowledging why they exist and why we'd be even worse off without them.
> If the government were competent at enforcing the rights of laborers, then unions would not be necessary.
I wouldn't say that, but unions should fill the same role that local government should fill. They should respond and resolve local issues specific to their area, so I wouldn't expect my union to negotiate my healthcare just like I wouldn't expect my town to negotiate trade deals with foreign countries. I do however want the unions there to deal with issues specific to my workplace, just like I do want my town to have a local government to deal with issues specific to my town.
TL;DR: it is possible to believe the unions are less than ideal while also acknowledging why they exist and why we'd be even worse off without them.