The Modern Argument for Labor Unions?

I have a legitimate question. Many argue the positive aspects of labor unions and credit them with the advent of Wage and Hour Laws, the 40 Hour work week, overtime pay, etc.; however, if labor unions are effective, why is there a need for laws to govern the workplace? Pushing for laws to govern what employers can do is completely different from negotiating with employers for better benefits and wages.  Further, it is entirely dissimilar to conducting a strike when the employer refuses to capitulate to reasonable demands.

Within the workplace, small businesses employ over 80% of the workforce, so would it not stand to reason that 80% of the effects of employment laws bare out on the backs of small businesses?  Ever owned a small business?  Ever had to pay a lawyer $150 per hour simply to determine if your small business is compliant with

individual labor laws?  Ever had to place a call to a state agency for advice about a law the state agency must enforce only to have them tell you that you must call an attorney for proper interpretation?  If so, see the $150 per hour attorney question.

Sure, some laws exist that exempt small businesses, such as those governing equal opportunity, the Family Medical Leave Act, etc.; however, those pale in comparison to every other law at local, state, and federal levels.  So, my question is quite simple: If unions are so effective, why the need for all these labor laws?

What if there were no labor laws or any regulations regarding unions?  Imagine if unions could not use the law in their favor but were not restricted by it either.  Together, workers could band together to make choices without using the bully pulpit of government; they could elect their leaders, pay dues if they like, negotiate with employers when required, and strike to their hearts' content.  Likewise, employers could fire strikers, choose not to hire unionized workers, and use their wages, hours, benefits, etc. to compete with other employers in the workplace for talent.  If someone in the union embezzles money or commits a crime against the members, criminal laws already exist to prosecute that criminal--no need for reporting requirements to the government.

What would happen if the free market worked on its own?  If a potential employee wants to work for an individual for $2 per hour, who is the government to stop him?  If a group of people want to walk off a job because of horrid conditions, who are we to stop them?  Eighty percent of employers are small businesses working less than 50 employees in their company, so how can a union activist or a left wing politic argue that these millions of small businesses will somehow be able to suddenly convert to sweatshops and child labor dens?  Really?  That scenario is not only unfeasible but also not even plausible.  A small company with eight employees is in no position to operate itself as a sweatshop, unless of course the economy is so poor that employees work for their share of the meager profits until the company pulls through.  Who is the government to stop it?  At any point in time, there are hundreds of other small businesses potentially looking to hire someone, and if an employee feels like the employer exploits him, he can simply look for an employer within the thousands of other small businesses who might be more compassionate--or he might just start his own small business.

In summary, if a market is free and people are free, then what can stop an individual from making his or her own decision about his or her livelihood?  If small businesses focused on production instead of compliance, perhaps we might find more positions open and more expansion prevalent.  People will always be hungry and for this hunger they will work, invest, toil, and then, yes, they will eat.  Who is better to determine my own destiny than me?

Unions by Another Name?