The problem isn't "collusion" over wages for the union members. The problem is that the union is a gatekeeper for training for or holding that type of job, period. In this particular case, the law requires (for licensing) that prospective crane operators be apprenticed to a licensed operator before they're eligible for their own license. When all the licensed operators are union members, only union members can get licenses. That allows the union to get around the "closed shop" bits of Taft-Hartley, and allows them to restrict the supply of crane operators to their gain.
Well that has absolutely nothing to do with unions. That is the Government mandating that people be trained by particular people. That's a Government-imposed rule.
I personally think that laws banning closed shops are completely absurd and undermine peoples' freedom to negotiate contracts that suit them (which labour should have free access to, because of the massive unfairness of employment as a concept, and its inherent inequity between employer and employee).
But they have, and pretending that it's not their own fault for then turning around and effectively mandating a closed shop is absurd.
