Scott's background of being raised in a union family is at odds with his present view of how union leadership has essentially abandoned the rank and file for their own gain and to the detriment of the communities and country.
My interpretation of his talk... in a nutshell... is that unions once served the purpose of balancing the overwhelming power of the corporations to ensure that workers received a fair wage and fair treatment in reasonable working conditions. As the laws of the nation solidified those efforts, unions moved on to seeking political power and wealth for the sake of political power and wealth.
In today's world of declining union membership in the private sectors, Scott points out that unions have targeted growth in the government/public sector which is why union leadership is pushing so hard to have government intrude into every aspect of corporate and individual activity... it means more bureaucracy and more bureaucracy means more union members from which to collect dues.
Scott pointed out the perversion of union leadership in an example of where the Michigan Education Association leadership voted themselves 19% in raises over recent years while teachers' salaries and benefits were being cut. Government employee unions are growing, but the benefit is not to the employees or community.
Scott's answer to the growing stranglehold of unions in Michigan... making Michigan a "right to work" state and make the unions earn their members by actually representing the workers rather than themselves.
The question is: can the unions actually survive if they have to be competitive?