I'm all for unions when used appropriately, that is to say, to protect the workforce from being taken advantage of but not as tool for forcing a company to lose money or close... if the company is being forced to pay more for labor than other companies in the same industry how is that "fair"
As for CEO salaries, yes they're enormous but the jobs are extremely high pressure and require a lot work that most people never think about, not to mention the years of paying dues (in education and other areas to obtain the position). Also consider this...
GM employees over 250,000 workers, let's say the CEO was willing to drop his salary by 10 million a year (by the way, he only makes 8.5), that would equate to $40.00 a year (or about .02 an hour) more for each worker if distrubuted evenly. Not exactly the kind of raise that the union is wanting now is it?
Conversely if GM gave each of 250,000 workers a $1 an hour raise that would be...
250,000 (workers) X 2000 (hours per year - approximated) = 500,000,000.00 (that's half a billion dollars!!! Where is that money suppose to come from when the company is already losing money?
Most of these numbers are from 2005, but should still be pretty close and hopefully illustrate my point.
I feel the fundamental question you have to ask yourself first is...
What determines a "fair" wage? Is it based on the amount of profit a business makes or is it based on how much the job is worth in itself? Perhaps this is an overly simplified starting point as they are definately tied together in some respects.