This saving is nothing in comparison to the money that people would continue to lose in pay and conditions without someone to stand up to government and corporate pay masters.
Unions do cause problems but i think they are necessary to bring a modicum of balance to wages and conditions negotiations.
Quite. Balance. That's it.
I hate to sound patronizing, but you have to have a bit of historical perspective, which probably means being a bit older. It is certainly the case these days that most of the time folk get sacked only for the reasons the correspondent-but-one stated (discipline or economic necessity). But unions were not formed to protect folk from being rightfully sacked. And the fact that sacking these days is (by and large) only rightful is entirely due to unions. In the past you could be sacked for anything from making a career space for the bosses nephew, to complaining when the boss touched you up. Pensions? Holiday pay? Maternity leave? And it was perfectly easy for a boss to not employ you if you were (or sounded like you might be) Irish, black, female, a 'poof' (obviously) - or a union member. And even for those safely in a job, there was nothing to stop a boss making the hours too long for safety, or maintaining and making safe equipment (getting maimed or killed at work was commonplace) . . . . it is all very well being hard nosed and saying all this is fixed now so there is no role for unions any more, but that's like saying the mice are gone from the farm, let's sell the cat.
The fact that unions went mad, and some formed their own silly 'socialist labour' party (in fact my union rep is an SWP activists - the fool), started to mouth off about stuff that didn't concern them (nuclear weapons, international solidarity) and allowed secondary action to be the norm, is just what happens when the opposition are weak.
Political engagement is war by any other means. If you are 'on the side' of 'the bosses' don't expect 'the workers' to agree that the best thing is to give up their representation. Doh!