Gin-Putting aside the fact that you ignored the examples of George Soros and Tom Steyer, I’ll bite.
You make two dubious claims: first that democrats propose laws which benefit workers. Democrats propose laws which MAY benefit SOME workers, but certainly not all, and certainly not without consequences beyond the stated goal of the laws. I’ll use minimum wage laws as an example because it’s the easiest and most misunderstood, but there are lots of other examples that fit this bill, Obamacare being another big one. Minimum wage laws add SOME benefit to SOME workers, mostly low skill, mostly part time, mostly young people starting out their careers or in school. However, the consequence is an increase in part time employment, unemployment and the replacement of workers with machines. Do a google news search on “self service kiosk” and read some of the news stories about low wage companies like McDonalds using them. These machines are big, expensive and are a pain to fix when they break, but increase Mickey Dees labor costs enough, and they will be cheaper and less hassle than having a staff of teenagers to take orders. Put one of these into a McDonalds and you’ve just eliminated somewhere between 4-12 jobs. Those jobs might be shit jobs to you or I, but they can really help people pay for school, or help fill in the gaps in a struggling family’s budget, or offer job experience to new workers. The people who work at places like McDonalds are overwhelmingly people who are lower on the socioeconomic ladder (the people who democrats and unions claim to want to help) and may not have easy access to other ways to start and advance their career. MMM himself talks about how he used a minimum wage job at a gas station to help pay for his college career. If that job didn’t exist because it cost the gas station owner too much to hire someone, would this website even exist for us to debate the issue?
You second dubious claim is that unions want to help workers. Unions certainly claim to want to help UNION workers, however even then they sometimes are only paying lip service to those claims. See the union support for minimum wages in CA. They lobbied hard to get the laws passed, but with an exception for union employees. This means that unions can negotiate wages LOWER than the minimum wage, giving them an advantage over non-union workers, which means they increase their membership, dues and power literally at the expense of their members. Unions can and do also lock out opportunities for non union members, sometimes using legal means, sometimes…..well, not so legal. Here is a great article about unions harassing business owners, not because they didn’t use union labor, but because they didn’t use ENOUGH. After being awarded only 40% of the work on the job, the union refused to do any work, then illegally harassed and assaulted the workers on the job, earning convictions and court orders against the unions. The article also talks about how the unions scare away investment and development, meaning less jobs. These jobs are also high skill jobs that union members usually specialize in (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc), which means that by using 19th century strong arm tactics, they are probably causing their members to have LESS work than if they just bid on jobs and took the work they won. And none of this is even mentioning situations where unions set their wage and benefit demands so high, that the company either goes out of business or shuts down the workplace (either for good or to be replaced by foreign workers).
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/busting-philly-unions-pestronk-brothers/So why do unions support only democrats? Because democrats haven’t shown any willingness to impede union growth or power in any way.
Finally, I fail to see how unions using their influence is somehow better than wealthy individuals doing so. Unions represent only about 10% of the workforce. So the fact that this 10% of the workforce voted amongst themselves to lobby on their own behalf somehow makes it better? I’m sorry but that doesn’t make it better for me. All I see is a small percentage of people using vast amounts of money to influence policy to their own benefit, only one group is vilified for it and the other is compared favorably to Mother Teresa.