1. That one must start in the present
2. That public opinion (opinion of the _whole_ public) is ever relevant
Both from the perspective of radical or mass politics are profoundly false. The se second fallacy is particularly important in considering union organizing: All that counts is the opinion of the workers in the enterprise in which the organizing drive is taking place! On the next point I wouldn't be surprised that some supporting poll data supports it: The _same_ person who, as a member of the general public, may have the opinion that unions are too strong will very possibly, even probably, hold the opposite opinion in respect to his/her own place of employment. And an additional factor there is that the opinion is not the merely passive, floating, isolated opinion, out of any context, in poll questions are answered. In a union drive opinions are formed in a context of ongoing conversations and in respect to immediate conditions in _that_ enterprise. Remember during the 2008 presidential election liberals all over the joint were assuring us that Obama would support a measure (I forget its title) to allow union recognition on the basis of 50% +1 card signing.
That measure would presumably make union organizing much easier; at least employers thought so considering the opposition to it. That could only be the case if abstract opinions as expressed in secret elections were different from concrete opinions in discussion with several co-workers outside management control. The latter point is also important. In the 1930s I believe Kresge stores in Detroit attempted to forbid its employees from seeing each other outside of work (I'm remembering from conversation years ago).
Carrol -----------
Marv Gandall: Schickler and Caughey also observe correctly that the closed shop was (and remains) "a major concern for unions since the open shop would undermine their ability to gain and maintain a substantial membership base across industries. But here too poll results indicated that even during the New Deal "a healthy majority of the public opposed both the closed and union shop and instead favored the open shop". They continue: "Public concern about union power and tactics continued throughout the war years. For example, across a range of polls from 1941 to 1945, more than 70% of respondents supported banning strikes in war industries. In April 1944, 68% supported drafting strikers, with just 22% opposed and 10% undecided. These data suggest "that the 'no strike' pledge made by union leaders following Pearl Harbor, while criticized by some observers for taming shop-floor activism (Glaberman, 1980; Lichtenstein, 1987), may well have been a necessary concession to a hostile public and Congress".