The unions in Europe are the same mentality but the government and people in general seem to put major effort into making companies stay on an even playing field. For example, Intel was fined big time because they were doing things like giving discounts to stores that only sell Intel processors. In Europe, that's considered bad. You can't give deals that put a competitor at such a major disadvantage. In America, that kind of thing is perfectly legal. If Intel gives huge discounts as well as better purchasing selection to stores/companies that only sell Intel products, that's considered the free market doing what it does. If it naturally forms monopolies and price gouging, that's also the free market doing what it does.
So how does that work in a practical sense? Let's say I work for a car company and I want $20/h plus benefits and pension to build cars. Let's say I form a union. Now that my company has a worker's union, we can make some solid negotiations on what we want.
American mentality:
The company with the union should fail because their operating costs are higher and they price themselves out of the market. Unions are bad. This is how the free market works.
European mentality:
The company without a union should have a union so its workers are fairly compensated as well. Support the underdog to ensure there is always some form of competition in the market.
The difference between European and American mentality is seen in a lot of different things. For example, many Americans believe that the government should have absolutely no control over private property. If AT&T owns the entire US phone network, it's their god given right to control the entire US phone network and charge whatever outrageous rates they want. If you don't like it, you can feel free to build your own telephone network to compete against it.
In Europe and many other parts of the developed world, public good is more important than private property. As an example of this type of mentality, wireless phone companies in Canada are required to sell capacity to rival companies. The entire country's phone and cable networks are owned by maybe 3 companies, but there are dozens if not hundreds of companies using the same grid. As a result, the market has real competition. Instead of an area having only 1 cellular phone service provider, an area might have 5 providers all using the same towers. One of them offers wider coverage, one offers better billing but is restricted to urban areas, one is better for text and data plans, etc. Government forced competition.
Please don't speak about how the system in Canada works. I'm Canadian, and your explanation, while KIND OF right, is also VERY VERY VERY wrong in many ways.
What I mean though, is that the hostile environment creates a toxic business relationship between unions and management in the States.

