Are either of these cases of unions aiding a non-member, which is the topic of the sentence you quoted? I can't read all of the first one—which is an opinion piece anyway, as is the second—but the second doesn't seem to be about that.

At any rate, this, from your second link, is insightful:

> For Medlock and Peterson, it wasn’t necessarily the union that protected them. It was the district, which said they’ve been disciplined enough.

You wouldn't believe what districts cover up or ignore, even if the union's not a factor. It's routine.