As if, the union has not been thinking about this issue for awhile now. It was clear on a recent conference call with the NFLPA's leadership that the union is dead set against 18 games and that it has been for years and will continue to do so.
When you say that you are "making an argument for the union, that they're missing an opportunity to really impact their membership in a positive way", you are in effect NOT looking at this issue from the union's perspective, but from yours. Yes, it is "fascinating to see people on their high horse here". I happen to think that you are one of those people.
I would respectfully disagree about the 'high horse' part. I'm making what I feel is a logical argument given the reality of pro football. Yes, the union must take care of the health and well-being of its membership. But whether we're at 12, 14, 16, or 18 games, players will be injured. Period. A union's goal is ALSO increasing and expanding its membership, and their pay and benefits. So if players WILL be hurt... no matter what (barring flag football or some radical change)... the union must deal with that reality in a way that protects them AND serves their financial interests.
Adding two games adds a BOATLOAD of money to the equation. I believe the players could REALLY go to town in addressing both health and financial issues by leveraging the owners' interest in that revenue.
Increasing the roster size dramatically, their long-term benefits, and their paychecks, while CONTINUING and AMPLIFYING the ongoing alerts for medical concern i.e. concussion, would do that. Probably a lot of other things that I haven't thought of.
Although, as a bargaining position, maybe it's NOT a bad idea to say "no way" at first.
And of course, all this is just one humble fan's opinion. In the EXTREME MINORITY, it appears. C'est la vie.
EDIT: I would also add that in these arguments, sometimes spirits can rise, and obviously I'm not immune to that. So I do apologize for any untoward comments I might have made along the way.