Essentially, the old agreement was having the company pay for 20 minutes of non-work so that it could have employees take 10 minutes less off during the shift. And the employees were agreeing to give up the 10 minutes for an additional 20 minutes of pay and 30 minutes off of the shift.

The question is not whether they all got what they bargained for. The question is whether they should be allowed to bargain for it in the first place. The law is pretty clear: the agreement was not allowed.

Should the company get dinged for 100% of this? of course not.

Should the law be what it is? That, of course, is a different question.

As for the metaphor, duelists get a lot out of the duel, even if they die. If that were not the case, why would they risk the duel? One could make the case that duelers get more out of their bargain than the employee and company got out of theirs, given that one involved life and death and the other involved having time to eat a liverwurst sandwich. That does not mean, however, that we should re-legalize dueling.

So the union managed to effect:
1) longer work day, 8.5 hours vs 8 hours
2) same pay
3) unpaid lunch versus paid lunch period, though now 10 minutes longer

well played.