Let's talk about Unions.

[James972]

either way, i should have stopped wasting time discussing this topic with the anti-union internet contingent a long time ago. i'll do that now, and focus instead on voting against anti-labor candidates.

you'll notice that liberalism is based in ignorance and thus not suited for intelligent debate. Why do you think liberals oppose free speech and are increasingly turning to violence to get their way???

 

[Neomalthusian]

well don't forget everyone gets promoted to a job they finally cant do. this may be best policy to perfect management and turn out best products possible at lowest prices possible. Unions drove entire industries with 10 million workers offshore with their high wages and junk products. To protect workers unions should be made illegal again

"Illegal again"? What do you mean?

Unions survive because of the ignorance, apathy and complacency of the common conservative. All union power, up to and including the union power to strike, is illusory. Not real. Fabricated. Trumped up. Lazy conservatives think merely voting Republican will take care of the union problem. Well, it hasn't. In decades and decades, it hasn't. Simply voting Republican is a feeble attempt to do anything about unionism. Conservatives need to do more.

Here's something any and every conservative in every non-Right-To-Work state can do immediately: go to your city council meeting several months in advance of the next round of union negotiations, and tell the council and city management to stop agreeing to union security clauses. It doesn't benefit management or the council or the taxpayers that the city be voluntarily willing to be the union's financial enforcers by agreeing to these optional union security clauses. If you can convince them to stop agreeing to this clause, you can make your city Right To Work despite not being a technically "Right To Work State."

The next thing you can do is tell them to never under any circumstances voluntarily agree to interest arbitration to resolve collective bargaining impasse. Because let's face it, if management refuses to agree to a union security clause, you can bet your ass the union will never agree to a new contract without that clause, and will try to take your city to arbitration over it. But whatever the reason for impasse, arbitration is often not mandatory, so don't voluntarily be willing to expend the taxpayer money doing it. And in the event it happens to be mandatory, e.g. by state law, or for public safety unions, then remind the council and management that no arbitrator's interest arbitration decision is binding on the legislative body, so don't spend a bunch of time and money in legal fees preparing for an arbitration case. If your city is ever compelled into interest arbitration, put zero time, money or effort into it, because it's a pointless charade and isn't binding on the legislative body that ratifies the contract (or doesn't).

And finally, remind your city council that city management can permanently replace workers who are strike for economic gain. Federal law allows them to do this. So the moment any government employee goes on strike, their permanent job should be posted as open until filled, and filled permanently if at all possible.

I single out municipal government because 45% of municipal government employees nationwide are represented by some union. It is, by leaps and bounds, the single most unionized sector of our economy. It doesn't have to be. These are very simple things that can be done that will reverse the trend of municipal governments becoming divided and conquered, coerced, bullied, and misled by unions. Conservatives have a responsibility to understand these things, and then pressure their local leaders, which is the best place to start because you can make the most amount of difference at the local level.

Why haven't these things happened already? Because most conservatives who do not think favorably of unions are too lazy to understand the issues and do anything real about them. They sit by ignorantly as even their Republican elected leaders get paid off by unions to pass laws that continue to treat unions favorably. This needs to end.

 

[James972]

"Illegal again"? What do you mean?

it took a a series of Federal laws like Wagner Act to make unions legal. If those laws were repealed unions would in effect be illegal again.

 

[James972]

"Illegal again" go to your city council meeting several months in advance of the next round of union negotiations, and tell the council and city management to stop agreeing to union security clauses.

?? a security clause is the primary vehicle through which a union is established????

 

[Neomalthusian]

?? a security clause is the primary vehicle through which a union is established????

A security clause is negotiated. It can't be forced into an agreement. Employers have to agree to it for it to be in the contract. A security clause is between the union and management. The security clause tacitly establishes that the employer will, at the union's direction, obediently terminate employees who fail to pay financial core dues to the union.

 

[James972]

A security clause is negotiated. It can't be forced into an agreement. Employers have to agree to it for it to be in the contract. A security clause is between the union and management. The security clause tacitly establishes that the employer will, at the union's direction, obediently terminate employees who fail to pay financial core dues to the union.

i don't see it. It is a critical part of the agreement without which the union could not form or function

 

[James972]

A security clause is negotiated. It can't be forced into an agreement. Employers have to agree to it for it to be in the contract. A security clause is between the union and management. The security clause tacitly establishes that the employer will, at the union's direction, obediently terminate employees who fail to pay financial core dues to the union.

it also require dues without which union could not exist not exist

 

[Neomalthusian]

i don't see it. It is a critical part of the agreement without which the union could not form or function

There's nothing for you to not see. The internet can quickly inform you want security clauses are, and that they're already illegal in 29 states, and yet unions still operate in those states. In the remaining 21 states, it's negotiated into agreements. Employers have to willingly agree to it for it to be there.

it also require dues without which union could not exist not exist

I don't see this comment as adding a coherent thought to the discussion.

 

[Lafayette]

There's nothing for you to not see. The internet can quickly inform you want security clauses are, and that they're already illegal in 29 states, and yet unions still operate in those states

Unionization of workers is a human-right and it should have been written into the Constitution. It should not be forbidden anywhere.

However, the rules have to be fair and correct. A majority membership does not make for a "union shop". Never has, never will.

Only the total benefits of unionization can make that claim, and a claim is never a promise. Moreover, instead of the constant cry for "more pay", unions should be looking at overall competition within an industry. One cannot compete with the Chinese, we have learned that lesson the hard way.

So, there are some industries, having left the US, that are gone forever. Which means, I suggest, that unions should be reaching to a higher level of talent - and not just the shop-floor.

Let's face a simple fact: The US has left the Industrial Age and is now entering the Information Age. More, better and higher skill-sets are required from our workforce.

All of which means this: We had the good-sense (at the turn of the last century) to make secondary-schooling a requirement. (And it was subsidized by the state.) Now we need to make tertiary-level schooling the same - just as Bernie proposed and Hillary adopted.

That is, subsidized by the national government and free for all comers for vocational, 2 & 4-year degree levels, and beyond). Only then will we put our people on track to a better standard of living that a better education permits them ...

 

[Neomalthusian]

Unionization of workers is a human-right

No it is not. It only exists in modern society thanks to a century old exemption from a law that prohibits cartels.

and it should have been written into the Constitution. It should not be forbidden anywhere.

It should be prohibited everywhere.

However, the rules have to be fair and correct. A majority membership does not make for a "union shop". Never has, never will.

Security clauses are already illegal and 2950 states. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to make it illegal everywhere.

Moreover, instead of the constant cry for "more pay", unions should be looking at overall competition within an industry.

Your personal opinions about the way unions should conduct themselves would be summarily dismissed by the unions. Their goal of obtaining more and more and more and more pay indefinitely is even embedded into their "constitutions," in most cases.

So, there are some industries, having left the US, that are gone forever. Which means, I suggest, that unions should be reaching to a higher level of talent - and not just the shop-floor.

Reaching for talent is fundamentally incompatible with unionism. Your opinions that they "should" be different are a slap in the face to their core beliefs. They cling to seniority clauses with the belief that any job should provide for lifelong pay increases right up until retirement and beyond, and they oppose talent-based compensation and recruitment.

 

[Lafayette]

No it is not. (Unionization) only exists in modern society thanks to a century old exemption from a law that prohibits cartels.

Bollocks. Cartels relate to trade and not unions.

It should be prohibited everywhere.

Neanderthalian commentary ...

Your personal opinions about the way unions should conduct themselves would be summarily dismissed by the unions. Their goal of obtaining more and more and more and more pay indefinitely is even embedded into their "constitutions," in most cases.

Once upon a time perhaps, but not nowadays.

Even with unemployment at its lowest nowadays, there are still 14% of the population (43 million people!) below the Poverty Threshold - which is set at a wage of $24K/year when the Minimum Wage (at $7.25 an hour) is $15K.

Still living in the 19th century, are you ... ?

Reaching for talent is fundamentally incompatible with unionism. Your opinions that they "should" be different are a slap in the face to their core beliefs. They cling to seniority clauses with the belief that any job should provide for lifelong pay increases right up until retirement and beyond, and they oppose talent-based compensation and recruitment.

More buffoonery.

The educated today are the mainstay of a new-economy in the Information Age. Your remarks were pertinent in a time long since passed. Most people at work today understand that their is no salary "guaranteed-for-life".

Thankfully ...

 

[cpgrad08]

Unionization of workers is a human-right and it should have been written into the Constitution. It should not be forbidden anywhere.

However, the rules have to be fair and correct. A majority membership does not make for a "union shop". Never has, never will.

Only the total benefits of unionization can make that claim, and a claim is never a promise. Moreover, instead of the constant cry for "more pay", unions should be looking at overall competition within an industry. One cannot compete with the Chinese, we have learned that lesson the hard way.

So, there are some industries, having left the US, that are gone forever. Which means, I suggest, that unions should be reaching to a higher level of talent - and not just the shop-floor.

Let's face a simple fact: The US has left the Industrial Age and is now entering the Information Age. More, better and higher skill-sets are required from our workforce.

All of which means this: We had the good-sense (at the turn of the last century) to make secondary-schooling a requirement. (And it was subsidized by the state.) Now we need to make tertiary-level schooling the same - just as Bernie proposed and Hillary adopted.

That is, subsidized by the national government and free for all comers for vocational, 2 & 4-year degree levels, and beyond). Only then will we put our people on track to a better standard of living that a better education permits them ...

It is not a really a human right. Why should it have been written into the conustition? They are were not a thing during the founder's time, unless you are suggesting a new amendment. They shouldn't be forbidden but at the same time I work should not be force into one as a condition of employment.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Whenever someone mentions unions, one of two things usually comes to mind.

1. Unions are political machines that create laws favorable to themselves, that hurt both employee and employer. They force businesses to pay unfair wages, and keep on employees who aren't pulling their weight. They are an example of why socialism is inferior to capitalism.

2. Unions protect the common worker in a world hostile to the common worker. They allow for collective bargaining and ensure each worker gets fair compensation in the form of wages and benefits. That without unions, jobs keeping many people comfortably in the middle class would drop to near minimum wage.

In my opinion, both sentiments are accurate. Unions do exist to protect the common laborer. The problem is, they are way to effective. And their effectiveness has upset the equilibrium in their respective markets. One side effect of this equilibrium upset is business are now considering undertaking the high initial cost of automating much of their production and distribution. In favor of the low operating costs the shift would bring in the future. Some see this shift as inevitable, and the only question is when will the bulk of our manufacturing and service industries pull the trigger.

The ones still left in the US that is, because even cheaper than dealing with unions or shelling out for the automation. Is transporting your existing capital to a cheaper labor market. And with 2 billion people half of whom live well under the poverty line already, China can't be beat in the labor market. But the one drawback to Chinese labor is lack of certain infrastructure. High Tech production infrastructure to be exact. A great deal goes into making certain things, like planes, and while China does have some of its own. Most of their valuable infrastructure is state controlled. And if you built your own down there, the state could take that to. Communism sucks like that.

I think it's to late to save certain industries, and near impossible to bring any back. But there are ones for lack of a better term, still stuck here. That we can expand. With our ultimate goal fending off automation for as long as possible while ensuring a fair market value for labor. And I think Unions easing off is a necessary step towards that. The most obvious concession Unions should make is on Terminations. Businesses should have a right to set a certain level of productivity. And if that level isn't met consistently, they should reserve the right to terminate. And employee compensation in total should equal the fair market price for the job in question. Businesses shouldn't be forced to pay for Cadillac insurance plans on top of an inflated salary. And finally, everyone should fund their own retirement. It's not difficult when your being fairly compensated for your work and you take appropriate steps.

I do not mean to imply that the businesses should always be at an advantage. But rather, an equilibrium sought between the Unions ability to bargain on what fair market compensation is and the businesses right to maintain standards and a certain level of profitability. Finding this equilibrium will take a fair amount of patience and practice from everyone involved. And a great deal of thought, for anyone familiar with Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. I recently stumbled on this article going into a different take on Smith's views. It claims Smith called for an equilibrium as well.

How would you like to see the way Unions operate change? And what are your thoughts on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations?

Everything is always about balance and american society is utterly unbalanced at this point. But that is what concetrated power and wealth seek/sought; this imbalance. They will not reliquish it, it will have to be wrestled from them.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Bollocks. Cartels relate to trade and not unions.

Cartels are cartels, pursuant to the definition of cartels. Your equivocation and hair-splitting will get you nowhere. If unions had nothing to do with the essence of cartels, they wouldn't need explicit federal exemption from laws that prohibit cartels.

 

[James972]

But that is what concetrated power and wealth seek/sought; this imbalance.

yes there is a huge imbalance when the top 1% are discriminated against and made to pay 45% of all income tax. This is unconstitutional. Next the top 1% will be given long prison terms and have fewer gun rights.

 

[James972]

Unionization of workers is a human-right and it should have been written into the Constitution. It should not be forbidden anywhere.

this is utter liberal BS of course , if workers have a right to be communists who subvert capitalism then so do owners, managers, consumers, women, blacks, white men and any special interest group. The genius of our Constitution is that it outlawed all special interest identity politics. This is the communist game modern liberals now want to bring back!

 

[Lafayette]

THE ANCIENT GUILDS OF EUROPE

It is not a really a human right. Why should it have been written into the conustition? They are were not a thing during the founder's time, unless you are suggesting a new amendment. They shouldn't be forbidden but at the same time I work should not be force into one as a condition of employment.

Like a great many Replicants you are befuddled by history. Meaning, "because its been that way since the dawn of the country, nothing must change!"

Bollocks to this notion. It anchors the US in antiquity. Whilst the world is rushing ahead into the Information Age.

The right to unionize was not even on the table at the end of the 18th century, when the US revolted against the British Crown. Its roots were to be in the 19th century. From here:

The Labor Union Movement in America

The roots of our country's trade unions extend deep into the early history of America. Several of the Pilgrims arriving at Plymouth Rock in 1620 were working craftsmen. Captain John Smith, who led the ill-fated settlement in 1607 on Virginia's James River, pleaded with his sponsors in London to send him more craftsmen and working people.

Primitive unions, or guilds, of carpenters and cordwainers, cabinet makers and cobblers made their appearance, often temporary, in various cities along the Atlantic seaboard of colonial America. Workers played a significant role in the struggle for independence; carpenters disguised as Mohawk Indians were the "host" group at the Boston Tea Party in 1773. The Continental Congress met in Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia, and there the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. In "pursuit of happiness" through shorter hours and higher pay, printers were the first to go on strike, in New York in 1794; cabinet makers struck in 1796; carpenters in Philadelphia in 1797; cordwainers in 1799. In the early years of the 19th century, recorded efforts by unions to improve the workers' conditions, through either negotiation or strike action, became more frequent.

By the 1820s, various unions involved in the effort to reduce the working day from 12 to 10 hours began to show interest in the idea of federation - of joining together in pursuit of common objectives for working people.

The ancient guilds of Europe, the notion of which migrated to the US as well, were indeed a foundation stone for unionization. But it took another three decades in the US's early history for them to "organize" as the Industrial Age debuted around the world in the 19th century.

PS: It's about time they changed their orientation as well, as the US rushes into the Information Age leaving manufacturing far, far behind. Only 12% of the American workforce is employed there ...

 

[cpgrad08]

THE ANCIENT GUILDS OF EUROPE



Like a great many Replicants you are befuddled by history. Meaning, "because its been that way since the dawn of the country, nothing must change!"

Bollocks to this notion. It anchors the US in antiquity. Whilst the world is rushing ahead into the Information Age.

The right to unionize was not even on the table at the end of the 18th century, when the US revolted against the British Crown. Its roots were to be in the 19th century. From here:



The ancient guilds of Europe, the notion of which migrated to the US as well, were indeed a foundation stone for unionization. But it took another three decades in the US's early history for them to "organize" as the Industrial Age debuted around the world in the 19th century.

PS: It's about time they changed their orientation as well, as the US rushes into the Information Age leaving manufacturing far, far behind. Only 12% of the American workforce is employed there ...

You showed nothing that proves the idea of Unions would have been on the founders' radar.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Lafayette]

You showed nothing that proves the idea of Unions would have been on the founders' radar.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

It wasn't on their "radar" - and so what?

So this: They weren't even thinking about it, so there is no mention in the Constitution. The notion of Labor Rights did arrive, but not until well into the 19th century.

Meaning this: There should be a constitutional statute permitting (1) all workers the right to unionize and (2) no total shop-inclusive right of any given union. Moreover, we must realize that excessiveness as regards unions in the US has existed on both sides - ie. that of both Unions and Management.

About Labor Rights, from WikiP here:

Labor rights or workers' rights are a group of legal rights and claimed human rights having to do with labor relations between workers and their employers, usually obtained under labor and employment law. In general, the rights' debates pertain to negotiating workers' pay, benefits, and safe working conditions. One of the most central is the right to unionize.

Unions take advantage of collective bargaining and industrial action to increase their members' wages and protect their working situation. Labor rights can also include the form of worker's control and worker's self management in which workers have a democratic voice in decision and policy making. The labor movement initially focused on this "right to unionize", but attention has shifted elsewhere.

Critics of the labor rights movement claim that regulation promoted by labor rights activists may limit opportunities for work. In the United States, critics objected to unions establishing closed shops, situations where employers could only hire union members. The Taft–Hartley Act banned the closed shop but allowed the less restrictive union shop. Taft–Hartley also allowed states to pass right-to-work laws, which require an open shop where a worker's employment is not affected by his or her union membership. Labor counters that the open shop leads to a "free-rider problem".

Further for your edification regarding the subject, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights that the US signed but Congress never ratified:

The UN itself backed workers rights by incorporating several into two articles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which is the basis of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (article 6-8). These read:
Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Despite all the above, Americans - of their own volition - have allowed unionization to stagnate. Often, because unions themselves were not up to the task of defending the rights of their constituencies. Union membership in the US is in a death-spiral:

Many Americans have no longer any real faith in their governance of the nation, and none in their ability to defend worker rights. Whilst Reckless Ronnie's reduced upper-income taxation continues to blithely shift Income-into-Mountains-of-Wealth for a much smaller percentage of the upper-income population than those who live below the Poverty Threshold!

The country is in significant decline. Something has gotta give - and when it goes the societal disruption will be heard far and wide ...

 

[cpgrad08]

It wasn't on their "radar" - and so what?

So this: They weren't even thinking about it, so there is no mention in the Constitution. The notion of Labor Rights did arrive, but not until well into the 19th century.

Meaning this: There should be a constitutional statute permitting (1) all workers the right to unionize and (2) no total shop-inclusive right of any given union. Moreover, we must realize that excessiveness as regards unions in the US has existed on both sides - ie. that of both Unions and Management.

About Labor Rights, from WikiP here:

Further for your edification regarding the subject, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights that the US signed but Congress never ratified:

Despite all the above, Americans - of their own volition - have allowed unionization to stagnate. Often, because unions themselves were not up to the task of defending the rights of their constituencies. Union membership in the US is in a death-spiral:

Many Americans have no longer any real faith in their governance of the nation, and none in their ability to defend worker rights. Whilst Reckless Ronnie's reduced upper-income taxation continues to blithely shift Income-into-Mountains-of-Wealth for a much smaller percentage of the upper-income population than those who live below the Poverty Threshold!

The country is in significant decline. Something has gotta give - and when it goes the societal disruption will be heard far and wide ...

Good, if workers see that unions are not in their best interest anymore, then let them die.

 

[Lafayette]

Good, if workers see that unions are not in their best interest anymore, then let them die.

Thank you for more of the usual dimwitted blather. (How to ruin a forum in one easy lesson.)

Moving right along ...

 

[Neomalthusian]

It wasn't on their "radar" - and so what?

So this: They weren't even thinking about it, so there is no mention in the Constitution. The notion of Labor Rights did arrive, but not until well into the 19th century.

Meaning this: There should be a constitutional statute permitting (1) all workers the right to unionize and (2) no total shop-inclusive right of any given union. Moreover, we must realize that excessiveness as regards unions in the US has existed on both sides - ie. that of both Unions and Management.

About Labor Rights, from WikiP here:

Further for your edification regarding the subject, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights that the US signed but Congress never ratified:

Despite all the above, Americans - of their own volition - have allowed unionization to stagnate.

There is nothing concerning private sector unions that Americans in general have "allowed." Private sector unions have created their own situation by virtue of their tactics against private sector firms. What Americans have "allowed" is for public sector unions to retain a considerably disproportionate stronghold over roughly a third to a half of all public sector jobs in the economy. Americans' willingness to continue allowing its public sector to be bogged down by unions appears to be shifting.

Union membership in the US is in a death-spiral:

Let's not overgeneralize trends that are not generalizable across public and private sectors. The public sector remains more unionized than the private sector has ever been in any of our lifetimes.

Many Americans have no longer any real faith in their governance of the nation, and none in their ability to defend worker rights.

Bogus. The gradual elimination of unions from society will ensure that labor standards and regulations will be in the correct hands, which is the government's itself. Government agencies regulate where the people say regulation should exist. Government regulates overtime. Government can and does establish public sector compensation standards. Government regulates safety conditions of jobs. There is no place or requirement for labor cartels in order to effectively regulate compensation and safety standards the unions allege they care about. There is nothing a union can do or should do that government itself can't/won't/doesn't already do.

 

[cpgrad08]

Thank you for more of the usual dimwitted blather. (How to ruin a forum in one easy lesson.)

Moving right along ...

Lol, don't like the free market do you. If the union is great for workers, then they will join it, but if the Union shows it does not have the workers best interest in mind, then the workers don't join it. That simple.

 

[Lafayette]

You showed nothing that proves the idea of Unions would have been on the founders' radar.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

You're simply repeating what I already wrote!

Read the forum commentary before whipping out your Tapatalk nonsense and we just might have a substantive exchange.

For the moment, you are wasting bandwidth with pathetic one-liner rebuttals ...

 

[Lafayette]

WE, THE SHEEPLE

Lol, don't like the free market do you. If the union is great for workers, then they will join it, but if the Union shows it does not have the workers best interest in mind, then the workers don't join it. That simple.

I love freemarkets.

It would be nice if unions in the US were run by intelligent people. That is not the case for the most part today.

The right to unionize labor is fundamental to any society, and is a worthy equilibration of market-powers (in a market-economy). Why should workers not unite in order to defend their "price of labor" - which is a fundamental right of which they do not sufficiently avail themselves. (But, oh, do they wail when whole markets are uprooted and go to China!!!)

[American companies have not and do not collude or conspire when it comes to services/goods pricing in the market place? OH YES THEY DO!!!! (And it is proven - see about market collusion here.)]

Some factual evidence from a pekid report regarding the condition of unionization in the US (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or BLS): Union Members Summary Report

UNION MEMBERS -- 2016

The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of
unions--was 10.7 percent in 2016, down 0.4 percentage point from 2015, the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to
unions, at 14.6 million in 2016, declined by 240,000 from 2015. In 1983, the first
year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was
20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.

The data on union membership are collected as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS),
a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households that obtains information on
employment and unemployment among the nation's civilian noninstitutional population ages
16 and over. For more information, see the Technical Note in this news release.

Highlights from the 2016 data:

--Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (34.4 percent) more than five
times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.4 percent). (See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations and in protective service
occupations had the highest unionization rates (34.6 percent and 34.5 percent,
respectively). (See table 3.)

--Men continued to have a slightly higher union membership rate (11.2 percent) than
women (10.2 percent). (See table 1.)

--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were White, Asian, or
Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

--Median weekly earnings of nonunion workers ($802) were 80 percent of earnings for
workers who were union members ($1,004). (The comparisons of earnings in this
release are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be
important in explaining earnings differences.) (See table 2.)

--Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership rate
(23.6 percent), while South Carolina continued to have the lowest (1.6 percent).

And the above is the fault of who? We, the sheeple.

We bitch 'n moan in a blog but dislike immensely paying union-dues! Go figure ...