Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I'll stick to the last 15 years.
Unions were among the first to recognize the changing nature of the workforce, particularly the necessity of both parents having to work to make ends meet and the resulting diififulties in balancing work and family obligations.
|
What has the "net benefit" been? Sure some people earn higher wages, but many more incur higher costs for goods and services. There is a reason Wal-mart is gaining market share and is able to provide low prices to consumers during these recesionary times. I side with the right of an individual worker to choose if they want to participate in a union and to be free not to strike, both without the fear of intimidation. I also side with the consumer having access to lower price goods and services.
Quote:
|
They were the driving force behind the Family Medical Leave Act that provides more than 50 million workers (union and non-union) with the right to take unpaid leave, without a fear of losing their job, for family medical emergencies.
|
I am not sure the evidence clearly shows that FMLA is a "net benefit" to the worker.
Quote:
The growth of unions in recent years has been in the service sector......janitors, hotel workers, health care workers, food service workers, etc.
The benefits? A livable wage, in many cases for minorities and first generation immigrants.
|
A livable wage? What is a "livable wage"?
Also, we need to understand the data. On the surface statistic show union workers earn more than non-union workers in the service sector (and other sectors), but one has to ask is it due to union activity or other factors. For example this data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics first states the difference in wages between union and nonunion cleaning and building services is statistically not significant, although there is a difference. Secondly we see that there is perhaps a big difference in the percentages of unionization for government sector employees compared to private sector employees. Perhaps government has more to do with the difference in wages than unions. And perhaps within government there is a tendency for urban centers with higher costs of living and therefore higher base wages in the explanation of the difference rather than unions. For example unionized worker in New York may make a bit more than non-union workers in a small city in Mississippi.
Quote:
Cleaning and building service occupations. In private industry, unionized supervisors of cleaning and building service workers had average hourly earnings of $12.48, compared with $9.55 for nonunion workers. These differences, however, were not statistically significant. In State and local government, however, unionized supervisors of cleaning and building service workers earned an average of $17.64 per hour, compared with $13.06 earned by their nonunion counterparts. Only 3 percent of private industry supervisors were unionized, compared with 35 percent of supervisors in State and local government.
Among maids and housemen and janitors and cleaners, reported average hourly earnings for unionized workers were higher than those reported for nonunion workers in both private industry and State and local government. For both occupations, differentials were greater in State and local government than in private industry.
|
Differences in Union and Nonunion Earnings in Blue-collar and Service Occupations
The link gives much more information, including the following statement of note:
Quote:
|
Although union wages have not risen as fast as nonunion wages in recent years, union workers still earn more, on average, than their nonunion counterparts.
|
So, perhaps the "net benefit" of unions has reach the point of diminishing returns.