bosco said:
because unions have raised the average wages, so they can't get away with it so easily.
Sure, if a union has enough members in an industry and has raised wages, that will tend to spill over, to the extent that greedy companies need to compete in the job market. If there are higher paying union jobs available, other non-union companies need to compete with those wages (maybe not quite meet them, some workers prefer a non-union environment).
However, my career (engineering, engineering/management) has had almost zero union representation, yet salaries are way above average. Conversely, a lot of people with degrees in areas w/o strong job demand don't get paid very well. So the overall effect of unions was to selectively help me, but not them? How does that work?
although they are trying--by moving the jobs overseas (yes, it's all about free markets)
I know it hurts if you are the one replaced, but I still think that this pain is better than the alternative. Protectionism just trades one set of 'problems' for another. Moving jobs overseas can benefit those overseas workers, and potentially, provide us with cheaper (sometimes better) products. Protectionism is just a legally supported monopoly.
c'mon--a group of people acting in concert (union) have more clout than individuals acting separately.
No argument there - but that does not mean I think it is a good thing. And when greedy corporations work in concert to fix prices, they also have more clout than individual corporations. Are you in favor of corporate price fixing?
Whether you like it or not, if you are employed by others, you have benefited from the unions.
I doubt it. Like I said before, I don't think my lifetime earnings have been improved by any unions. And, in some cases, the unions have driven up the prices of goods/services I purchase, and in some cases, unions have reduced the quality of those goods/services through protectionism of their members. Probably an overall negative for me.
I'm well aware of the shortcomings of unions--I can't defend them in many ways. But I would sure hate to see them disappear.
I actually would like to see them disappear. IMO, free markets (on both sides - employee/employer) will do a better job for us than any form of artificial price fixing. AFAIK, any attempts at price fixing have just provided a short term benefit to those that are supported by this form of welfare. It just pushed the expense onto someone else. An overall negative.
Sure, the unions performed an important service back in the day when corporations had a monopoly in some job markets. I think we would have been much better served if the government broke up the monopolies, and let the free market do it's thing. That would have done more to fix the root cause, and those companies would have had to compete for workers.
It strikes me as odd that the price of 99% of the goods/services we spend our money on is determined by a free market. It works for all that stuff, so why should some specific jobs be exempt from this? I don't get it.
-ERD50