If memory serves, the DiNardo paper also shows that unions don't cause business failure.

A recent book by sociologist Dan Zuberi, Differences that Matter, documents the decisive improvements in the lives of the working poor in Vancouver thanks to unions and social policies compared to their opposite numbers in Seattle.

Zuberi surveyed hotel employees in four hotels, run by the same two international corporations, in the two cities. Even in the non-unionized hotels (one in each city), working conditions and pay were better thanks to the standards gained by unionized workers.

Moreover, the Vancouver hotels actually did better financially because they didn't need to spend as much on training and inspection; they had much lower employee turnover and a more professional attitude among their employees.

My review of Zuberi's book is available online at The Tyee: http://thetyee.ca/Books/2007/02/13/Seattle/

When the paper finds no increase in wages, is this just the literal, narrow sense (i.e. pay per hour?). I could easily imagine unions increasing workers' real economic gain in a variety of ways -- retirement benefits, job security, health plans -- that would conceivably not literally be termed "increased wages".

As both a moral principle and an economic principle, I think we're much better off with policies that increase the wealth of working folk rather than policies that increase the wealth of already wealthy folk.

I don't understand how giving working-class people more money in their pockets can be bad for the economy. Why doesn't that money trickle up just as easily as it trickles down?

We should let workers decide whether they want unions in SECRET ballots, allowing both pro- and anti-union forces to campaign. 50% + 1. Corporations should be allowed to make workers aware that unions can't hurt profitability and force closures, much like Wal Mart was forced to close it's butcher division after the threat of unionization killed the profitability.

a paper by John DiNardo and David Lee suggesting, among other things, that unions don't actually raise wages.

I think you miss the point. Even if wages are raised, it doesn't matter because the higher wages are a higher cost to businesses. This higher cost causes businesses to raises prices and therefore causes inflation. So the inflation wipes out the increase in buying power of the higher wages. Combine this with the higher unemployment caused by unions, unions are bad for workers.

As if I gave a shit before for what Tyler Cowen said before, now I know that he is a coward and most of his posts are lies. It is only a liar and a coward that does not provide his/her evidence for independent verification. These have been the sorry tactics of the right wing for the last twelve years.

Even if wages are raised, it doesn't matter because the higher wages are a higher cost to businesses. This higher cost causes businesses to raises prices and therefore causes inflation. So the inflation wipes out the increase in buying power of the higher wages.

Unless wages are the only cost to business, the increase in costs to business from increased wages does not result in an increase in prices of the same proportion as the increase in wages; any resulting increase in prices will not be enough to result in a net decrease in buying power for the labor whose wages drove the price increase, but will instead increase their buying power while at the same time decreasing the buying power of other actors in the marketplace.

Consequently, were such increases broad throughout labor, they would increase the buying power of labor generally and decrease that of capital.

You can get the article for ten bucks, Kevin. Put it on the expense account, if you're going to write about it.

All right I admit what I really want is for a few people to control the lives of every one on the planet and I shall be part of that lucky ruling class.

Bottom line: Do you think a sweatshop that sought illegals and charged women $20.00 for exceeding their 2-minute "bathroom rule" would ever have happened in Massachusetts in the days when unions were strong?

the hoi polloi

You really ought to write "hoi polloi" instead of "the hoi polloi".

Iranian Chickenhawk,

I'm glad you finally admitted it. The problem is that you wouldn't be part of that ruling class, so join us who fight for the needs and rights of the American people.

For higher wages to lead to less turnover and training then it has to be higher wages than the surrounding firms: the reason people would stay in a job is because it is better than those elsewhere. If everyone is paying those better wages then there will be no reduction in employee turnover. That's not, BTW, a right wing talking point, that's Paul Krugman.
I think Kevin's onto something though about past experience not being a guide to future, given the manufacturing/service divide. Conditions are going to be greatly different in a declining versus a rising sector.
But I'd be careful about stating that service jobs aren't amenable to being offshored. All those call centers, software programmers and X-Ray readers: those are all service occupations now in Bangalore, aren't they?

Noah-- Obviously, that second comment was fake. Email me for confirmation if you want.

Bottom line: Do you think a sweatshop that sought illegals and charged women $20.00 for exceeding their 2-minute "bathroom rule" would ever have happened in Massachusetts in the days when unions were strong?

Bottom line: Do you think our schools would be in the crapper if it was possible to fire bad teachers, and there were no teacher unions? Why do you want to make it hard to fire bad teachers?

Failing economist,

Higher wages are not the only reason that a person stays in a job. Other conditions, such as the working conditions & hours, may be bad which would lead to high turnover.

There's no more potent force in business than a modern, forward-looking management team combined with a modern unionized workforce.

Aren't some of the benefits of unions not purely economic? People like to be able to participate in decisions that have an effect on their lives. A union helps workers to participate in workplace decisions, and it's just about the only mechanism by which workers--particularly lower-status workers--can so participate.

I'm sure some sociologist has tried to quantify the effect of unionisation on worker morale and health.

Chickenhawk,

I know that is why I continue to address you in a dismissive manner and am not embracing you as some sort of convert or somebody who tells the truth.

There's no more potent force in business than a modern, forward-looking management team combined with a modern unionized workforce.

Except that, with a non-unionized workforce that can fire workers who turn out to be lazy or incompetent...

American Hawk,
And who would determine which teachers are incompetent? At my high school, I certainly wouldn't trust the principal (a former coach, as most principals are).

One of the problems with the schools is that competent people can get much higher paying jobs in the private sector. Unions raise the pay of teachers, and thus make it more likely that competent teachers can be convinced to stay.

I know many young teachers who were disillusioned teaching at private schools when they discovered they could make more money doing almost anything else.

To sort of elaborate on what Kevin said about manufacturing industries, you have to wonder if there is some other reason that these firms aren't investing as much as they might. Perhaps it had nothing to do with unions and perhaps the effects of unions simply happened at the same time as something else.

I'm trying to find the article in some of the databases through my college library so I can read it for myself and be sure, but so far, I have been unsuccessful.

Who is going to fire the incompetent CEOs? Oh, that's right, we'll just give them several million dollars as a reward for that.

I will use one example which is all too common.

I have no clue whether Microsft is union or not. A raise in wages there could not possibly drive it out of business. Gates built a $145,000,000 home & is currently worth 10s of billions of dollars, in spite of his record setting donations to charities. Many millionaires. Those who are or were executives of MS, have become millionaires. Meanwhile, many smaller companies have been driven out of business, not by the unions, but from MS's ruthless & monopolistic policies. If "Trickle Down" really worked, there would be no need for unions.

Gosh didn't everyone here know that am hawk is really Ann Coulter?

AH asks: "Do you think our schools would be in the crapper if ... there were no teacher unions?"

Yup. There many public school systems that don't have union contracts for teachers, and still suck.

Strive to pay attention: this is one of those things called "facts" that comes in handy when you ask a question looking for an "answer".

Still, there's a kind of confusion about the role of collective bargaining in this thread: workers first organize to bargain collectively for recognition -- that is, for the right to bargain collectively, so that management will even deal with 'em as a bargaining unit rather than as a bunch of individuals.

It's workers' rights 101 to realize that employers like to fire labor organizers, so as soon as you have collective bargaining at all, you have union interference, if you want to think of it that way, with who gets hired and fired.

The second thing workers organize for is higher wages and benefits. This can make workers most expensive, but (see the end of the bracero program, urged by labor organizer Cesar Chavez) that can lead to capital investment and productivity gains.

But the THIRD thing is to mess with management's profit and loss calculations, which is generally where unions make fatal mistakes.

The best, and one of the most influential examples is the old typesetters union that went on strike against the Washington Post long ago. Their union rules were so strict that when editors were changing copy at deadline, if they even touched a letter on the type, the whole page had to be re-set.

The late Katharine Graham broke the union when it struck, which didn't hurt the Post any. But that kind of anti-technological advance (typesetters were obsolete even then), much less anti-productivity 'tude among unions is embedded in their DNA: it HAS to be, you can't expect workers to organize to make their jobs superfluous, it ain't natural.

Where workers' productivity is easily measured and their free agency makes a seller's market for the work, collective bargaining is good for mediocre and of course inferior producers, and bad for superior ones.

Where workers' productivity is less easily measured (or just marginal), and free agency makes for a buyer's market, collective bargaining is absolutely essential to protect superior producers, as well as inferior and mediocre ones.

Look at baseball, where even a DiMaggio was grotesquely underpaid compared to his value, because of the reserve clause, DESPITE the clear metrics for his value.

Now, because of collective bargaining and free agency, we have utility infielders with marginal skills who get paid more, relative to anything you choose, than DiMaggio ever got.

Look at agriculture (or construction): there are guys with trucks who drive around picking up workers at a standard wage, say $25 a day. To get on the truck, you agree to the wage -- AND to pay the driver $5. The driver takes you to the worksite site, and sells $25 a day labor to the crew chief who pays $25 for the whole load.

A generation ago, folks tried to use collective bargaining to make agriculture (not to mention construction) part of the mainstream economy, to eliminate the middleman function which would, paradoxically, reward superior workers by treating 'em as PEOPLE, rather than a commodity.

But instead, we have managed to make most of the labor market more like agriculture used to be: most workers are commodities now, regardless of their productivity.

That's why outsourcing is so common, and there are so many uninsured workers. It's not cuz unions are weak, or fail in their mission, exactly -- it's because we've allowed workers to be treated as factors of production rather than as human beings, under the delusion this is more economically efficient, which it ain't.

That just passes the cost along -- private profit and public risks.

According to the abstract of the Dinardo Lee paper,

Essentially, outcomes for employers where unions barely won the election (e. g., by one vote) are compared with those where the unions barely lost. The analysis finds small impacts on all outcomes that we examine; estimates for wages are close to zero.

But what would such a result really imply? Wouldn't one expect that if even the employees of a firm don't particularly think it's a great idea to unionize, then 1) unions don't hold a lot of sway over those employees, limiting a union's bargaining leverage, and 2) the employees themselves probably recognize that unions for their particular situation aren't going to do a lot of good (perhaps because the company is already failing, or they already have high wages, etc.)

What kind of crazy methodology is this?

....Estimates are also confounded by selection bias, because unions could organize at highly profitable enterprises that are more likely to grow and pay higher wages. ...

Wal Mart was forced to close it's butcher division after the threat of unionization killed the profitability. American Fawk at 12:34 PM

...if it was possible to fire bad teachers, and there were no teacher unions?... American Jawk at 12:58 PM

Before somebody gets confused on the baseball example: 'free agency' in DiMaggio's day is probably the wrong term cuz it's confusing.

Basically, it was a buyers market. There are LOTS of examples of superior ballplayers (African-Americans, f'r instance) who never got contracts despite their ability, because the owners collectively as well as individually refused to sign 'em.

So even though there were lots of metrics (John McGraw kept a list) establishing that superior workers were available, owners determined collectively that THEIR interest was served by not paying for the talent.

After Curt Flood, superior ballplayers (and eventually ALL of 'em) would bargain for their market value, which was obviously not possible before first the courts and then collective bargaining changed the equation.

The practical alternatives are not generally a free market vs. a union, but a system rigged by owners vs. one that collective bargaining forces to act more like a free market.

Collective bargaining has its flaws, but in most cases it promotes a free market against a rigged system more than it's given credit for.

If you read the various blogs by George Mason economists you always know that on any issue that
raises the share of output or the returns going to labor that it is a bad thing that always hurts the working poor.

If you follows the economics at their blogs you know that the best way to improve the economic wellbeing of the working poor is to increase the share of the pie going to capital to 100%.

My problem with unions is the same one I have with nonprofit orgs, political parties and capital collectives, they are not run for the benefit of their members but for the benefit of their leaders. Unions are supposed to be democratic institutions, but their internal politics are usually quite sordid and unrepresentative of the membership. I would like to find a way to better democratize all of these institutions, so that they would provide better value to their members and constituents.

Despite unions poor governance, they probably do provide benefits to their members and society that would otherwise not occur. It is the opportunity costs, the murders and embezzlement by elites, of these benefits that need to be lowered.

It is always an analytical mistake to simply assume that higher wages are a lump-sum cost, to be passed on, like a higher cost for materials or some purchased product part.

Most people are working for large organizations, where their productivity is, in large part, a matter of the tools they are given and the enterprise management's efficiency in designing and coordinating their work. A higher wage implies a higher marginal productivity -- management must make better use of higher cost labor.

But, of course, the very fact of a management hierarchy implies that the enterprise is able to apply labor to tasks in a way that generates a rent -- a return to labor in excess of the market wage (or "next best use" -- in other words, if the individual quit and got another job, hence the market wage).

It is the fact of the rent component, which makes unionization possible and desirable. The use of bureaucracy by the enterprise implies that there are economic advantages to be gained by having a management supervise people -- specific training, give directions, and the like. (The alternative would be to simply purchase products and services, and not hire employees, at all.) By paying a wage, which is somewhat above the market wage, the enterprise is able to fire people, who don't follow directions.

The ability of enterprise management to offer people jobs where they earn a higher wage, because the wage includes a rent component attributable to the higher productivity of a managed work environment, and to deprive non-cooperative employees of that rent by firing them, casting them back into the labor market, combine to create the conditions for unionization. That is, the rent component gives the unions something to negotiate over, and the possibility of an economic loss from arbitrary dismissal creates a need for union protection.

If an analysis of the effect of unionization doesn't take into account the rent component of wages for jobs in bureaucratized enterprise, then the analysis is faulty.

Unionization could be good or bad for enterprise efficiency. Arbitrary dismissal must have a significant economic cost for the dismissed employee; otherwise, the managment has no good way to see that its directions are followed, and the economic gains from active management organization are realized. But, there is no particular constraint on management's abuse of power. An enterprise earning a significant rent on labor in, say, a highly efficient (because highly organized) auto plant, for example, is insulated against the pressure of marketplace product competition. A union, by requiring management to rationalize discipline and firings, could be a significant bulwark against dissipating the gains from work rationalization in management laziness and abuse.

Or, unionization, as is often charged, could result in arbitrary work rules, which inhibit management-led innovation.

That doesn't say that unionization, per se, is good or bad, but it does tie unionization to the existence of rents on labor productivity. That's an important insight not to lose track of. Unions are necessary, and can prosper, where labor compensation can include a significant rent component.

It may be that union attempts to unionize, say, Wal-Mart, are doomed because that rent does not exist in many such service businesses. Or, the rents do exist, but the labor rents are being successfully diverted by top management to themselves, in a giant rent-skimming operation. That's the kind of interesting question that is being ignored by right-wing economists, employing faulty analytical frames.

Kevin --

Of course, all this other research could be wrong, but how likely is that?

Selection bias is one significant explanation: Unions tend to organize and be strongest in relatively skilled industries -- machinist, carpenter, etc. -- and do not tend to organize and/or tend to be relatively weak in unskilled industries. This is because the options for an unskilled worker are relatively limited, and thus the pool of unskilled workers is relatively captive.

IOW, the fact that "all studies show X" (unions correlate to higher wages) does not means that "all studies prove Y" (unions cause higher wages). As is oft-repeated, correlation does not equal causation -- even if your (unnamed) studies are accurate.

You really ought to write "hoi polloi" instead of "the hoi polloi".

Correct. "Hoi polloi" means "the people" so "the hoi polloi" becomes "the the people."

Let me second the vote for a David Card blog. That would be on my daily reading list.

IOW, the fact that "all studies show X" (unions correlate to higher wages) does not means that "all studies prove Y" (unions cause higher wages). As is oft-repeated, correlation does not equal causation -- even if your (unnamed) studies are accurate.

Yeah, but the methodology of the DiNardo "study" is even more idiotic: why imagine that the difference between a unionized shop and one that is not unionized is going to be detectable in the cases in which employees only by the slightest margin vote for a union?

Isn't it vastly more plausible that unions are most effective in precisely the cases in which employees overwhelmingly believe they would be effective, and so vote for them in large majorities?

I'd think that what a reasonable study would try to do would be to compare unionized vs non-unionized shops in basically the same market/industry.

Is that too damn much to ask for?

Do unions raise wages for union members? Sure. See, e.g., the Auto Workers Union and the Pilots Union.

Do unions raise costs (through higher wages and contract work rules) to uncompetitive levels and wind up costing union members their jobs? Sure. See, e.g., the Auto Workers Union and the Pilots Union.

I've worked union and non-union jobs and unions are great - you get more pay for less work. Who could not like that?

Abstract:
"estimate the impact of unionization on business survival, employment, output, productivity, and wages. Essentially, outcomes for employers where unions barely won the election (e. g., by one vote) are compared with those where the unions barely lost. The analysis finds small impacts on all outcomes that we examine; estimates for wages are close to zero."

So they looked at cases where unions were VERY close to organizing - i.e., those cases where if conditions or wages at the firm got even marginally worse, the union would win the next election. In those situations, is it any surprise that the firm would increase wages after an election to match union promises, trying to demonstrate that management is sufficiently understanding without the need for any 'outside agitators'?

Moreover, few union drives are successful solely because of wage inadequacies. Its usually more a matter of working conditions, benefits, and fairness. But the authors didn't look at things like seniority, job security, safety records, scheduling and overtime policies, health coverage eligibility, grievance or harassment reports, or anything else that reflects the real conditions of most workers. Just dollar-per-hour compensation, as if every job was equivalent to running an economic database through an underdeveloped model on a bucolic tree-lined university campus.

Anyways, what they really found was not that unions aren't successful, but rather that unions are so effective that even the THREAT of a union pushes employers to make substantial changes in wages and working conditions.

EthanJ,

That's another interesting take on the methodology of the DiNardo/Lee study.

In a way, EthanJ's point kind of rounds out the defects in the methodology.

I was mainly pointing out why the methodology would select the union shops least likely to show significant effects because of a union (because the union was only barely voted in), and EthanJ is pointing out why it also selects out the non-union shops most likely to resemble union shops (because management fears that a union will be voted in on the next round).

How surprising could it possibly be that those two classes of shops don't significantly differ in wages?

"That paper also reports lower investment levels by unionized firms, and again, higher wages seem like the most likely culprit." Higher wages are probably not the culprit, Kevin. Investment is probably the only possible salvation for firms competing with lower wage firms. Without increasing labor productivity, they must ultimately depart the business. As for firms seeking to reduce costs or gain profitable market share, they would probably invest MORE as wages increase, because the ROI would be greater. Ancient businesses never invested in machinery because they had a ready supply of family and slave labor available.

This is a pretty sloppy analysis. Of course, this to be expected from the luberals.

>a paper by John DiNardo and David Lee >suggesting, among other things, that unions >don't actually raise wages. So why bother with >them, Tyler asks?

Immediate questions - are we talking about the wages in the long run or the short run? Are we counting only the people who decided to unionize or we look at the whole society?

>As it turns out, this paper is unavailable to >the hoi polloi, so instead, Cowen-like, how >about if I simply offer up a few reasons for >thinking this result is probably wrong?

Okay, lets see how you plan to disprove the most basic laws of the economic science.

>In yesterday's reading assignment (here) we >learned that unions don't negatively affect >productivity but do negatively affect firm >profitability.

This of course depends on how one defines "productivity". If it's, say, number of widgets per dollar, then clearly, productivity will be down. If it's number of widgets per worker then the situation becomes somewhat more complex. On one side, people are used much less efficiently in the unionized companies, since it's difficult to reward good work, and punish bad work. On the other side, this same defect makes companies to substitute capital for labor. In other words, instead of hiring 10 people, a company would hire 5, and spend the money on buying new equipment. But this trick cannot hide a more profound effect - the whole society becomes less productive. In other words, the whole country produces fewer widgets.

>Now, it's not impossible that there could be >other reasons for lower profitability even as >productivity stays constant, but higher wages >sure seem to be the most likely.

As well as the fact that you cannot fire bad lazy workers and you cannot raise salaries of good workers.

>That paper also reports lower investment levels >by unionized firms, and again, higher wages seem >like the most likely culprit.

People tend to prefer to avoid the companies that pays more than fair wages and cannot provide any incentive for good work. It's kid of natural, if you think about it.

>(I should add that this also passes the "makes >sense" test. Basically, you'd expect higher >wages to get passed on in various ways depending >on the nature of the union and the nature of the >industry.

In the lond run or the short run?

>Part of it would get passed through in the form >of higher prices to consumers,

Most definitely. In other words, when a company A unionizes, and the workers get a raize, that will come to a big extent from the pockets of the rest of society.

>part of it would come out of investment spending,

Hardly, since no one can force you to invest into this company.

>part would come out of executive pay, part out >of lower profit margins, etc.

In the short run - maybe. In the long run the company will either close down due to lack of investment, or it will try to hamper the performance of the rest of the companies in inudstry, or it will get government subsidies. There is no free lunch.

>But none of these things should happen unless >wages really are chewing up a bigger share of >corporate costs.)

Or, but when the companies cannot fire bad workers and promote good workers - the company can lose money, while the workers in average gain nothings. All the gains for the lazy ones come from the pockets of the good workers. It can easily be a zero sum game for workers, while being devastating for the company.

>Other research has long shown that unions >produce higher wages.

In the long run or in the short run? Are you talking about the higher wages in the whole society, or only the companies that get unionized? After all, unionization of the government workers clearly increased their political power and their wages, but this came at the expense of everybody else.

>Cross-country comparisons show that union wage >differentials in the U.S. are bigger than in >Britain, for example, and cross-industry >comparisons have shown that unionized industries >pay higher wages than non-unionized ones. Of >course, all this other research could be wrong, >but how likely is that?

Does this analysis takes into account that some unionized companies went belly up, and the workers got screwed? After all, if we use this analysis, we can conclude that no one died in the WW2 - because at any moment we count the soldiers who are alive.

>Finally, at some point you have to assume that >people aren't completely and utterly irrational >and misinformed.

Which explains why government workers are much more unionized than the workers in the private industries. The government can always waise taxes to pay the salaries - there is no competition, and the "profit" is always coming. This is not the case for the private companies.

>For over a century, employers have fought unions >tooth and nail because, among other reasons, >they think that higher wages will put them out >of business or make them uncompetitive (or >simply reduce their profits). Likewise, workers >have been fighting for unions tooth and nail >because, among other reasons, they're convinced >that unions provide higher wages and benefits. >Maybe everyone has been wrong all these years. >It's possible. But is it likely?

Hm. Again, you completely ignore the fact that many workers fought bitterly against the unions, and unions had to use violence to get rid of them. You've most surely heard of the strike-breakers - i.e. the workers who are competing for the jobs with the union members. After all, why should we ignore their opinion? Why do they have less right to a job than a man who signed up to a union? Secondly, people today are somewhat more informed than a century ago, so even people who can get unionized are less willing to do so. They've learned their lesson from the past. you can trick a lot of people, but not all the time. In the end, they will realized what is going on. That's why the unionization in the US is so low. People know the truth.

>Bottom line: An awful lot of other stuff, not to >mention common sense, has to be wrong in order >for DiNardo and Lee to be right. I'd take this >with a big grain of salt unless other >researchers corroborate it.

Well, I suggest you start reading the books on basic economics before you make any pronouncements. In other words, educate yourself.

Cheers to EthanJ and Frankly0! I could not agree more. I have to admit I'm a little disappointed Kevin couldn't of sussed this one out on his own.

DiNardo and Lee should be ashamed of themselves, as should Tyler Cowen.

If there was ever a case of carefully selecting the evidence to get the result desired this is it.

American Hawk: "Corporations should be allowed to make workers aware that unions can't hurt profitability and force closures"

I'm sure most unionists would be glad for corporations to have EXACTLY that sort of a publicity campaign - you arse!

Hey Kevin, if you want a link to the paper, try here:

http://www.econ.columbia.edu/dslee/wp/newunion.pdf

1. DiNardo and Lee IS available for the hoi poloi, thanks to the good ol' federal government:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10598

2. I'm taking a class with Card and I sent him Kevin's call to blogdom. No response on that, but he did say that "[DiNardo and Lee's] research design is the best that has ever been attempted, and they are very honest about showing what they have found."

So read it and decide for yourself.

3. Seems to me the real question is political not economic. Unions are the only real way (so far) to consistently transform diffuse societal interests into political power. This positive externality makes up for their occasional overreach or exclusivity. Remember, unions were in favor of national health care and national pension systems more than 50 years ago. They weren't strong enough, so concentrated interests (private insurers and short-sighted corporations) won out. Look where that got us.

Seriously, guys, listenning to luberals talking about economics is like listenning to a 12 year old retarded kid talking about quantum mechanics. In other words, it's a heart wrenching experience.

Anyways, here is Lessing giving his best shot explaining why unions are good. This is heart breaking. I will disect his dribble sentence by sentence.

>Seems to me the real question is political not >economic.

In others words, all the economic harm that the unions do to the working people in America is not relevant for "political" reasons. Nothing is new under the sun, I remember good old communists always insisted that politics trumped all other considerations.

>Unions are the only real way (so far) to >consistently transform diffuse societal >interests into political power.

This is an interesting idea - though it's obvious that Lessing would have a very hard time proving this point. In other words, I am curious to see him explain how, say, a union of steel workers promote societal interests - not their own personal agenda, which goes against the interests of the rest of the country. Or, for example, why it is in the interests of society that teachers' unions made it nearly impossible for the people to hire bad teachers, or to raise wages for the good ones. But these questions are too complex for poor old Lessing. In fact, they are so complex, he does not even know they exist. Why? Well, he lives in a bubble, so to speak. A bubble of ignorance.

>This positive externality makes up for their >occasional overreach or exclusivity.

Sure it does. Except Lessing is quite shy on explaining why the interests of a particular union have anything to do with the interests of the whole country.

BTW, does he even know the good old racist ways of the unions. And I mean racist, not Jesse Jackson "racist". That's when they specifically said that they wanted minimum wage laws in the 30ies, so they did not have to compete with poor uneducated blacks from the South. Or the fact that blacks were denied access to many unions for the same exact reason. Unions exist in theory to protect the interests of the union members - and in no way that means they are promoting the interests of society.

>Remember, unions were in favor of national >health care and national pension systems more >than 50 years ago.

I am sure some of the unions did just that. Of course, I can remind good old Lessing that government unions prefer their own private pension funds and they would be mightily pissed off if the government tells to give up all their money to the government run pension system, i.e. "Social Security". But in a more general sense, it's far from obvious that government run medical care and pension system would be better than the private ones. After all, if it were so, Social Security would have been voluntary. So, Lessing, are you for letting Social Security compete with the private pension programs? It's easy to do - make SS voluntary.

>They weren't strong enough, so concentrated >interests (private insurers and short-sighted >corporations) won out. Look where that got us.

Social Security is not a government program? And you seriously believe the government can run the medical care better than the private institutions? Well, then why don't you and all other luberals get together, put Al Gore in charge, call it "national medical care" and see how effective it will be. One condition though - no tax payer dollars should be given to you, and you have to follow all the rules and regulations of a private fund.

So, baby Lessing, are you game? No, I did not think so.

You know, isn't there a slight contradiction between these two statements:

1. Unions do nothing to raise the wages in a given labor market (the apparent implication of the DiNardo/Lee paper).

2. Unions are a destructive force that have done great damage to industries like the automotive industry because they compel employers to pay unfeasibly high wages and too expensive benefits.

Seems to me that there's no way to believe both.

Not that that would stop gringo and other idiot rightwingers from arguing from both sides of his mouth on these issues.

Not sure if I read this right, but if the article is really only examining employers where an election is won, versus where a contract is won, this is a huge problem for the study. Right now, only about a quarter of union won elections result in actual contracts within a year.

Since bargaining is partly a function of how strong and unified the workforce in that company is, then it would be easy to see that unions in the case of a barely won election make little difference in wages.

Anyway, it seems like this particular paper glosses over important differentials in negotiating power on a variety of levels, and is unlikely to be a very useful study.

Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription

Order prescription drugs Buy prescription drugs without prescription