Replying to a message of Bob Klahn to Bob Ackley:

 BA>> No.  Unions are attempting to extort money from non-members
 BA>> in many states.  The unions claim that the non-members are
 BA>> getting the benefits of union efforts without having to pay
 BA>> for them.

 BK>  Which happens to be true.

The unions could have their law repealed - and watch the non-union
help not have to settle for union scale any longer.

 BA>> If the unions were honest about it - and few are
 BA>> - they'd repeal their law that requires employers in mixed
 BA>> shops to give the same pay and benefits to members and
 BA>> non-members alike.  Then those non-members *wouldn't* get
 BA>> whatever pay and benefits the union extorts from the
 BA>> company for its members - of course those non- members
 BA>> would probably be making more than union scale, but that's
 BA>> another subject.

 BK>  IOW, the employers would get to pay more to those who don't
 BK>  carry the burden of the efforts to get them that pay. Same deal, 
 BK> only worse.

You are assuming that only union workers are doing the 'real' work.
I've found the opposite to be true more often than not.

 BK>  Now, tell us, how does a union extort anything in a state where
 BK>  they can't even get all the employees to join?

They don't.  At least not as far as I know.  But they keep trying to get
their 'union shop' legislation in the door.

The unions' current project - the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act,
is intended to keep unions from losing representation elections.  Under
current law the unions have to get a majority of the employees of a company
to sign cards, which the union then presents to the NLRB, and the NLRB
schedules a union representation election by secret ballot.  The unions use a
considerable amount of peer pressure if not outright threats to get those cards
signed.  Oddly enough, even though a majority of the employees sign those
cards the unions still *lose* many if not most of those representation elections.

The unions' new legislation pretends that because most of the employees have
signed the cards an election isn't necessary.  They claim that because those
employees signed the cards they *want* union representation; demonstrably not
true because the unions lose many if not most of those elections.  Many if not
most of those employees signed the cards to get the union people off their backs.

 BK> The employer
 BK>  simply makes a business decision not to give the union what they  ask
 BK> for. No extortion possible.

Or in the public sector the officials cave in and give the unions what they want.
The majority of union members are, after all, in the public sector now.

 BA>>>> unions get their law repealed then in fairly short order
 BA>>>> employers will be paying their non-union help up to 10%
 BA>>>> above union scale to keep them non-union.

 BK>>>  Union members make all the sacrifices and non-union workers reap 
 BK>>> the benefits.

 BA>> Hardly.

 BK>  Quite true.

 BK>>>  Now, do you really believe employers will pay as much as they
 BK>>>  do, provide medical care and vacations and even coffee breaks,
 BK>>>  if they didn't have to compete with union shops?

 BA>> Employers will provide sufficient pay and benefits to get
 BA>> the employees they need.  If they don't they won't get or
 BA>> keep those employees.

 BK>  If that were valid there never would have been unions in the
 BK>  first place. And even with unions that is no less true. Without
 BK>  unions employers don't have to pay as much simply because all
 BK>  employers race to the bottom. They only pay more when they have
 BK>  to compete for workers, and that's only when someone else pays
 BK>  more.

Of course, most of the abuses that the unions were formed to fight are now
illegal and the employees have the government to fight for them.  Unions 
aren't necessary.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+