Replying to a message of Bob Klahn to Bob Ackley:

 BK>>>  On the contrary, you get better work from union workers. If
 BK>>>  non-union workers are better why aren't you willing to pay them
 BK>>>  more? That's all you have to do. That and treat them better. The
 BK>>> only reason to hire non-union workers is to pay less and treat 
 BK>>> them like slaves.

 BA>> That depends on the situation.  Overall it costs
 BA>> approximately 10% more to run a union shop than a non-union
 BA>> shop when the pay scales for the help are *identical*.  It
 BA>> therefore is worth it for management to pay the help up to
 BA>> 10% above union scale and not have to deal with a union and
 BA>> its various rules and demands.  Of course, in a mixed shop

 BK>  You mean like not firing a current worker to hire your buddy
 BK>  into the job?

 BK>  If pay scales are identical, then it may cost 10% more.
 BK>  Payscales are typically not identical.

 BA>> management can't do that because by law they have to pay
 BA>> workers in the same job with the same seniority at the same
 BA>> rate - a union-sponsored law, BTW.  Of course, in that same
 BA>> mixed shop if the union negotiates a pay hike or a raise in
 BA>> benefits those same non-union workers get it too; unions
 BA>> call that free-riding, I say it's their law, the unions got

 BK>  It is both, the law and free-riding.

 BA>> it passed and they can get it repealed instead of trying to
 BA>> extort money from non-members.  Of course, if the labor

 BK>  Non-members get paid more because of the union and you call dues 
 BK> extorting money from non-members?

No.  Unions are attempting to extort money from non-members in many
states.  The unions claim that the non-members are getting the benefits
of union efforts without having to pay for them.  If the unions were honest
about it - and few are - they'd repeal their law that requires employers in
mixed shops to give the same pay and benefits to members and non-members
alike.  Then those non-members *wouldn't* get whatever pay and benefits
the union extorts from the company for its members - of course those non-
members would probably be making more than union scale, but that's another
subject.

 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 unions get their law repealed then in fairly short order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  the
 BK> benefits.

Hardly.  

 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?

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

Yes, there are sweatshops, even in the IT business, First Data Resources
in Omaha is one big one - and their employee turnover is horrendous (or
at least it was, I haven't paid attention to that in years, at one point
it was on the order of 50%/year).

Alegent Health is another of my favorites, in the 15 months after it was invented
(December 1995) approximately sixty percent of the staff at Archbishop Bergan Mercy
Hospital vanished, some were even replaced.  Alegent just announced that it's firing
about 300 people - and a group of its salaried physicians is enjoying an
"educational
trip" to Hawaii paid for by the company,  front-page story in last
Thursday or Friday's
Omaha fishwrapper.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+