0
2

[–] catechumen 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Average hourly wages, the primary variable of interest, are 15.8 percent higher in non-RTW states ($23.93 in non-RTW states versus $20.66 in RTW states).5 Median wages are 16.6 percent higher in non-RTW states ($18.40 vs. $15.79)

What's the average percentage paid in union dues?

Well, learned a few things. Unions certainly do take advantage when they are allowed a monopoly. However, it seems that the added benefits, pay increases, vacation, employee services do seem to be > than what the unions cost an individual.

0
0

[–] flyawayhigh [S] ago  (edited ago)

Can you pull a quote for me?

0
1

[–] catechumen 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I misread the data. It was comparing unions in non-right-to-work vs right-to-work-states, I corrected it in an edit about 15 minutes back. That's how much more unions cost when joining is mandatory.

Except the abstract states it's only about 10% more:

"In these states unions charge 10 percent higher dues and pay their top officers $20,000 more a year."

I wish I could just see their mathematical models and see what is all being factored in and what isn't.

0
0

[–] flyawayhigh [S] ago 

I spent all that time pouring over the two articles and you already looked again? Grrrrr!!!

0
1

[–] catechumen 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

haha sorry, I'm generally curious about this issue myself. As a libertarian, being forced to do anything is deplorable to me, so I tend to think right-to-work is justified. However, I'm not opposed to collective bargaining either. So I figured I might as well educated myself.

0
1

[–] mHtt 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

oh puhleese executive pay raises have occurred across the board into the billions, but 20k to help defend some poor people?

come on who are the greedy ones?

0
0

[–] catechumen ago 

I'm not disputing that, both hurt the little guy though. What's in dispute is if the harm caused is out weighed by the good, in both those cases.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] flyawayhigh [S] ago 

Non-RTW = 9.1 percent, RTW = 8.4 percent. There's so much detail here.

That is a significant difference. Can it be explained?

0
1

[–] catechumen 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Whose Employment is Affected by Unions? - National Bureau of Economic Research

"More union involvement in wage setting significantly decreases the employment rate of young and older individuals relative to the prime-aged group."

Employment and Unemployment Effects of Unions

0
2

[–] flyawayhigh [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Based on those abstracts, I am not sure they produced a causal relationship between the two. While I like big picture analysis, there are too many variables in the studies to seriously hold things constant.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that more involvement in union wage negotiations increases unemployment of women, elderly and young people. Why would that be?

  1. Last hired first fired.

  2. With higher wages, some are free to do as described here. "Groups with the most extensive non-market opportunities to use time productively suffer the least when they lose employment."

  3. Higher union involvement also provides for more political power in obtaining government benefits.

  4. Deliberate union-busting through relocation. Detroit definitely comes to mind here.

Just outta my head ...

0
0

[–] squiremarcus ago 

get the spreed chrome extension, i use it for situations just like this where i have to read long ass boring articles

0
3

[–] catechumen 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You know what I mostly learned: EPI = strong bias for unions; heritage foundation = strong bias against unions

0
1

[–] The_Wanderer 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

And that's all you can take away from half the studies in academia, now (if you maintain a healthy sense of skepticism by default); a list of the particular partisan biases of those involved. Once you find them it all but renders their data useless; why would you trust a known liar, even on the off-chance they are telling the truth? This is one of the major reasons the sciences are loosing credibility in the eyes of the general public.

I don't claim to have a terribly solid opinion on this particular economic practice, though. Frankly, I'm not sure how one even goes from "Employee has grievance + employee is in unionized job sector + employee pays in no union dues + union must take case anyway" and somehow have that end up as if by magic with "wages mysteriously end up lower". It seems like a completely counter-intuitive result. The Union should be driving wages up, shouldn't it? The only exception I can think of is massive corruption where the union bosses and the industries they negotiate with are actually in it together. Is that what they're saying is happening?

0
1

[–] mHtt 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

unions are inherently democratic so any criticism of them is actually a criticisms of the electorate: you get the leaders you deserve.

nothing inherently wrong with labor unions, there just one type of union a political party is a union and so is a group of parents organizing the neighborhood watch.

Unions provide negotiation parity with management and owners, who, like unions co ordinate together, to further their own agenda (owners literally pay managers to do specifically this). All a union does is level the playing field and says labor is allowed to organize before they go to the bargaining table. Owners and management do it, why not workers?

It's class warfare at it's worst/best.

why would you trust a known liar, even on the off-chance they are telling the truth?

you answered your own question and proved your not a skeptic but a cynic.