>The "market rate" is not a natural phenomenon. Unions
>affect it. Unionized job still pay significantly more
>than nonunionized jobs, except in sectors like auto
>where unions are a factor,and nonunion employers like
>Toyota and Honda have to pay union rates in order to
>keep the UAW out. Also a union does a lot more than
>just give you wage leverage when there is any give. It
>can also get you benefits, improve the terms and
>conditions of employment, possibly (in this case)
>establish limits on grad student teaching and part
>time and temp hiring, better contracts for grad
>students and non-tenure track faculty.
Unions aim to effect the market and can succeed to some extent, in the same way as other cartels. But their effectiveness is still limited. Like any cartel, they have to monopolise the supply of labour in some way to leverage higher benefits. In the absence of some kind of monopoly control of the labour supply, the best union can do is make sure their members at least get the market rate. Non-union workers lack the resources to even be sure of that.
I would suggest that the statistical evidence that unionised workers enjoy better wages and conditions than non-unionised workers reflects more on the kind of occupations which tend to be unionised (and the relative market conditions those workers have to start with) than it does the raw power of unions to force higher pay.
Some occupations enjoy natural market advantages. Usually barriers to entry into those occupations. This gives these workers a negotiating advantage. These are in fact the most likely occupations to be unionised, because the advantages are clear. Whereas the advantages of being unionised if you work in an occupation that doesn't enjoy any barriers to entry are not very apparent. You will still be subject to stiff competition which allows the employer to drive a hard bargain, you will still be subject to arbitrary dismissal. There's little a union can do about any of that, because the employer can simply sack the entire workforce, with little cost, if they try to use industrial action to drive a better bargain.
The role of unions has increasingly become one of mere service providers lately. Yes, they can help individual workers secure legal entitlements (in other words secure the normal market price for their labour.) But as for influencing what the market price is, the only way to do that is to get some kind of lever on the supply of labour.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas