>Bill, you are begging the question again. What is "the
>market rate"? "The rate at which labor would be bought
>and sold in a free competitive market," i.e., without
>unions ("cartels," "conspiracies and combination in
>restraint of trade")?
>
>If that is what you are saying, you are mistaken about
>the empirical data. Actually the empirical evidence is
>that unions are very effective in raising wages:
Which also begs the question: if it is so simple, why wouldn't more workers want to take advantage of the benefit of increased wages that comes from simply joining a union? Which is the question I'm interested in. Whether "the market rate" is one in a purely free and competitive environment or one subject to cartels and conspiracies, is a trick question. A union is merely an attempt to control and thus restrict supply, like any cartel. Thus its simply a factor of the market environment.
Some people are in a better position to achieve that restriction of supply than others. I am speculating that these are more likely to form unions etc to do so.
Its all very well to rely on statistics which suggest that there is a "union wage premium" of, alternatively, either 10% or 20%. But how do you explain the fact that unionisation is so low? It doesn't make sense, something's wrong with that picture, surely?
Cause and effect?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas