You're conveniently ignoring the fact that from 1954 to 2022 union membership dropped from 33.5% to 10.1%. As well as the academic evidence on market conentration increasing over time. The fact that you don't analyse these trends makes this article seem like its pushing a political agenda.
In the paper, we have an overview of the academic literature on union power (last three decades, top five economic journals), including all the benefits that unions generate. One important thing to point out is that when we discuss 'union power' or 'union monopoly' this is not the reflection of union density or union membership. You have countries with high levels of union membership or density but they do not have the same union monopoly privileges that exist in the U.S. Our discussion of union monopoly is about the legal bargaining structures and privileges.
I hope that helps! I'm happy to discuss more through the comment section here or feel free to email me.
Hello and thank you very much for taking the time with your detailed reply. I have taken the time to read your paper. I certainly agree that unionization for the purpose of blocking automation or technology can sometimes be a problem. But the issues that in my opinion that are still not covered there I list below. Please feel free to share your thoughts on these.
1) The implicit assumption in a lot of the literature cited is that the main purpose of unions is primarily to increase wages or employment. This is not necessarily the case. Unions can also bargain for things such as: paid leave, sick leave, right to work flexibly (e.g. remote work post covid) right to not be fired unfairly or without cause, right for workers to have a say in company strategy. From an economic sense these may not increase wealth but they do increase wellbeing, and from a political point of view these concerns are rarely acted on. A great example is how recently, Missouri voted in a statewide referendum last year for mandatory paid sick time in cases of illness, this was then passed as law, however in the last few weeks, republicans have quietly passed legislation repealing that. Unions are required for employees to have bargaining power about their welfare, regardless of wages.
2) Even if we focus on the issue of union power relating to wages and employment, we need to consider why wages are not increasing in line with productivity since 1970 (see here for example: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/when-comparing-wages-and-worker-productivity-the-price-measure-matters/ - this might not be down to de-unionization, but even if that is the case, there is a justification for stronger union bargaining power based on the premise that workers should be able to see their wages increase in tandem with productivity gains. If unionization is really what is holding back long term wages, given the record low levels of unionization currently, we should be seeing higher wage growth than we are.
3) I agree with the initiatives mentioned relating to countries such as Germany and Portugal, or the potential for competitive unions as seen in UK but this needs to be taken in a wider context. Empirically, in US we are seeing a push towards increased market concentration on the employer side and less competition among firms. (see here for example: https://mendoza.nd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017_fall_seminar_series_gustavo_grullon_paper.pdf ). If the employer side of the market is becoming less competitive, a forced measure to increase the competition required for a union to have a seat at negotiation may simply reduce the bargaining power of unions. I wouldn't personally mind a situation where multiple unions were allowed as is seen in the UK, however, I think implementing a law that reduces worker bargaining power is not appropriate when it is already low given current low union membership, low wage to productivity ratios and an inability for the populace to collectively negotiate other benefits beyond wage increases. If a UK model of competitive unions is introduced, it should only be implemented with additional worker protections as seen in the UK (legally binding sick pay, legally binding paid time off, no right to unfairly dismiss workers are all features of UK law)
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that from 1954 to 2022 union membership dropped from 33.5% to 10.1%. As well as the academic evidence on market conentration increasing over time. The fact that you don't analyse these trends makes this article seem like its pushing a political agenda.
Hi there, thanks so much for reading this piece and for your thoughtful comment. We discuss the union membership changes in the full academic paper here: https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/do-more-powerful-unions-generate-better-pro-worker-outcomes
In the paper, we have an overview of the academic literature on union power (last three decades, top five economic journals), including all the benefits that unions generate. One important thing to point out is that when we discuss 'union power' or 'union monopoly' this is not the reflection of union density or union membership. You have countries with high levels of union membership or density but they do not have the same union monopoly privileges that exist in the U.S. Our discussion of union monopoly is about the legal bargaining structures and privileges.
I hope that helps! I'm happy to discuss more through the comment section here or feel free to email me.
Hello and thank you very much for taking the time with your detailed reply. I have taken the time to read your paper. I certainly agree that unionization for the purpose of blocking automation or technology can sometimes be a problem. But the issues that in my opinion that are still not covered there I list below. Please feel free to share your thoughts on these.
1) The implicit assumption in a lot of the literature cited is that the main purpose of unions is primarily to increase wages or employment. This is not necessarily the case. Unions can also bargain for things such as: paid leave, sick leave, right to work flexibly (e.g. remote work post covid) right to not be fired unfairly or without cause, right for workers to have a say in company strategy. From an economic sense these may not increase wealth but they do increase wellbeing, and from a political point of view these concerns are rarely acted on. A great example is how recently, Missouri voted in a statewide referendum last year for mandatory paid sick time in cases of illness, this was then passed as law, however in the last few weeks, republicans have quietly passed legislation repealing that. Unions are required for employees to have bargaining power about their welfare, regardless of wages.
2) Even if we focus on the issue of union power relating to wages and employment, we need to consider why wages are not increasing in line with productivity since 1970 (see here for example: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/when-comparing-wages-and-worker-productivity-the-price-measure-matters/ - this might not be down to de-unionization, but even if that is the case, there is a justification for stronger union bargaining power based on the premise that workers should be able to see their wages increase in tandem with productivity gains. If unionization is really what is holding back long term wages, given the record low levels of unionization currently, we should be seeing higher wage growth than we are.
3) I agree with the initiatives mentioned relating to countries such as Germany and Portugal, or the potential for competitive unions as seen in UK but this needs to be taken in a wider context. Empirically, in US we are seeing a push towards increased market concentration on the employer side and less competition among firms. (see here for example: https://mendoza.nd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017_fall_seminar_series_gustavo_grullon_paper.pdf ). If the employer side of the market is becoming less competitive, a forced measure to increase the competition required for a union to have a seat at negotiation may simply reduce the bargaining power of unions. I wouldn't personally mind a situation where multiple unions were allowed as is seen in the UK, however, I think implementing a law that reduces worker bargaining power is not appropriate when it is already low given current low union membership, low wage to productivity ratios and an inability for the populace to collectively negotiate other benefits beyond wage increases. If a UK model of competitive unions is introduced, it should only be implemented with additional worker protections as seen in the UK (legally binding sick pay, legally binding paid time off, no right to unfairly dismiss workers are all features of UK law)