I love this argument over at Labor Blog. Nathan Newman claims that unions raise wages and working conditions for all workers, even though they only represent 13% (less than 9% of the private sector, where competitive pressures exist). Anecdotally he quotes a hotel operator in D.C. who claims his property pays employees competitively to “keep them from feeling they have to organize.”
Notwithstanding this hotelier’s rationale, the argument is empirically false. If employers raise wages to compete with union-scale wages (and thereby avoid unionization), then as union density decreases the wage differential between union and non-union workers should increase, i.e. there should be less and less need to compete with the union-scale as fewer and fewer companies are organized; but the exact opposite trend has occurred for years. This is just another example of unions taking credit for things that a rational company must do on its own to remain competitive.
Some companies do respond to potential organizing threats by improving their pay and benefit packages. However, many more organizations improve pay and benefits without any reference to union activity (and, conversely, I have seen many organizing campaigns in companies that were the highest paying job in town). The bottom line is that offering a competitive wage and benefit package AND adopting positive employee relations practices that keep employees happy is just good business.
