To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (46452 ) 5/9/2001 10:48:13 AM From: norm chin Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 70976 OT: "Not worth it to whom? To the consumers (most of whom are themselves workers), or to the society as a whole?" Consumers. It's critical that one keeps in mind that only a SMALL PERCENTAGE of the workers in the world are union members. In affect, what we have here is a re-distribution of wealth from the majority (consumers) to a selected group (union members - a tiny % of the world population). It seems to me in this case, union members are getting preferential treatment. It would be more equitable IF all (or at least most) workers are unionized - something I am pretty certain won't happen. How would you feel if you do the same work as a union member and he/she's getting better working condition and pay and the only difference is that he/she belongs to a union and you're not? Is it fair to you? Remember if you're not unionized, you're in the majority. "...learn a bit more about typical pre-union working conditions..." I have no doubts that business entities have abused and exploited workers (especially in pre-union days) and will continue to do so if given the opportunities. Since then, from what we can tell, a lot has changed: unions have become much more powerful (and in some cases they're plagued by corruption), workers are better educated, have greater mobility, competition for workers have become more intense, employers have learned to treat their employees better (mainly because they have discovered that it's to their advantage to do do), some (union) members have learned to misuse their memberships.... As I said in an earlier post, unions do serve a useful role and they have made important contributions. What I have been saying all along is that, in my opinion, the cons outweigh the pros. You, like everyone else, are welcome to disagree with me.