Years ago, maybe 35 years ago, my brother and brother-in-law were out of work several times in a three to four year period. They both worked for the glass union in Montgomery, Alabama. Their union went on strike for months at a time. They had to travel hundreds of miles away from home to find work during the strikes. The union never paid their mortgages, car payments, utilities, groceries, or anything else. But, the greedy unions expected their union dues to be paid each month. I have seen many union strikes in my lifetime. I have worked in thirteen different states during my forty plus years as a member of America's workforce.

I have seen plants and factories closed down because they couldn't pay union wages and benefits, and remain competitive. I have seen union construction workers ( in Arizona ) that were paid big time bucks for doing almost nothing in an eight hour day, day after day, after day. I have heard union workers brag about how much they make for doing almost nothing. At the same time, I've seen union workers retire with unreal benefits and pension plans. What did they actually contribute to our economy that non-union workers didn't? Are non-union workers a lower class of citizen? Do not non-union workers contribute to our economy? What is it about belonging to, and working for a union, that makes one special? I've never worked for a union, but worked very very hard at whatever job I was employed to do. Does that make me less of an American? I have turned down several union jobs because I saw no benefit in a membership. While it's true that I would've made way more money, I couldn't see doing something like that to my fellow Americans, my town, or my community. I didn't want to have a hand in sending my neighbor's job over seas.

Yes, union membership has declined greatly. which brings me to this question: "IF" unions are so good, and so good for our economy, and this country, why are they in decline? Does it make sense that with all that pro-union folks say about them, that they would be steadily in decline? Where's the problem that unions can't gain membership and spread like wild fire? Why are workers not standing in long lines to join unions? And, where's the benefits to our economy, to our businesses, and to this country in general?

Why not just force every single business in America to pay every employee $150,000 a year plus a fat pension plan? That way we wouldn't have a need for unions, right? But, "IF" we did that, who would buy the very expensive goods and services produced by union workers? Could we export them to poor third world countries? Would China or India buy them? Who could afford American made products if they were produced with expensive union labor? In reality, we're having a very hard time selling non-union made goods to other countries. Our living standards do not allow us to produce goods as cheaply as other countries. Now, If we add union wages and benefits to the cost of our products, do we not limit ourselves to a select market?

Unions would be great for everyone "IF" America produced what America used and consumed. That way, Americans would be buying what they made themselves. Cash would then be circulating within our own economy, and not outside of our economy, as it is now. We do not have a positive cash flow within our economy. Americans are buying cheap foreign imports. Most Americans can't afford to buy American, especially American union made products. Again, where's the market for union made goods and services? Who would unions sell their high dollar goods to?

I am not against workers making a living wage. I preach daily about the need for adequate living wage jobs. But, I am totally against work stoppage threats to intimidate employers to pay more than the job is worth and reasonable to them. Besides, if an employee doesn't like the pay and benefits a company offers, that employee is free to go look for work elsewhere. We do not have worker ownership or slave labor in this country. We don't employ child labor, and force employees to work in sweat shops.

Our economy, and the global economy, which has dictated labor for some time now, can not take the weight of high union wages and union benefits. It jacks the price of goods and services out-of-reach for many Americans, and those that we export our goods to. Can we make tee shirts, bed sheets, and bath towels that will be competitive with those now made in China? Go check some prices and see the difference. Our standard of living has almost priced American made goods right out of world markets.

In order to correct this injustice and economic killing situation, we must demand fair, equal, and balanced foreign trade. This will allow America to produce what America uses and consumes, and create fair competition for American workers, which will then drive wages up. A postive cash flow within our economy will produce the exact results unions hope to get. When you have a demand for good employees, wages go up. At present, there're way more workers than jobs, and wages are down. It's an employer's market right now. Unions can not solve our multitude of economic woes. But, fair, equal, and balanced foreign trade can go a long long way in accomplishing a living wage standard, as well as tax revenue and other economic concerns.

[ ***** FYI - I was told by the site administrator to not mention names when responding to comments and root articles. I will not respond to your comment by addressing you by name. Also, a couple of months ago, I was booted from this site, by the site adminstrator, for being anti-union. I realize and fully understand that the administrator, and this site, is very much pro-union. I respect everyone's opinion, and their right to express it. I do believe in free speech, and enjoy civil discussions and friendly debates. But, personal attacks are totally uncalled for, here or anywhere else. I will address the subject matter, and not throw slurs and sarcasms at the person that I'm addressing. ***** ]

Please read my response on this subject titled "Pro-Worker". You'll find it just above your comment. I hope that it further explains my position on this matter.

You asked, "what do you know about it?". That's a fair question, thanks. First, I have worked around unions for many years. I have worked in many industries, including the textile, plastics, machines and machine parts, as well as the commercial and residential glass business. I have never worked for a union, but have seen up close and first hand what unions are all about. My working career spanned forty plus years. I have worked in thirteen different states, and in several different industries. I worked off and on for ten years for the U.S.D.A. as a federal-state inspector. I have been in sales, production, management, supervision, and have even swept floors and emptied trash cans. I have done the hiring, and have done the firing. In summary, I've been around the block a few times. I have been a contractor ( business owner ), loan broker, and insurance salesman.

As far as your "bigotry" comment, I'll not dignify that with a response. But, I do take exception to your accusation that I "slur" the entire working class. Obviously, you don't know me. I have spoken out for years now, in favor of the hard working citizens of this once great nation. I have preached about the many wrongs meted out to our workforce through no fault of their own. Some nerve you have making a statement like that without knowing anything about me. I have enough common sense to know right from wrong, and what's fair and what's not. The statements and comments that I make have plenty of merit based on facts, actual first hand observations, and the continuing effects reported almost daily by the various news media and organizations.

FACTS :

(1) Products made by union workers, as well as products made by non-union workers, can not compete with cheap foreign made imports.
(2) Products made by union workers are of no better quality that products made by non-union workers.
(3) Unions have been directly responsible for the closing of many U.S. plants and factories due to the high cost ( wages and benefits ) of producing products. ( Examples: Steel, textiles, etc. )
(4) Unions do not provide job guarantees.
(5) Union membership has been in decline.
(6) Unions "strong-arm" businesses with threats of work stoppages and employee walk-outs ( strikes ).
(7) Non-union workers have the same rights and protection as do union workers. ALL American workers are covered under our labor laws.

You asked, "whose side are you on anyway?". I'm on the side of America, the hard working American that's fighting the odds against our anti-America government. I'm on the side of "right" vs wrong. I'm on the side of "justice for all" vs the obvious injustices across the board, especially the injustices against the American worker, imposed by the U.S. government's "selling of America". I'm on the side of "fair play", as opposed to the unfair playing field the U.S. government has placed the American worker on. I'm on the side of the unemployed, standing in long unemployment lines, not knowing whether work will come today, or ever. I'm on the side of those working for low wages due to cheap foreign imports flooding our market place. I'm on the side of our college graduates that can't find work. I'm on the side of taxpayers that see their hard earned tax dollars used to fund bailouts, foreign aid, subsidies to big oil and rich farmers, deadly senseless costly wars, the care and support of illegal immigrants, bribes to North Korea and Iran, looking for water on the surface of Mars, stupid projects such as "The Fence", fat pensions and benefits for members of Congress, wasteful military spending, and pork spending for "favors rendered".

If you want to challenge my patriotism, and which side that I'm on, you'll have a lot more than you can handle. I've preached these messages for a long long time my friend. At least I'm not in favor of pricing the American worker right out of a job.

Just unreal, he's oh so innocent and made bail and oh yeah "resigned"

CNN.

To quote you above:

Unions had a place in the first half of the twentieth century, but they have long since served their purpose. At present, we have labor laws that protect workers. We have OSHA and the EPA that protect workers. Employers pay workman's comp insurance that protect workers. In today's workplace, unions and union workers are all about "greed", and nothing else. Everyone wants to make a $$million bucks a year sweeping the floor and emptying the trash can.

They've "long since served their purpose." What purpose was that: to get decent wages; bring benefits to the workplace that many non union workers realized. Have we lost a need for that? Unions served their purpose so well, they were coopted.

You say "unions and union workers are all about 'greed'." What do you know about it? Are you going to start talking about "welfare Cadillacs" next. That's a broad statement without any factual basis. It's an appeal to knee jerk bigotry. In this case, the slur is against an entire class of workers. It's really no different in structure and generalization than ethnic and religious slurs.

And you confirm my point above: "everyone wants to make a $$million...sweeping the floor." That's a cheap shot, another over generalization, and a prime example of the rhetoric that was used to trash unions over the decades.

Whose side are you on anyway?

As much as I don't trust France (I remember 1956 and how they and the Brits secretly risked World War III over Suez), they seem to have more of a First World economy than we do. Their "normal" work week is shorter, they get longer vacations, and medical care. And raising the retirement age to 62 brought on a general strike (take that, Senator Simpson!) Their per capita GDP is $33,300 -- about the same as Germany. Yeah, ours is higher (47K) but distorted more by inequality. Only about 6% below poverty level (ours 15.5% below), and life expectancy is 82 while ours is 78 (must be that red wine in the French diet). About three-quarters of French workers are in service occupations. For over a decade after WWII, about 25% voted communist -- dropped to 19% in 1958 (I guess they were turned off by the Russian tanks in Budapest). What's my point? Oh, I was wondering about how they manage to have decent train service and keep their politicians in line -- something we have yet to learn.

You're correct, I totally agree. Yes, population does effect, and affect, the labor market. What we have is a labor pool without opportunities to work. Our labor cost too much, and we're accustom to cheap imports on the store shelves. It all goes back to our import dependency. America no longer produces what America uses and consumes. This puts our labor force in the unemployment lines.

Population generates demand. A growing population generates even more demand. Someone has to provide the food, clothing, shelter, health care, infrastructure, transporation, housewares, appliances, energy, farm equipment, tools, replacement parts, services, and many other needs. Where do we get the majority of what we use and consume? Certainly no one believes that our workforce enjoys being unemployed. Our work force would and could provide our needs.

A growing population means a growing demand for goods and services. A self-supporting economy means that the general population provides for itself. A healthy economy means that there's an adequate positive cash flow, generated by the population buying and producing goods and services.

At present, we have a negative cash flow. Our negative cash flow is caused by our dollars purchasing foreign made goods, instead of Americans producing and buying American made goods. Thus trade deficits as just one example. As our dependency grows, the number of living wage jobs decline.

We are a nation of buyers, but we're not a nation of producers.

Americans no longer have the opportunity to be self-supporting. Our government has made sure of that.

Population does affect wages, labor markets and that's what it is the "base of all numbers" for the employment reports. Labor comes from population.

This is a reason why both India and China are trying to capture services and manufacturing, respectively. They have way too many people and this is their solution to employ them.

But believe this or not, in China, they have captured so much of the globe's manufacturing they have a labor shortage. A labor shortage with 1.4 billion people in that country.

So, it's not only population that buys goods and services, it is the type of population. If one imports the globe's unskilled labor, poor, that lowers wages for the people in that skills class already here and without wages to generate disposable income, if the government is supplementing that labor through social services, Medicare, food stamps and so on....it's a huge drag on an economy.

That said, if one is displacing workers, even at the highest skills level, that too will repress wages, reduce disposable income and that also is a drag on the overall economy.

On the other hand, if one is not displacing, flooding a saturated labor market with more labor, and there is no direct worker substitution, increased labor supply, can benefit the overall economy, but this requires overall strong economic growth/activity or new sector activity and it requires no worker substitution.

Unfortunately loads of economists due to some absurd philosophy, like to "game" the equations to spit out fiction because this topic is politically front loaded.

But bottom line, in the U.S. we have loads, tons, maximum, evidence U.S. workers are being subject to displacement, labor arbitrage and wage repression due to the flooding of the U.S. labor market.

All, watch out for some serious economic fiction in these categories for there are forces at play from inane "globalization is good because I say so" economics to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce putting out white paper spin fiction due to their overall global labor arbitrage agenda, to ethnically based special interest groups who spew nonsense for their own political and philosophical agendas to some very powerful foreign business interests, such as the Indian BPO industry (who Bill Gates is a member of folks!).

Clinton recently harped about the job "skills gap." That's not accurate. I did a little research and he was saying the same thing in 1999. Now Obama want's us to compete with minimum wages in developing nations. What a solution that is! They're both just shilling for the labor arbitrage scam. Shameless leaders are a shame for the country.

The problem is simple: There are too many people and not enough jobs.

To fix it we need to work on one or both sides of the equation:
1) reduce the rate of population growth
2) increase job growth to at least population growth

More college degrees aren't going to help here.

In 1970 the population of the U.S. was 200 million. We are now up to 311 million and increasing at a rate of one person every 14 seconds! According to the US Census Bureau:

TOTAL POPULATION: 311,377,420

COMPONENT SETTINGS FOR MAY 2011

One birth every.................................. 8 seconds
One death every.................................. 12 seconds
One international migrant (net) every............ 45 seconds
Net gain of one person every..................... 14 seconds

The U.S. economy is very sick. It can't add any jobs, much less add enough jobs each month just to keep up with workforce growth.