Asymmetrical Information

Service industries are very sensitive to payroll costs—people's time is all they have to sell.

A perfect test case is Fedex vs UPS. Our small office has had the same Fedex guy for years, we exchange plesantries and joke about each others grey hair. He was at UPS (teamsters)for 10 years prior to joining Fedex (non-union). The delivery driver jobs require a high degree of initiative, client interaction, and responsibility. Pay is pretty good to attract good people. The UPS guys are on the ball, but seem to be shifted around a lot. My impression is that the Teamsters really offer little (except costly strikes) to these guys.

I think there is also a clear understanding that in many industries (steel, autos, airlines etc.) the unions are a big factor in their steady demise.

I'll offer some thoughts. My impression of unions is that they arose in response to poor working conditions. Poor working conditions are largely non-existent now, with the exception of migrant farm workers. Pay and benefits are largely driven by the marketplace (except for public sector jobs), and the impact of unions on pay has been negative in the last few decades, as the unions which would rather have the company go bankrupt than give in to management's demands have shown (Eastern Airlines; Pan Am; etc.). It takes awhile, but the word gets out.

So how does any of this apply to the service sector? Well, service sector employees can't complain much about the working conditions. I have to sit down on my job all day long? I only get a couple of breaks from the arduous task of typing/entering data/answering phones/filing? I'm inside most of the time? I'm not in a potentially dangerous working environment?

And let's face it, training replacements in the service sector is easier than in the manufacturing sector. In my particular field, I can train an assistant in 6-12 months, which is much longer than the average. That's still quicker than training a line supervisor in an auto assembly plant.

Plus don't overlook the effect of enlightened management practices as tending to obviate the need for unions.

So, bottom line is that unions are not as relevant in the service sector as they are in the manufacturing sector, and they are not as relevant in the manufacturing sector as they once were.

I'd concur with Rex. A lot of the truly appalling conditions that Labor helped alleviate have been legislated away, so workers have the Government acting as their union in that regard.

Another factor is that the lines between "Managment" and "Labor" are so blurred in most office environments compared to working on a traditional production line. There just isn't the same kind of white collar/blue collar division that can be played on to create a sense of resentment in the laborers and get them to organize, and hand over part of their paycheck to the organizers.

I think these comments are spot on. Basically:

1. The unions won. They got what they wanted: decent pay, decent hours, decent working conditions. When they tried to push for more (e.g. airlines, auto workers) they shot themselves in the foot, so they don't push so much nowadays. As you note, the big exceptions are among government workers -- I imagine because their employer faces no competition and *can't* be bankrupted by unreasonable payrolls and benefits.

2. The association of unions with socialism and collectivism combined with the general unpopularity of those ideas in the US -- especially compared to places where unions have survived (Europe).

3. The blurring of the white-collar/blue-collar line that makes it difficult to generate class resentments.

4. The belief among typical Americans that someday they will be rich -- or at the very least that their kids will be rich. Again, this makes it difficult to generate the class resentments that feed a labor vs. management approach.

Besides all the reasons listed above, I suspect that unions thrived for the middle half of the 20th century because unionization made it easier for auto plants and other huge industries to treat employees as interchangeable parts. That is, old-line managers could say, "You got a personal problem - take it to the union steward." And at one time, the union stewards did help keep a balance between the demands of an oversized and rigid organization and the needs of the workers.

But the robot-like jobs where you stuck tab A in slot B over and over all day are getting pretty rare. If the job doesn't require judgment or flexibility, there's probably a robot to do it. The factories still need plenty of people - but the majority of them may be technicians who set up and repair the robotic and other equipment, so it can do the actual work. If you manage such people the way Henry Ford managed his lineworkers in 1925, you won't get their best work. Eventually, a competitor that treats people like people will eat your lunch, and there are management courses and books that purport to teach how to do that even in a huge organization. (Not that I can vouch for how well these work - but simply thinking that they should try to treat people like people from the bottom to the top of the organization is a huge change in management attitudes from what I experienced in my first jobs 30 years ago.)

And what is the role of a union in a business trying to make this change? Why, to stand in the way and scream loudly about every change. If you can take your problems to your boss, what do you need the union steward for? And if you don't need the union steward, why contribute union dues to pay his inflated salary?

Agree with all the above thoughts. We had a recent vote, which failed, on unionizing our grad students here at Cornell. My mother's nursing work force also voted against unionizing at Duke University Medical Center. From what I understand from talking to various grad students and nurses, they seemed to have the impression that unions were about antagonizing management and worsening relations, about featherbedding, and about always looking out after yourself and minimizing your work to meet regulations instead of focusing on doing your best work for the students or patients. It's the inflexibility that seemed to turn them off. Most people felt that they were getting a pretty good deal already, and they didn't think that a union could improve their lot enough to make up for the trade in flexibility. Perhaps if conditions were worse, I guess.

I think you underrate the effect of a hostile legal environment for organizing. You can certainly blame Democrats for the periods in which they were in power (I do), but since the early 80s at least, being involved in an organizing campaign has been an excellent way to get fired. While this is nominally illegal, someone who has been fired while trying to organize isn't in a great position to hire a lawyer, and even if they do, and win, they've suffered significant harm (years out of work), and the penalties are pretty lame (just the back pay, which is small enough that you can't pay legal fees out of it, and it isn't a disincentive to the company compared to the cost of a unionized workforce).

There's no incentive not to fire a worker for organizing, so no new sectors of the workforce get organized. As older sectors shrink, the total percentage of the workplace that's organized shrinks. The reason that government unions are healthy is that governments don't fire workers for organizing.

A good book on this, although from the early 90's (maybe even the late 80's) is Thomas Geoheghan's Which side are you on? Trying to be for labor when it's flat on its back.

I have been a member of two unions. I worked at a warehouse, and was a member of a Teamsters-associated warehouseman's union. As far as I could tell, the only thing they ever did to or for me was take $25 out of every paycheck. Then I worked at a scrapyard. To this day, I do not know the name of the union, but they took money out of each paycheck too.

Being invisible to your members can't be good for the movement.

I haven't seen this mentioned here, but my school had a professional practice class that taught us (civil engineers) that unionization is unethical; you stand or fall on your own merits, not because of collective bargaining arrangements.

This was the position of the National Society of Professional Engineers last time I looked, a few years ago.

In the glory days of unionism unions actually *did* things for workers that workers valued and needed.

If you look at the records, most union members were laborers with minimal formal education and minimal ability to look after their own affairs off the job. There were no IRAs for retirement, no mutual funds as we know them for savings, no AMT machines, bank services were minumal, little credit... etc. And the labor market was relatively immobile -- physcially, it was difficult to find and relocate to a better job elsewhere. People stayed with the same employer for a working lifetime.

Who was going to negotiate and provide for low-educated workers the pension plans, savings options, credit lines, job listings, and career tracks with accumlating seniority rights that workers had a strong demand for? Unions did that.

But today even the poorly educated are much more educated than that and can provided all these services for themselves in modern markets -- and today the average person changes *careers*, not just employers, multiple times in a lifetime.

So why do they need a union taking X% of their paycheck off the top?

IOW, supply and demand. The demand for union services among average workers has shriveled at the price.

I just looked it up, and the NSPE Code of Ethics doesn't say anything about collective bargaining. Either it was a fever dream, or the clause was removed since I took the class a few years ago.

The supply and demand explanation doesn't work; as far as I know, there is still a substantial salary premium for unionized workers over comparable non-unionized workers, and the premium exceeds the cost of union dues. Given the option to organize, if they could do it effortlessly, workers might resist out of principle, or because they believed it would have some non-monetary negative impact on their worklife; a worker purely motivated by the money would organize.

Another factor is that the lines between "Managment" and "Labor" are so blurred in most office environments compared to working on a traditional production line. There just isn't the same kind of white collar/blue collar division that can be played on... - Rex

I think this is the single biggest reason most service industries are resistant to unionization. There is a much sharper delineation between "worker" and "manager" in a construction firm than there is in an accounting firm. There is very little upward mobility in operating a backhoe, but the smartest and most dedicated entry-level auditors and tax accountants will be running the firm in 20-30 years.

In most manufacturing, capital equipment represents an important part of the cost and productivity equation...and this tends to provide room for higher wages for workers. If you have a guy operating a $2,000,000 stamping press, there's no need to be stingy with his pay, because the press itself is so expensive and so productive. Hence, unions could be successful in extracting better deals for workers. In many services businesses, there is nothing really equivalent in the way of capital equipment. Pure labor costs are much more dominant, and you can't get blood from a stone.

Coincidentally, this is being raised on Crooked Timber. Here's a Human Rights Watch report they linked to on tactics companies use to discourage organization. It's not the only factor, but it's a substantial one.

There is very little upward mobility in operating a backhoe, but the smartest and most dedicated entry-level auditors and tax accountants will be running the firm in 20-30 years.

On the other hand, the secretaries and clerks probably won't be. I'm a lawyer, and the management/labor division in my firm is absolutely clear. Relations are friendly, but there's no blurring of the line between lawyers and staff. There are lots of explanations for why our staff isn't organized, but that they perceive themselves as advancing into management isn't one of them.

The situation may be less clear in offices that aren't literally 'professional', but everyplace I've ever worked, even before law school, there was a pretty solid breakdown between people on a career track, and people in jobs that weren't going to involve advancement.

"The supply and demand explanation doesn't work; as far as I know, there is still a substantial salary premium for unionized workers over comparable non-unionized workers, and the premium exceeds the cost of union dues."
~~~~~

Ha! -- as they price themselves out of the market and so exist in ever fewer numbers.

Look at the auto workers -- I once was a member of the UAW myself. (In fact, I once briefly even organized for them!) Old, high-paid, and the most important part of their contract to them is layoff protection and early-buyouts as their numbers shrink every year.

Meanwhile the growth part of the US industry is in non-union shops where the young workers consistently vote against unions.

The fact that you are pricing yourself out of your market doesn't mean there is high demand among others to do the same!

(And it is classic "fallacy of composition" to think that if only everybody could raise their salaries to price-out-of-the-market-level together, like under one big master contract, nobody would be priced out of the market.)

BTW, the auto workers were exactly who I was thinking of before.

In Henry Ford's "Battle of the Overpass" days they were laborers from whom the union provided real services they *needed* that they couldn't get elsewhere.

Today, the typical "laborer" on an auto assembly line knows more mathematics as required for statistical quality control and process analysis than does the typical MBA graduate.

What's this person *need* the UAW for, its credit union??

Of course the supply and demand explanation *does* work -- it's practically a tautology, the unions stand ready to supply union services, but those demanding such services have obviously fallen in number.

The real question is *why* the demand for services has shrunk. I've given one answer: industrial workers just *don't need* those services as they once did, they can serve themselves in the modern world with a lot more freedom. That's good, that's progress!

The idea that so many people want to join the union today but evil nasty employers intimidate them out of it -- *unlike* the days of the Battle of the Overpass! -- is just silly. Denial. I say that as a former UAW member.

In the old days employers used to REALLY intimidate workers out of it -- but the workers *wanted* to join the union because they *valued* its services, so they joined anyhow. Demand for union services was much higher than now.

To say that today's employers are more intimidating than the strike breakers of old is ridiculous. They're a bunch of comparative milquetoasts hiding behind a flottila of lawyers.

If the unions, with their own flottilas of lawyers, can't lure workers on board in spite of that, then self-evidently demand for union services just ain't there like in the old days.

Obviously another reason for union membership decline in the private sector is the larger shift of employment from industrial production to services, as noted earlier by others.

Industrial production jobs clearly are much easier for unions to function with. There's high wages (which means money for the union) a stable work force typically with low turnover (a stable situation for the union, and job seniority issues are important) and a lot of generally similar jobs (so unions can organize 'classes' of workers, manage work rules, fight on equality issues, and so on).

In service jobs OTOH at the top end you have "thought workers" who are successful, independent, mobile, and have no need for a union at all.

In the middle you have those want to be like those at the top, and who tend to have fairly unique or specialized jobs and be highly mobile. None of that's good for a union.

At the bottom end there are workers who might look more like union material -- low education, so a union can do things for them that they can't do for themselves, and with largish numbers in fairly similar jobs. And unions do have some presence here. But there's a lot of turnover in these jobs and wages are *low* -- which means little money for the union. And unions are like any other organization, they go where the money is to succeed.

The airline pilots have huge wages -- and their union can close down airlines and cause millions of people grief. The airline mechanics aren't far behind on both counts. (For as long as they don't put their own airlines out of business).

A service workers union wants to organize grocery shelf stockers and hotel room cleaners? Fine, more power to it, this may be socially useful -- but this union will never have the power of the airline unions and the industrial unions of old.

Most of the old heavy industries did a lot of their organizing during the New Deal, with massive government support (and before passage of the Taft-Hartley act, which hurt like hell). As I said above, there isn't much a flotilla of lawyers can do for you if you've been wrongfully fired -- the most they can get is your back pay, and that's really not enough, at the wages of most relevant jobs, to make a lawsuit worthwhile. Without an active NLRB protecting unions, employer intimidation is a significant factor.

If you look at the positions of most pro-labor politicians, a policy that they are uniformly in favor of is card-check certification -- meaning that a union can become a certified representative of a workforce by collecting membership cards from a majority of the workers, rather than having to wait for a formal election run by the NLRB. In a world where employer intimidation wasn't a big deal, card-check certification wouldn't be a big deal. As it is, the wait for the election gives the employers time to fire the organizers and intimidate the rest of the workforce.

LizardBreath's generalities aside, the NLRB is far from labor's most pressing problem. From the "laboratory conditions" by which elections are to be run (a paternalistic standard allowing the NLRB to review every employer campaign statement for perceived threats) to the absolutely minimal burden by which a pro-union employee (almost always represented by an NLRB attorney at taxpayer expense) can challenge a discipline/termination (temporal coincidence between organzing activity and the discipline/termination will suffice) and gain reinstatement or backpay, the NLRB is more than protective of employee organizers. Union supporters can parade their horribles, but employers can point to a long line of NLRB cases finding on behalf of employee organizers who have assaulted supervisors, sabotaged equipment, etc.

And let's remember that the premise of the NLRA is freedom of choice for employees which clearly means the opportunity to withold support from, as well to offer support to, a union. So "anti-Union" decisions and declining union membership are not, without more, evidence that the NLRA is failing its purpose.

Why are the unions dying? I agree with the above comments regarding the success of social legislation; virtually no part of the employer-employee relationship remains unregulated and therefore the protections that a union might have offered are available to all at no direct cost. And on a practical level: (1) more than you might imagine, out of touch, lazy union organizers with limited knowledge of the plant or industry being organized. Professional Union representatives - not employees - are usually the main point of contact between the union and the floor and when the organizer can't talk basic shop or industry issues, it doesn't take much for the targetted employees to see themselves as just another future dues check; and (2) employee perception that, once voted in, unions don't seek to help grow the business but rather keep things static by siding with those employees barely able to hang on.

On the other hand, the secretaries and clerks probably won't be. -LB

That's generally true, and I'm sure it's especially true in a business such as yours that is so dependent on professional accreditation. However, I've known several people - including myself - who've managed to graduate from support-staff jobs into "career track" positions. When I worked at Pepsi, the Director of Compensation and Benefits (a position with about 25 underlings and a salary well into six figures) was a lady who had started as a secretary some 15 or 20 years earlier. As for myself, I was temping there as a file clerk while I half-heartedly took some graduate courses in engineering (for some background: I was 24, living at my mother's house, deep in debt, and in possession of a fairly useless degree in physics; I just wanted to get my own place and start making a living asap). The secretary of the department I was working for went on long-term disability, and I started doing her job. Then the entire department was outsourced to Price Waterhouse, and the good folks there offered to keep me on. They decided I was under-utilized, sent me to training, and I started doing expatriate/alien tax compliance, which is a potentially Partner-track career path. Within a couple of years I took up an offer to move into the technology group, spent nearly every waking hour learning everything I could about software development, and was soon in charge of a mission-critical application. I decided that I had no interest in management, and that software development was my passion, so that's been my career focus ever since (although right now I'm taking a year off to travel and pursue other interests). Obviously, it isn't possible to pursue a career in law without the appropriate credentials, but many good jobs within corporations are attainable to those without much in the way of paper credentials, through fostering the right connections and demonstrating interest and potential.

Having said all that, I agree that career advancement is not a strong likelihood for most secretaries. However, most of the secretaries I've known personally have been married women whose husbands were the primary earners, and who seemed more interested in staying productive in a way that allowed time for their families than they were in climbing the corporate ladder. I could see how they would be less enthused about unionization than someone making a living in construction might be.

"..the big exceptions are among government workers -- I imagine because their employer faces no competition and *can't* be bankrupted by unreasonable payrolls and benefits."

Well, that may be true for the Federal Government, but it certainly isn't for state and local governments, which have to balance their budgets. Labor is a huge and growing cost in those budgets, especially at the local level.

In my state (Ohio), several local governments are in a fiscal crisis even as their revenues are growing. Health care costs are one part, an aversion to layoffs are another, but the really big factor is police/fire contracts, with fixed annual pay increases, overtime, etc. These are unionized departments.

I've yet to see a city that is seriously considering outsourcing safety services, but other services (maintenance, snow plowing etc) are also unionized and may not be so lucky. It's those kind of costs that local governments are probably going to be forced to trim, and privatizing them is becoming an increasingly attractive option.

Point being, I think we'll be seeing more of public sector unions "pricing themselves out the market," at least at the local government level.

I think we also need to look at what a union has become in the eyes of its members. I had the opportunity to have a series of conversations with the president of a local of an industrial union. He told me his greatest frustration was that to hold on to his position, he had to dispute every disciplinary measure, even when he (and everyone) knew the worker was wrong. They had workers in the plant which everyone wished were out, yet he had to fight it whenever one was "fired." He faulted Management for not sticking to their guns and winning some of these disputes. This man was a "reformist." He had to fight these battles to prevail over the old-line members. He was trying to reform the union from within. He was not succeeding. The national organization supported his opponent.

This was about 20 years ago. It is not hard to imagine how many workers can look at their National offices and see them as just another form of "management" exploiting them.

In manufacturing, the capitalist spends large sums of capital on specialist equipment, suitable only for making quite a narrow range of products. That capital is now a hostage to the labour force: a strike, or a bit of sabotage (from "sabot", a clog - cripple the equipment by sticking a clog in it) denies him a return on his capital. In economic terms, labour can readily exploit capital, so that unions can thrive as long as (i) they have the power - by law or coercion - to impose a labour monopoly in a firm, and (ii) the firm won't immediately lose all its market to a competitor. The latter would arise if the barriers to entry to the market are high because of, say, (iii) high capital cost of building manufacturing plant, and (iv) protectionist measures to keep foreigners out of the market.

After reading all these comments, and being a past union member myself. It seems that they only people who are for the union, have little or no experience with an actual union.

Unions are not relevant, all the things they offer are now available to the individual workers 401k, IRA, job training, trade school, night school, etc. 19th century working conditions were horrible, but today not having access to evian brand bottled water qualifies as an unsafe working condition.

Yes, it's harder to unionize the service sector. Unions cause less efficiency and lower quality. When the product is the service it's even more important that the quality is the highest. Take two service companies, one union and the other a small business run by the owners trying to do the best they can to pay their bills and make a profit. Who do you think will be around a year later? It's no contest.

Union organizing has always been most successful where there has been worker exploitation and dissatisfaction. That's what prompted the organizing in the Thirties and Joe Hill before that ( the automobile industry in 1937 and 1938 is said to have bought more small arms and ammunition than did the United States Army, by one account).

Today there are still large numbers of exploited and discontented workers, but all too many are illegal immigrants, whether working in concstruction or chicken prep factories, who don't have the willingness to subject their immigration status to scrutiny. Employers know this, recruit with this in mind and exploit. If you look at deaths in construction in New York City, for example, large numbers are illegals picked up each morning on the street corners. If the immigration status issues could be resolved, there would be far less worker exploitation. One might evn suggest that some opposed to legalization of all of those who make golf courses and Hamptons horticulture possible understand what it would do to the cost of their favorite pasttimes.

But it is clear that geographic mobility is one of the new ingredients in reducing the effectiveness of union organizing. The union organizing of the Thirties and Forties was done in an environment in which people stayed and spent their lives in close proximity to the place of birth and the location of family. Today mobility options lead to 5000 new residents in Las Vegas each month. And some of those will move up and on at some point. It is hard to organize, and it's hard to make a commitment to a union, in the face of both job mobility and geographic mobility as mechanisms to deal with exploitation and dissatisfaction. Once again, changing the immigration status rules would change the dynamic of organizing. One has the impression that the communities that are most stable these days are the communities of illegals, whether in Greenpoint or along McLean Avenue in Yonkers, New York.

One might evn suggest that some opposed to legalization of all of those who make golf courses and Hamptons horticulture possible understand what it would do to the cost of their favorite pasttimes.

Of course one might, if one's political arguments were based on antiquated notions of class envy.

As for illegal workers and deaths in construction, I've never heard of such a problem in the parts of the country with which I am familiar. One might suggest that rent control is putting economic pressure on the building trades in New York.

1-10. Unions are a bad deal for younger workers or new workers in a given field: You can't advance because of your performance, and job instability makes it unlikely you will recoup the forgone wages + dues/fees.

11. They don't provide training, services or skills that cannot be obtained elsewhere for less cost.

12. No benefit to employers in return for higher cost (don't provide a skilled or consistent labor pool or provide ways to outsource things such as healthcare or pensions).

Think in the reverse. If the government dropped the minimum wage law and OSHA, how long before the unions were back to full force? They've killed themselves by becoming vassals of the state.

I look at this subject from a totally different point of view. I do alot of equity investing and one rule I personally follow is not to invest in companies with contracts with the Machinist, Teamsters, or Steelworkers. Just look at those companies bottom lines and most have been hamstrung by those contracts, Airlines, Trucking, Autos, Steel. When researching a company their numbers, management is only the begining. Look at union contracts, enviormental record, and pending litigation.

Blaming the NLRB is quite hilarious, as pointed out above, the regulations are still giving the unions the advantage in any election. What is really happening is twofold. First, is that the needs of modern business for rapid organizational adaptability is antithesis of the kind of static work-rule burden that unions thrive on. And second, the unions are actively killing themselves with irrational behavior - look at United's unions refusing to deal with the reality that their entire company is on the verge of evaporating.

What about globalization?

Union workers have been traditinally concentrated in manufacturing. Unions can no longer deliver benefits to the membership because manufacturing industries must compete with lower costs in other areas of our world.

Many service industries are now facing this competition as well, with more to follow. There may be many thousands of extraordinarily well paid radiologists who will soon see their routine work being performed long distance at a small fraction of the fees they now charge.

Other personal services- such as complex real estate negotiations, open heart surgery, or the practice of law, are inherently entrepreneurial in that the best consumer value is often to utilize the highest priced provider. Don't you want your heart surgery done by the best heart surgeon or your liberty defended by the best attorney, no matter the cost? These "workers" should never support unionization- they should prefer to be paid what they are really worth.

The last bastion of unions will likely be only institutionalized services, whether private or government, where upward mobility is limited by legally dictated professional standards- licensed pilots and mechanics, school teachers, etc.

Even those will encounter new forms of entrepreneurial and global competition- as large airlines will soon be competing with widespread air taxis and school teachers are even now competing with rapidly expanding home school alternatives.

I'd say a big part of the problem is that the folks who'd be voting in the elections (or stringing up the lynching rope for whichever moron cow-orker forced them to happen in the first place) grew up in a world populated by third-generation union folks. We got to see which of them were happy about the unions (the incompetent, lazy, and otherwise generally unworthy of emulation) and which were either ashamed or angry that they were required by law to be union members in order to work in their chosen fields. We watched as unions fought tooth and nail to preserve every dehumanizing ritual of working life even when employers tried to ease or eliminate some of them. We saw how fiercely the unions hated any manager or company that wanted to treat employees as individuals with their own merits and faults and needs rather than as huge impersonal classes. We were driven (and then later learned to drive ourselves) past union paving crews standing around gossipping and drinking coffee while lane closures made us late for our appointments.

Is it any wonder we decided we wanted none of that for ourselves?

It may be true that at one time conditions were so bad that only unions or government could make them tolerable...and if the choice is only between those two, I'm happier to have it done by unions. But those days are OVER. They've been over for more years than my generation has been on this planet, and the social, technological, and economic conditions that killed them appear based on all reliable evidence to be irreversible at this point.

If the job you do doesn't require thought, it's either already being done by a robot or will be soon enough, and if it does then you're more valuable to your employers as an individual than you are as a member of a huge class of supposedly interchangeable "labor".

If an assembly line worker in the 1930s did his assigned job exceptionally quickly, the result was only that he spent more time waiting for the line to deliver the next piece for him to work on. If he did his work exceptionally _well_, no customer would ever notice. It was a model with powerful built-in incentives to reward the average and ignore the exceptional, and so unions' built-in hatred for the exceptional was less destructive. But those jobs are now being done by robots. In the service sector, _every_ worker's skill, speed, and attention to detail shows up in ways and places that customers notice, whether the worker is a lawyer, doctor, or senior software engineer making six figures or a hotel maid or burger flipper making minimum wage. Inflicting a union on such jobs utterly destroys the economically rational incentive process.

Horse-Racing-Results.co.uk's free UK racing results service. Results updated throughout the day, everyday. We archive all of our racing results and have arranged it by date and racecourse. The service is free and requires no registration.

Comments are Closed.