[quote=EconProf]As big coupon-clipping comparison shoppers, my wife and I have learned to largely ignor the unionized chains like Von’s, Ralphs, and Albertson’s, and gravitated toward the Trader Joe’s, Fresh & Easy’s, and WalMart. The price differences are huge.
Again, I’d put the unionized stores into the same category as the UAW-dominated automakers compared to the nonunionized foreign-owned US auto plants over recent decades. We all know how that worked out for the shrunken UAW and their shrunken companies, and to the benefit of the non-unionized companies, the states they located in, and the consumer. Union work rules, pay scales, fringe benefits, and seniority rules are a burden on the employer that must be passed on to the consumer (or taxpayer, in the case of public employees).
Accordingly, consumers will vote with their feet and we should see a continuation of the shift toward nonunion stores. Consumer sovereignty still rules, thankfully.[/quote]
But did consumers benefit from the non-union labor? Last I checked, Toyotas and Hondas were *more* expensive than the UAW-made cars.
One also has to take into consideration the fact that the wages of those consumers are also affected by the lower wages of the non-union shops, which decreases their purchasing power. This largely negates (I believe that, over time, it more than offsets) any benefits of lower prices.
IMHO, the non-union *companies* are the ones who benefit from the lack of unions, not consumers, and not employees. Now, some might argue that (the failed theory of) trickle-down economics will make this money somehow rain down upon the masses; but it’s been made painfully clear over the past 30 years that this is not how it works in real life.
