It's an article of faith for some on the right that unions wreck productivity. Problem is, the empirical evidence doesn't back them up. Some elements of union workplaces probably hurt productivity. In this category, put things like work rules, promotions based on seniority, labor protections, long grievance processes, etc. And then some things unions do help productivity. Put in this camp better pay, lower turnover, people happier with their jobs, more worker input into labor processes, more experienced employees, etc. So it's complicated. But it's not exactly counter-intuitive. Pay people better and you'll get better workers. Get better workers and they'll do better jobs. That increases productivity. But it's not the business model all employers want. The evidence is clear that unions reduce company profits, because they force firms to share more of the haul with their labor. Kathy comments, "I suspect that's what really worries the anti-union folks, except it sounds better to get all concern-trolly about productivity. That makes it sound like you care about the economy as a whole, and not just the interests of the owners of capital." In the end, everyone is basically battling for their self interest, and their interests conflict. CEOs want higher pay. Workers want higher pay. Workers use unions. CEOs use public relations campaigns that smear unions, often under the guise of concerns about "productivity."
