Another point is that the union premium (difference between union and non-union wages for comparable jobs) is higher for blacks, hispanics and women than it is for white men.

This gets at another of Kevin Drum's questions -- why do unions seem to spend so much energy insisting on persnickety rules on seniority, job responsibilities, etc.? One big answer is that formalizing promotions and job requirements is often the only way to eliminate the ability of supervisors to hire, fire, promote and transfer workers based on personal whim and favoritism. Which in turn wrings a lot of informal racism and sexism out of the workplace.

I won't say that's why unions got into the workrules business, but it's a way in which the interests of minorities and workers in general coincide.

Just to be clear, I agree with Nathan that the not-my-job unionized road crew is a stereotype with little if any reality. But unions are "rigid" about some things, like seniority -- and well they should be.

And union wages in the trades is often related to the fact that tradespeople usually don't have as long a working life as white collar and service workers.

Kind of tough to be a 55 year old carpenter after 35 years of daily labor.

Nathan, I would suggest that it is not a failing on Kevin and Kos' part so much as a failure to get the message out of why Unions are beneficial to people today. The success of the Unions in the past, ala the 40 hour work week (if you're fortunate enough to have just one job, or don't work in the hospital business) gives people the impression that the majority of the battles have been fought and won already.

People fear that if, say, Wal-Mart were unionized, then those cheap prices people pay will vaporize, along with those low paying jobs, and they won't get replaced. It's only when you get into a real push and shove situation in a non-union shop, like cable installers, that people might see the benefit of unionization. And their impression of Unions is that they are rigid, and they have to pay to get the same benefits they're already receiving. I think the biggest fear is that Unions price people out of work.

How do you counter that?

There was a janatorial union that formed in Boston last year. Those guys were getting screwed, and did something about it. They were at least 90% minority, and most of them were forced to take two part time positions in different buildings, so that they couldn't get benefits.

When the bosses heard about the union, they said "But it'll cost you all jobs"...to which most of them replied "That's fine, most of us have an extra job to spare". It got pretty ugly, but the union won.

Unions are very underrated by the non-union and white-collar sectors of the Democratic party. Mostly becaues, like so many other things, republicans have shaped the conventional wisdom on them in the past two decades.

One thing not mentioned in the original article is public vs. corporate sector unionization. Public sector (government employees) unions have been slowly increasing in size in the last 10 years.