Across the board, union workers get higher pay
(Associated Press)
Follow us on Twitter @AJCBiz
You’re sure to strike a nerve in many circles if you bring up the topic of unions and, in this case, union wages.
Unions have been receiving a lot of attention lately. Just this week Michigan’s governor signed right-to-work legislation that makes it illegal for unions to compel non-union employees in the private and public sectors, with some exceptions, to pay dues. (Georgia is also a right-to-work state). AT&T continues to negotiate new agreements with some of its unionized employees, although its 22,000 wireline workers in Georgia and other parts of the Southeast recently ratified new three-year contract.
CNN Money, relying on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, has looked into how the average pay of the top unions in this country stacks up against non-union workers’ wages. The bottom line is that across the board union wages are higher. Here are some of CNN’s highlights:
Government workers: “These workers make a median of $973 a week, roughly $230 more than their non-union counterparts.”
Teachers: “The union members earn $224 a week more than non-union educators, with median weekly earnings at $1,038.”
Firefighters and police officers: “Union workers make about $1,008 a week, and non-union workers make $627.”
Factory workers: “Union workers make about $836 a week, $56 a week more than non-union employees.”
Construction workers: “Union workers earn about $361 more per week than their non-union counterparts.”
Transportation and warehousing workers: “Union employees earn about $215 more per week, or 30%, than non-union workers.”
Utilities workers: “Union employees in this industry tend to earn 10.2% more per week than non-union workers.”
Georgia ranked 49th in union membership in 2011, with 3.9 percent of wage and salary workers belonging to unions. About 12 percent of U.S. workers belong to unions.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
59 comments Add your comment
Wilbur
December 13th, 2012
7:02 am
And they accelerate the transfer of jobs to low wage countries or they artifically depress employment. Unions would rather try to keep their gravy train and let the whole company fail.
Unions rest on intimidation and physical violence. Their history is littered with corruption, theft, murder and anti american ideologies.
Unions are today a disaster for America.
eddy
December 13th, 2012
8:28 am
If unions are so wonderful, why do they feel threatened by a Right To Work law? It is just giving all workers the right to choose…union or non-union. PS—–the workers drinking and smoking pot on their lunch break would have been permanently terminated in any non-union shop but not in a union shop. It is OK to do most anything and the union will protect them from common sense.
Jack P
December 13th, 2012
9:46 am
Across the board, the percentage of the population working in right-to-work states is higher than in non right-to-work states.
zeke
December 13th, 2012
1:43 pm
All unions, especially government employee unions, should be banned Constitutionally as socialist and subversive!
Weekly Wrap: Bonuses & Perks are Returning, But Nutty Gifts Are, Too
December 14th, 2012
1:02 pm
[...] are making a lot more and are better off than their private sector counterparts. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, ”You’re sure to strike a nerve in many circles if you bring up the topic of unions and, [...]
Timmy
December 15th, 2012
9:34 am
I like the bloomin’ unions that Outback serves. Very tasty!
mkl
December 15th, 2012
1:48 pm
Everybody keeps arguing the same points here, many from both sides are valid. Are unions inherently bad or good? I’d say neither. Organizing labour can have very beneficial results for your average worker. Anybody who attempts to argue against the strength of the many versus the strength of the few or the one is deluded at best, at worse they have an agenda that would be hurt by any strong organized opposition. Now on the other hand can such organizations be used or manipulated for personal gain and other abuses? Again anybody who blindly believes what any non-transparent, and please somebody show me an example of a transparent union, tells you is also deluding themselves. I believe what really needs to happen here is not so much a destruction of unions but more of an evolution. The current unions we have were born out of some very ugly trying times in our history. From these early brutal times we got brutal unions. The legacy of this is a combative mentality between organized labour and business. I think we can all agree that those times are past and what we really need are labour organizations that are truly there to help their constituents. This doesn’t mean just keeping their jobs but to also realize that helping the company they are employed by also helps the worker. The metric for any labour negotiation used to be how much they could squeeze from the company as opposed to what is fair to their members as well as their employer. Another issue is transparency, as public non corporate entities, unions should be forced to have total public and financial transparency. To expect any person to be allowed to have control over enormous resources with no accountability is always a recipe for abuse. While no doubt the wish for greater profits drove many jobs offshore the hostile worker-employer environment created by organized labour definitely helped a lot of companies to make up their minds. In whatever shape these labour organizations take they should not be allowed to in anyway fund political campaigns. Labour organizations should also not be allowed to be aggregated into monolithic multi corporate entities, if you work for a company, you should belong to the labour organization organized by that companies workers. To allow these massive unions, such as the teamster union, is to invite corruption and graft. The other side of the coin, getting rid of all organized labour is not a very smart position either. If you believe for one minute that corporations are all now nice and wonderful and have nothing but concern for the health and welfare of their employees at heart, you’re as drunk on the antilabour Kool-Aid as my uncle Joe is on Christmas punch. If they could drop your wages and take away all your benefits and rights as an employee they would. At the end of the day it’s just good business. If you think they wouldn’t just look at the working conditions they allow in their facilities overseas, or in Mexico. Since none of these employees have any of the protections afforded us here they are treated accordingly, once again, it’s just good business. In conclusion, I believe what we really need here is just a good dose of common sense. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Rock Gaines
December 17th, 2012
3:59 pm
hardmanb
December 12th, 2012
2:27 pm
” These workers make a median of $973 a week, roughly $230 more than their non-union counterparts.”
Union workers should have their pay and benefits reduced to match non-union workers. It a matter of basic fairness and will promote equality in employment.”
REALLY?
What some seem to forget is that management and union negotiate and agree to a contract. No one forces management to sign the contract. Where I work, whether you pay union dues or not, you are paid the same wages and the contract terms apply to all employees.
What’s fair is what’s been agreed to.
humbug
December 18th, 2012
11:36 am
This article and the numbers in it must have been written by a union leader. It simply
does not reflect true comparisons between union and non union jobs. Union leaders
are getting desperate because their big income is shrinking and they will do and say
anything in an effort to slow their loss.