Declining number of union members affects all workers’ salaries.

Unions are out-dated nowadays. There are enough laws to protect today's worker.
That they lose the ability force people to join the union will prove to be a good thing.
With the use of the internet, there won't be too many(if any) corporations getting away with breaking laws regarding workers.
The outrageous retirement packages the union workers received in the past is past time to re-negotiate.
Most states will follow Wisconsin's of limiting Union influence.
How many times do states and the Fed's need to express that they are bankrupt, and staying with the status quo is impossible.
Obama could score major points if he were to support this logical new wave of non-union support!
I think he is trapped because of the promises he made prior to being elected.
The 'proverbial' - rock and a hard-spot.

Something had to break!

Colin Gordon is wrong. No union has boosted corporate profits, labor is the biggest expense, paying labor more and protecting the worst among them is why unions are detrimental to profit.

Jump down from that partisan perch there patriot and "read" the article. No where was "boosting corporate profits" included in the subject-matter. However, the fact that unions help boost the sharing of corporate profits to include the labor which produces the goods that are sold for profits is very much to the point...

Unions, are antithetical to sharing, they are a burden on any employer, reducing the workforce to the lowest common denominator.

Nice rhetoric, your corporate indoctrination was well done. From you assertion, I take your (common) opinion to mean that only share-holders, and corporate management have skin the game and should share in the profits produced by labor's effort. Labor should just be satisfied with a job.

Unfortunately, this rhetoric has been efficiently drilled into the minds of many workers though the Corporatocracy which now effectively controls state and federal governments, the media, the food supply, health care, the prison system, public education, and thus control of public opinion. The dumbing-down is quiet nearly complete...

As an owner of multiple businesses I have seen the destructive force that is union, first hand. If you bring no skill set to the work place you should be compensated accordingly. There is a right to life, there is no right to be compensated just because you are alive. Without my willingness to risk my wealth daily, where would the laborer be? If they are such a value to society, then we wouldn't need all the safety hammocks to support them.

The only rational part of your previous comment is that a person should be compensated according to their skill-set. The rest is Randian/Orwellian poppycock and contradictory. Your assertion that there is a right to life, yet there is no right to an existence (either through fair wages or safety-hammocks) is pure fallacy, and is antithetical to any civil society.

Without labor, how would you accumulate wealth? Labor's efforts are the driving forces behind all wealth. Capital is stagnant without Labor just as labor can be stagnant without Capital. Well compensated Labor creates demand, demand creates jobs, and demand creates profits. Capital alone cannot create demand.

Unions are the ONLY means for Labor to guarantee their fair representation without government mandates. The last 30 years should be proof enough of just how magnanimous unfettered Capitalists are with corporate profits obtained through the increased productivity of Labor.

I for one would much rather have organized Labor representation than rely on government or corporate interests (currently one and the same) to determine what is fair for and in the best interests of Labor.

-Peace

You do not understand what America is or why it has surpassed all other societies to grace this planet.

I understand The USA as well as anyone, and I certainly know it is not the Feudal society you appear to believe it is...

It is a personal merit society, that is the reason it has surpassed all that have come before. There is no collective gain because none was never sought. An individual is the power of our nation not a collective.

More astounding poppycock. An individual is "empowered" by our national collectivism and not the other way around. While we do support and encourage individual accomplishments, we, as nation are in fact a collective of social democratic rules of law and public/private services and ownership. The ideal of governance based on individualism and/or selfishness is purely fanciful gibberish and definitely not what the USA was founded in... However, the more the New Right gains in governing this country, the more collectivist the nation becomes in a true sense of altruistic totalitarianism.

For me, the question is which is preferred, horizontal or vertical collectivism. I'll take a horizontal social democracy every time - welcome to America ...

-Peace

It is not the "new right" is it the constitutional conservative. Social programs are a product of recent history, our rise to prominence in the world, was the result of rugged individualism, with no thought to collectivism. Social democracy is mob rule, where individuals are not important, hence the failure of European socialism. What you are witnessing is nothing new, it is the same fight all great societies have once achieving substantial wealth for all. Human nature is a great playing field for entitlement without regard to merit. The fight you are witnessing is one of those who will not produce for themselves gaining power against those who will. In the end that rot of the entitled ruins society as a whole. We are Rome, without the rampant homosexuality(although that is gaining prominence as well).