[Lancey Howard]

That way, at least the most visible cost of union presence would be removed

I believe the first thing you mentioned is the most visible cost - - benefits.

[IronJack]

I believe the first thing you mentioned is the most visible cost - - benefits.

That may be true for the company, but to the public, it's always going to come down to pay. And the benefits would have to be reasonable too, of course. One can't successfully transfer the socialistic load from pay to benefits and expect to achieve any progress. The unions would have to realize that the free market will take care of salaries; companies that don't pay a competitive wage won't be able to hire or retain decent workers. Some pay differential can be made up in improved benefits, however.

[IronJack]

By the way, the shift to benefits as the collective bargaining platform actually benefits (!) the employer as well, since it broadens the mechanism by which an employer can compensate his workers and gives him vastly more flexibility. Many of the components of a benefits package could be more readily managed by the employer, and offered at varying rates or subsidies depending on factors like seniority, performance, training, evaluations, company profitability, etc..

I think it could be a win-win.