I don’t get it myself.. except it is like the social security ponzi scheme. Unions pay a great deal more money than many many jobs for equally qualified candidates. The intimidation factor, I do not see outwardly. They use terms such as “living wage” and other fuzzy math techniques. At the end of the day, do you have a conservative plan alternate to the grossly overpaid, over compensated workers? Nope. So until we can offer an alternative, it is union central. No employers= no paychecks scenario only works when there are no employers. That simply is not happening in coal country.
If the mines are shut down, where are the jobs? If the EPA makes coal mining uneconomical, where are the employers?
Are you saying that the mines will continue to operate and employ just as many as in the pre-war-on-coal era?
We are a union state here in WI, too. Yet, the surface rock, sand and metallic ore mines get shut down and the jobs disappear, union or no union.
How does it matter that a union purports to guarantee a living wage when the employer cannot produce and therefore doesn’t need to employ anyone, at any wage?
Mining is dangerous, especially sub-surface mining. It has become technical. I would think that trained miners simply would not even apply for a job like that if it didn’t pay adequately and provide for safety concerns, union or no.