[Harry Rex Vonner]

Union workers by definitiion, are more highly skilled. When clients invest huge sums of capital to build plants, factories, mills, hospitals, schools and the like, they normally prefer the surety that is represented with union construction firms and labor. Getting down off of the soap box for just a minute, I can speak to the matter of unioin built versus non-union built structures from first hand experience. Sometimes, even going in and tearing out structure that failed to meet specifications. I can't imagine anybody allowing a non-union entity to construct a nuclear facility for example. Being able to count on professional craftsmen is the calling card of union labor. It's about training, skill level and management. I have said for years, that we union folks risk too much with our efforts to manipulate the market and legislators. What we can buy, others can certainly up the ante on.

Let's assume that all you say is true. Employers, those who are risking their own capital, should have the choice of hiring union or non-union workers. If the union workers really are more competent, the employers should have the right to weigh that fact against the major increase in cost from hiring union workers. The employer should have the right to weigh the options and to succeed or fail on his/her own.