Same for athletes, the MLB Players Union has been extraordinary in preserving value for its members (guaranteed contracts!).

How's the UAW doing? Is it possible that there are factors outside of unionization that affect how these workers are paid?

You'd have to poll their members, but I would suspect they are pretty happy. They are well paid, are not allowed to be worked around the clock like Silicon Valley programmers and have a known career path. For blue collar work it's about as good as it gets.

> Is it possible that there are factors outside of unionization that affect how these workers are paid?

Of course, there are tons of variables. But it's a fact that unionized workers make more than non-unionized workers in the same jobs, that unionized workers are much more likely to have health insurance, that unionized workers are much more likely to have paid vacation and sick time, etc etc.

It's silly to point to a cohort of high-skilled non-union workers that are highly paid and claim that is an argument for the unionization of high-skilled workers.

I'm not arguing for unionization here, although it does have its advantages; I'm arguing that:

1) Unionization is easier and more effective when defection is difficult (or impossible, as in some German unions) and heavily punished. As soon as defection pays off, it loses its value.

2) The set of high level executives at large corporations is small and cliquish enough that it is a de facto union, since they can convince boards to bid up each other's prices and punish/shun those who offer their services at lower prices.

True, but there are plenty of high-skilled, high-paid workers who are unionized, although they typically would dispute the "union" tag.

The American Medical Association is a great example.