Most professions in the U.S have unions. The most publicized are their sport player unions, which have perfected the art of collective bargaining. Worker unions are a part of U.S culture.

Increasingly not, though. The US has always lagged behind other Western countries in union membership, and although most countries have seen a decline, in the US it's been particularly severe. Perhaps worse, that decline has been much stronger in the private sector: the only places unions really have seen any even moderate victories in recent decades is either public workers or in artificial markets created by the State (such as California's homecare workers).

Culturally there's a big difference, too. While in Europe unions and corporations tolerate and even co-operate with each other (German companies have, I believe, half of their board members controlled by labor unions), in the USA they are very antagonistic.

Either because of that or causing that, most unions in the USA are effectively nominal with no real power.

Not true[1], and despite the current, small uptick in numbers, I suspect that union membership will continue to fall due to the rise right to work laws around the US[2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat...

[2] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-are-right-t...

Not sure what you refer to as not true - most professions in the U.S have a union. I didn't say most workers are a part of it.

The word 'profession' and the data are both leading you astray. In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%, compared to 18.6% in Germany, 27.5% (Historically,"professions" were medecine, law, and accountaincy etc...as opposed to the "trades" It was only the trades which had unions. US, we have public sector unions (very large), including teachers, etc. Public sector = "Bureaucrats"!= professions.

What does that even mean?

A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized high educational training (Wikipedia). For example, you can have a doctor union - it doesn't mean that every doctor is a member in it.

Part of this was also structural, if you think about it. the professionals were typically self-employed or partnerships. The professionals, in other words, were the bosses/upper management. The need for a union, somewhat redundant. Notice, that changes when the State becomes involved. Then you do see, say teachers unions. Hope this helps.

I said professions, not professionals.

Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes. Members of the ruling class don't (at least historically want/need) form unions precisely because they are/were the ruling class. [Edit: Professional Associations i believe were fairly common, as a vehicle to further the interests of a specific profession.]

> Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes

Perhaps within the last 100 years, but not "historically" in a general or broad sense. The historical ruling class didn't have professions, they had power.

Up until 1812 or so, I would agree with you. But the landed classes were forced into the professional ranks throughout the 19th C. "To makes ends meet." The Corn laws, ca1830 & ff.

Edit: If I may elaborate on this.

Also, i did not mean the political sense of "ruling class". I meant, strictly speaking, their status as economic agents. If you are a partner in a partnership, you have legal control rights. Same as if you are a material shareholder in a stock-company. You are not an "at-arms-lenght-employee" in other-words. So, the idea that you would need a union for what were in essence "company directors" just does not make logical sense. Again, that changes when (whatever the expertise) thes folks are forced to work for the state; they are then stripped of their control rights and take on a position more akin to Labour, structurally.

I must agree that I specified too short a time period before which the "ruling" class simply ruled and weren't strongly connected to professions and investment activities.

So thanks for posting.