There is ample literature:

The clear pattern that emerges from the research literature, primarily for the U.S. but also elsewhere, is that unions do not on average increase productivity and that collective bargaining is associated with lower profitability, decreased investment in physical capital and research and development (R&D), and lower rates of employment and sales growth.

...and...

In the five years following the troughs, we assess whether variations across states in union membership and right-to-work laws affect the rate of job growth. We find evidence that links union influence to slower job growth during an economic recovery, a finding consistent with previous studies reporting that unions negatively affect average employment and employment growth.

What does any of that have to do with what's happened since 2010?

Maybe you hadn't heard: unemployment is quite high.

I'll ask again. How has the union busting that's occurred since 2010 delivered on the Republican promise of JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!?

I am not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding that the existence of something that has a negative impact on jobs has a negative impact on jobs.

There really isn't any serious debate: unions are great for those lucky enough to be in them, but bad for everyone else.

The radical lefties over at the World Bank disagree.

Based on more than a thousand studies of the effects of labour unions and collective bargaining on the performance of national economies, the Bank report found that workers who belong to trade unions earn higher wages, work fewer hours, receive more training, and have longer job tenure on average than their non-unionized counterparts.

High rates of unionization also lead to lower inequality of earnings, especially for women and minority groups, says the report, entitled `Unions and Collective Bargaining: Economic Effects in a Global Environment.'

But unionization is not just good for individual workers - the study also found that countries fare better economically if large numbers of workers belong to trade unions.

More specifically, the study shows that high unionization rates are associated with lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity, and speedier adjustments to economic shocks.

You're not citing the World Bank, you're citing a Canadian labor union's mischaracterization of a World Bank paper. The actual paper had conclusions such as,

• "Unions reduce employment growth."
• "Unions reduce the investment rate of physical capital."
• "Unions reduce spendingn on R&D."
• "...the available evidence from Canada, Jamaica, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, and the United States suggests that employment grows more slowly in unionized firms than in nonunionized ones. Studies from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States typically find a growth differential in the range of 3 to 5 percentage points per year in favor of nonunionized firms."

It's funny how you cherry pick the points that focus on what's good or bad for companies and ignore that points about what's good or bad for workers.

How is higher unemployment good for workers?

None of the four points you cite imply high unemployment.

How is higher unemployment good for workers?

None of the four points you cite imply high unemployment.

Unemployment is high. (Are you being deliberately obtuse?)

Are you suggesting that the current high unemployment is the result of unionization? Because that would be hilarious.

I am suggesting that union busting is good for job growth.

You just can't prove it.

You have refused to accept proof. See comments #10 and #24.

You could as easily say that "ample literature" exists that Obama was born in Kenya. Just quote FoxNews and right-wing nuts and you can prove almost anything.

"There really isn't any serious debate: unions are great for those lucky enough to be in them, but bad for everyone else."

Which explains why ordinary people were better off when most workers were unionised, and why ordinary people get so easily screwed today when only 1/6 of workers belong to unions. When that number reaches 0%, as in 1875, maybe we can bring back sweat shops, child labour, and slavery. If THAT doesn't increase corporate profits and create JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! then I don't know what will.

...ordinary people were better off when most workers were unionised [sic]

...average Americans have seen their standard of living stagnate...

Union membership in the US was never higher than 35%, and has been dropping since 1953 as the large unions have sucked their companies dry.  Extracting rents works well in cartelized economies, not so much in competitive ones.

That explains it. The Republicans accepted the stimulus money and the Democrats didn't.

Okay. But how does that realate to the argument that Republicans at the state level are to blame for the persistently  high unemployment rates under this President?  

Is Ron Paul a right wing nut?

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

"Left-wing nut" on some issues, "right-wing nut" on others. I bet you could find plenty of economists who shared his view on fiat money, but nowhere near majority status. People who take views that don't accord with established belief systems generally get called "nuts".

The status quo is nuts. Following it is the only sure way to failure.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!