I spent my breakfast reading poring over a report from EPI that talked about this exactly.  It lays out the case very well, if data-heavy.  I'll try to find that and post a link (mine was hardcopy).

I'm a big union supporter, but the unions need to believe solidarity extends to the netroots and stop selling us out.

I just finished a course in labour market economics last semester.  I agree with all your points.

I would add three more:
1."Sigh. Labor writ large has a public image problem."

I'm not sure the extent to which this is true.  Public opinion polling actually shows that unions are about as popular in Canada as they are in the states.  I'm not saying they're loved in either country, but I think it's certainly fair to argue that much of the perceived 'hatred' of unions is based on corporate anti union propaganda rather than actual public sentiment.

2.Continuing from point 1, given that overall perception of unions is about the same in the U.S as in Canada, it would make sense for incidence of unionization to be about the same.  But, of course they aren't.  The reason according to my textbook is almost entirely due to differences in legislation surrounding organizing and other things needed to unionize.  The text said that, according to polls, there are actually a significant number of Americans who would like to be in a union but aren't.  I can get you the name of the textbook and its authors if you like.

3.The textbook commented briefly on the dual labour market theory.  That is, workers with good jobs are in the 'primary' labour market and workers with bad jobs are in the 'secondary' labour market.  In addition to pay, all of the other things you mention are problems for workers in the 'secondary' labour market.  This theory explains why there was a story recently that said something like 1/6 people with jobs were still receiving benefits from the government.  

Unions were mortally wounded by Reagan's assault on the air traffic controllers and "big" unions non response.  As for the dems, they voted to change the name of the DC airport after him--out of disrespect for all of labor.  The unions will continue to decline until they either get a larger voice in dem politics, or they form their own party.  See Europe for details on the use of politics to guarantee union rights.

I think Unions are still suffering from the images instilled in the American psyche by the by Kennedy assault on the Corrupt Hoffa union machine. This was then piled on the resurgence of anti Union propaganda, topped off by Regans condemnation and successful crushing of the Air controllers. The Reich Wing and their anti Unionist propagandists have never let up in every single way they can and still operate openly today. I have not heard anyone point out how southern Conservatives have colluded with Foreign Auto makers to build and establish Union busting factories in the south. Look what happen to G.M., Chrysler and Ford as a result! We certainly do need a national Public relations effort to educate the general public. Not only to re-establish the positive role Unions presently play but the history of how Unions saved America from the ravages of unbridled Capitalistic excesses and built a strong national economy for ALL Americans.  We definitely have a long up hill battle against very powerful forces.  But these adversaries are punny compared to forces arrayed against the first Unionist pioneers. SO, Lets get ORGANIZING!

<quote>DiNardo and Lee found, Cowen says, that the wage differences in employment situations where the union just barely won or just barely lost the election were minimal, near zero.</quote>

Ummm...no shit Sherlock.

It's all about bargaining power. A close election would of course put the union in a poor bargaining position.

The larger the election result the greater the demands unions would be able to make.

And what about over time? Did they look at the differences in wages between non-union shops and union shops over time?

There might not be a difference early on, but if the union has time, differences are bound to emerge unless the shop stays divided.

I certainly hope they controlled for open versus closed union shop rules...if they didn't, they are engaged in junk science.

Wesley Clark has some very interesting ideas about the future of unions.  Here's what he said in a March 9 interview.

Well, I think that you've got to emphasize employment in this country, but to do that, I'm favoring - and I've been talking to some of the union leaders - about a new paradigm for American labor. You know, when there was an industrial army in the Industrial Age, and you had massed workforces, and when you couldn't off-shore produce and get away with it, because you didn't have to the communications and control of it, then labor had more bargaining power, and unions emerged to exploit labor's bargaining power. Today, that's not the case. Labor doesn't have that bargaining power in most instances. So, the purpose of joining together if you're working is not to go gouge your employer for more benefits. Maybe that is, but it may not work. What you really have to do is have some self-help societies so that the purpose of it is professional development for the workforce. So, everybody who comes in, even if they are just a high school graduate, they should be given a roadmap and a roadmap that says if you work here you get your next level of skill, you'll take some off-duty vo-tech courses and we'll - I said off duty, but that's because we did this in the military, and it works. You've got, you've got- The most precious gift you can give someone is aspirations and show them that there's a way to better themselves and their family. To move from point A to point B, you must do these things, and you can get there. That's what we need - help, because most people in the workforce have no help. A man came to me on an airplane past week. We were flying out of Little Rock. I asked him what the most, biggest problem was in America, He said, "Well, of course, Iraq." He said, "But it's employment." I said, "Well, why?" I said, "Are you unemployed?" He said, "No, because," he said, "I'm trapped in a job. I'm 53 years old, and I can't get out of this job. I'm, I'm gone 28 days a month. I can't get a pay raise. I can't quit, and I don't have time to find another job. And I've got five kids."

And that's what happens in America. We have a myth of labor force mobility, but it's mostly a myth. When you're right out of college, sure it's easy, but when you're married and have family obligations, kids in school and maybe your wife's got a job and you've got sick relatives, and this labor market mobility's not what it's cracked up to be. You need some professional assistance, and we need to form a new paradigm so that ordinary working men and women can get that professional assistance.