It has nothing to do with average performance and everything to do with the managerial class reducing the costs of labor. The situation I describe is similar to a situation in which Ford and GM in Detroit saying that we are going to cut our workforce in two. Half will be paid at 1/4 the rate of the other half and will only be hired half time. The half that are paid 1/4 of the rate and only work half time at GM are in need of money so they go get another half time job at Ford. Vice versa with the Ford workers. Labor costs are dramatically reduced even though the size of the workforce has not changed. Of course the auto unions would not let this happen whereas in the last 20 years this is exactly what has happened in higher education.
The Reagan years produced a corporate culture in which it became acceptable to fire workers and hire them back as consultants with no job security and lower labor costs to the company. Higher ed followed suite.
It used to be that corporate power controlled it's labor costs with guns and the Baldwin Felts agency. Nowadays, guns are not as socially acceptable but the basic relationship between management and labor remains unchanged, only constrained by legal limits and the ability to pay lawyers.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Very good chance they are paid overtime on the weekends.
I too worked more weekends than anybody I knew but at time and one half for the first 8 hrs. and double time after 8 hrs. on saturday and
doubletime all day sunday I was well compensated In my situation the company needed you to work the union only set the pay rate, everybody was happy.

Of course they are going to reduce the cost of labor, that's their job and their responsibility to the owners/stockholders. I'm not sure I would use the US auto industry as an example of successful union action, things didn't turn out so well for them. I do understand that manufacturing workers are (unsuccessfully) trying to hold on to the last little bit of work in the US, but I still have trouble understanding the motivation of professional workers.

Sooner or late we all figure out that it's easy to make money; but it's harder to make money doing something we really enjoy. I'm not sure I could enjoy a job where I felt the employer was being forced to pay me a fair wage. If they don't feel like they are getting a very good deal, I probably belong someplace else. I quit my last job ten years ago and became a consultant because I was able to double my income and I like the freedom. Job security is overrated, I'll take the cash. Anyone can figure out how to make themselves indispensable to their employer; if they are a commodity that can be easily replaced, they are probably in the wrong job. I feel that folks with the advantage of an advanced education are capable of looking out for themselves in the job market.

US higher education is in an international competition for the best students (and doing pretty well), if they lose talented people due to cost cutting they will have to adjust their tactics or they will lose market. The folks doing the teaching are the product being sold to the students, I find it unfortunate that they would have to resort to a union to have their employers recognize their value. If that is the case, maybe they should consider teaching elsewhere in the world.

That's like expecting auto workers to move to Mexico or China.
Education is different, it can't be outsourced to another country, except insofar as students are sent overseas.
I don't see much of a problem at all with a difference between what the managerial class sees as a fair wage and what the working class sees as a fair wage. There's always been a difference between those two groups on what counts as 'fair' based on class differences.
Just a simple example. The principal at the school where my wife teaches, called a department chair meeting to be held last Saturday. The principal thought it was fair to do this, my wife thought it was unfair to expect teachers to work on their day off when their contract clearly states they don't have to work that day? The principal thought it was fair because she was trying to get department chairs to do certain things to meet the school's goal, so the principal could get her promised bonus for meeting the goal. The principal routinely fires teachers who disagree with her policy. The only way for teachers to get their side a voice in this kind of situation is to unionize. My wife loves teaching. Why should she move into another field or tolerate the bullying of her principal? This kind of treatment occurs everyday in most businesses where employees are subject to the will of managers. Why not resist if you find your work valuable to you?
I think society would be far better off if the power difference between the managerial class and the working class were reduced. In the meantime, unions serve the interests of the working class and are necessary to maintain or increase wages and to resist arbitrary power.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13