The Post of the Day is about ‘Right-to-Work’ laws
Grafic by Dan
Note from Dan: On Monday President Obama was in Michigan, where the legislature recently rammed through an anti-union “right to work’ law. The president termed it a “right to earn less” law. Regular Ron May added to that with some substantiation on the Tuesday OPEN thread. I didn’t want his post to get buried there. Here it is, below. Fyi, Virginia is among 24 states with such laws.
Below are the major points of a 2011 study of right-to-work states.
• Right-to-work laws have no impact in boosting economic growth: research shows that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth.
• Right-to-work laws have no significant impact on attracting employers to a particular state; surveys of employers show that “right to work” is a minor or non-existent factor in location decisions, and that higher-wage, hi-tech firms in particular generally prefer free-bargaining states.
• Right-to-work laws lower wages—for both union and nonunion workers alike—by an average of $1,500 per year, after accounting for the cost of living in each state.
• Right-to-work laws also decrease the likelihood that employees get either health insurance or pensions through their jobs—again, for both union and nonunion workers.
• By cutting wages, right-to-work laws threaten to undermine job growth by reducing the discretionary income people have to spend in the local retail, real estate, construction, and service industries. Every $1 million in wage cuts translates into an additional six jobs lost in the economy.
• With 85 percent of Michigan’s economy concentrated in health care, retail, education, and other non-manufacturing industries, widespread wage and benefit cuts could translate into significant negative spillover effects for the state’s economy.
December 12, 2012 - 11:00 AM
Well, I tend to fall on the conservative side of this particular issue. I do not think employees should be forced to join unions and I also think employers should have the ability to negotiate with their employees to urge them not to form unions.
I understand the power and strength that unions have held in the past and the good efforts they make on behalf of members still; however, I have no issue with right to work states. I live in one. I work in one. I think it is fine.
In states with RTW laws, income inequality is less. I believe people should have the choice as to whether they WANT to pay union dues or not. They should not be forced to pay them. And before everyone gets all crazy about that statement, my husband is a union member. He is a proud union member and I come from a family that has many members in the union. I don’t have anything against unions, I just don’t believe you should be forced to pay them if you don’t want to.
“Well, I tend to fall on the conservative side of this particular issue. I do not think employees should be forced to join unions and I also think employers should have the ability to negotiate with their employees to urge them not to form unions.”
Miriam, that’s not the question. Nobody is forced to join a union anywhere. In non-RTW states, employees ARE required to pay that PORTION of the union dues that covers the representation the union makes on their behalf in wage and benefit negotiations, which they benefit from. And under federal law, employers are required to honor union-scale wages for nonunion workers in union shops.
If RTW lawmakers were TRULY serious about their philosophy, they would repeal that law, and allow employers to pay nonunion employees whatever they wanted to, as negotiated separately between those nonunion workers and they employers.
“In states with RTW laws, income inequality is less.”
Conservative, how would you document that statement?
Thank you for explaining that Dan. I obviously need to learn more before I run off at the mouth; however, I doubt it will change my opinion.
hey ron,
I’m sure that you realize that the EPI was founded by Robert Reich…and to use that lib-think-tank-tool as somehow a credible source which provides un-biased and meaningful information is kinda like asking ol’ dan to present his views on the subject…and, ol’ dan is “biased as hell”.
hey dan,
if “no one is forced to join a union anywhere”, then, …why are the unions all pissed off about…, well, whatever it is that they’re pissed off about?
Dan, a study I posted one of the threads had found some evidence, though not terribly definitive, that non-RTW states had union wages that were higher than in RTW states, but that the non-union workers in the same states got wages lower than the RTW states. It balances out, according to what they found…that the higher union wages come at the expense of non-union workers.
In general, I’m not favorable toward compulsory membership or compulsory dues payments. It should be entirely voluntary. But, by the same token, those employees should have to work with the employer on changes to wages and benefits directly, unless they wish to pay the union folks to do it for them…in which case, they should just join.
Unions still have a place at the table in many industries, but they got very complacent and fat/happy when the economy boomed, and in many ways their reluctance to accept changes in the labor marketplace have cost workers their jobs. It’s not ideal, but sometimes a pay cut is better than getting no pay at all. And unfortunately, with the global economy and global competition in manufacturing, telecom, technology, etc…our wage base has to decline to remain competitive. It ain’t ideal or pretty, but that’s the new economic reality. I just wish the executives weren’t padding their pay while cutting every else’s though…
Liberals are only “pro choice” when it comes to abortion. Workers should be forced to line the wallets of union bosses with no say in the matter.
Indiana and Michigan are gone. The rest of the dominos will fall rapidly. In the global economy, we no longer have the luxury of enriching union bosses.
Post of the day. . .sounds like liberal talking points. Seems that if the effect is to reduce wages (by $1,500 per year) plus reduce benefits required to be offered from employers then right to work statutes must stimulate business and attract new business over states that don’t have such. Further, not sure the employee is affected. . .news article about
Michigan indicated Union dues were around $900.00 per year which can be saved by opting out in a right to work state. Go Right to Work! ! !
Another case of different info from different sources.
Nightly news (national) last night on channel 7 said that employees in RTW states avg $300 more annually than non RTW states (pro). Also mentioned that 2 states with highest unemployment are RTW states (con). Apparently everyone decides what they want to say beforehand, and then make the math work to that favor. Math is math, and that is what should be reported, not ‘new’ math that fits the person’s agenda.
I am hesitant to believe anything i’m told. If it’s an important issue to me, i will do my own investigation to reach the truth. It’s out there somewhere. I just have to find it.
A big factor is missing from that study. In virtually all RTW states, the cost of living is significantly lower than in forced union states. Therefore, the wage difference is more than offset with affordable housing and buying power.
Dan, why was Big Labor exempted from Obamacare by Obama?
Great post, Ron, and a very deserving “Post of the Day.”.
If RTW lawmakers were TRULY serious about their philosophy, they would repeal that law, and allow employers to pay nonunion employees whatever they wanted to, as negotiated separately between those nonunion workers and they employers.
Yes, let’s do that. How many union employees do we think companies would then hire?
Have we had a thread on the conservative guy getting beaten by the union thugs? I know the CPUSA/MSM isn’t real interested in that story.
Dan:
Tom Walsh’s editorial in the Detroit Free Press is pretty good:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312120134
Simply put, attracting new companies and higher worker pay does not correlate to whether you have RTW laws or not, it depends on the educational attainment of their workers. States that invest in education attract companies that need highly qualified employees.
So refute the “lib-think-tank-tool” information Frank, or Conservative. That is the purpose of a discussion. Show us why you are right.
Frank, I’m sure you read the study, right?
No, I didn’t think so.
There are many sources out there, but here is one that I have read:
http://www.mackinac.org/4309
So, can we assume from this stance that Dan will be forming a Union aat the RT ?
sandi,
for several years i ran a unionized closed-shop business in washington, dc. the union was the united food and commercial workers’ union. my company owned and operated 1 business in dc which was unionized, and 5 locations in suburban washington, dc which weren’t unionized (1 in virginia and 4 in maryland).
the ufcws managed to negotiate a contract with my company which resulted in their dues-paying worker’s in my business to get the same pay as the non-union workers’ in the suburbs, …along with lower benefits. And, my employees got $14 deducted from their paychecks every two weeks…vs the folks in the suburbs not having to pay dues, and at the same time got better benefits than my employees.
why, you might ask, did the union negotiate such a stupid contract for their “members”? Well, because my company agreed to give the union “dues check off”, which meant that the union didn’t have to collect dues from their workers…my company did it for them by deducting the dues from their paychecks and mailing the dues to the union on a monthly basis.
pretty slick on the union’s part, eh?
i realized right then and there what unions are good for. nuthin.
Union thugs destroyed a man’s small business in Michigan. Workers rights indeed.
http://danaloeschradio.com/union-thugs-destroy-hot-dog-stand/
The unions are corrupt and they have existed because they were able to get laws passed that forced workers to pay them, whether the worker wanted to pay or not. Now the workers in Michigan have a choice whether to pay the union.
More union thuggary http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/fox-news-contributor-punched-in-face-at-pro-union-protests-in-michigan/
Imagine if the Tea Party had done something like this. Well, Dan would be able to talk about.
If you do not want to pay union dues, do not work at a union represented company. No one forces you to do that, certainly not with shrinking union representation everywhere. It is a bogus argument. You are not entitled to a job anywhere. It is wrong to work someplace and enjoy the union gained wages, benefits and protections without having to contribute as the union members do. This is all about busting unions and giving management ALL of the power in negotiating with workers. There are fields, like manufacturing where this will simply kill labor, as is the purpose. We have more than enough low wage jobs, adding to them will not make us stronger.
This effort, weakens workers everywhere, as intended and will do nothing to get business to relocate or open. That is the fallacy that was bought, not the reality that is.
“If you do not want to pay union dues, do not work at a union represented company.”
Way to throw right-wing reasoning right back at them. Can’t count the number of times suzie and others have said exactly the same thing about other matters, including where one works. But somehow that line of thought falls by the wayside for them when it comes to union shops.
If you do not want to pay union dues, do not work at a union represented company. Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 12, 2012 @ 1:39 pm
In an economy with real unemployment of 14 to 15% why should anyone seeking a job have to cross a potential employer off of the list because
of a union? It is a free country. Right to Work levels the playing field. BTW, Sandi, right to work hasn’t killed labor in Virginia.
” Seems that if the effect is to reduce wages (by $1,500 per year) plus reduce benefits required to be offered from employers then right to work statutes must stimulate business and attract new business over states that don’t have such. ”
Leon,
Mississippi is a right to work state, with the highest poverty level in the country. Why don’t you tell us how it’s working down there?
#15 Beaten by union thugs (plural)? You mean the guy who was hit once by one guy after he spent part of the day taunting and antagonizing union members in hopes that one of them would get angry? The one who hasn’t filed a police report?
Wasn’t Detroit in a non-RTW state last year? How did that go?
“In an economy with real unemployment of 14 to 15% why should anyone seeking a job have to cross a potential employer off of the list because
of a union? ”
I agree, which is why we don’t let companies determine which protected classes they’re going to afford protections for and which they are not. A person in a wheelchair or a gay employee should be free to work anywhere with the expectation of fair and equal treatment. They should not have to cross any employer off the list.
It really cracks me up when liberals cite studies from organizations who suggest they are “non partisan”. This “study” was done by Gordon Lafer, who’s area of expertise is????
Wait hold your breath…
Here it comes….
You guessed it… UNION ORGANIZING
http://www.epi.org/people/gordon-lafer/
LMAO…
“It really cracks me up when liberals cite studies from organizations who suggest they are “non partisan”. This “study” was done by Gordon Lafer, who’s area of expertise is? . . .UNION ORGANIZING.”
–Comment by mikeO
When an author of a study has a known agenda to a cause or point of view, it means the facts and conclusions of the study deserve some extra scrutiny. And if that reveals the fact/conclusions are incorrect, that is how you dispute the study. Note: NOT ONE poster here has disputed facts or conclusion cited in the study in question.
When they can’t argue the facts, they argue the people who listed them. It’s that simple. It’s simply another version of the logical fallacy, ad hominem.
Not that they care, tho.
Wow, mike O, you hit the nail right on the head — academics like this associate professor have specialties. You also forgot some of his other areas of expertise:
Labor Law • Collective Bargaining • Job Creation Policy • Employment Training • Labor Standards in International Trade Treaties
Now what were the specific facts that he has wrong?
This is for pammala, and hey frank,
There is a factory in Northern Minnesota that makes Tickle Me Elmo toys. The toy laughs when you tickle it under the arm. Here is a true story.:
Lena was hired at the factory and she reported for her 1st day promptly at 8:00 a.m. The following day, at 8:45 there was a knock at the personnel manager’s door. The foreman from the assembly line threw open the door and began to rant about his new employee, Lena. He complained that she was incredibly slow and that the entire production line was behind schedule and backing up!
The personnel manager decided he should see this for himself, so the two men marched down to the factory floor. When they got there, the line was so backed up, there were Tickle Me Elmos all over the factory floor and they were really beginning to pile up. At the end of the line stood Lena, surrounded by mountains of Tickle Me Elmos.
She had a roll of plush red fabric and a huge bag of small marbles. The two men watched in amazement as she cut a little piece of fabric, wrapped it around two marbles and began carefully to sew the little package between Elmo’s legs.
The personnel manager stared for a few seconds, saw what was happening, and burst into laughter. After several minutes of hysterics, he pulled himself together and approached Lena. “I’m sorry,” he said to her. Barely able to keep a straight face, he said, ” I think you misunderstood the instructions given you yesterday. Your job is to give each Elmo two test tickles…”
gdad,
The video is available if you care to watch.
Or maybe you don’t need to since you seem to know what was going on “antagonizing union members”; I guess you were there…
Apparently you missed the part where after being punched another protester grabbed his jacket from behind while other union members were cutting down a tent (with men, women and disabled people inside).
But hey, in your opinion he “antagonized” them so they had a “right” to punch the guy out (would that be a union negotiated “right”?); I don’t think a civil society agrees with your assertion. I guess you also agree with Hoffa that we should have a “civil war”?
I often wonder why it is that liberal “protests” so often include violence and mayhem. We see it with OWS and we see it with unions. I also wonder what you might think if chris matthews got punched in the face at a tea party rally.
If not for “double standards” uber-liberals would have none…
Btw… he is pressing charges, as soon as police do the “difficult” job of finding the person.
Oops, sory about that. I posted my comment at 4:48 on the wrong thread. It should have been posted on the Tuesday open thread.
I have always been conflicted regarding unions. I worked in Soutwest Virginia in the mid-1980s and saw unionized coal mines shut down for an entire shift because one union employee called in sick. Apparently, the union contract did not allow someone else to do that miner’s job to keep the operation going. However, I am fully cognizant of the good, the wide-spread good, organized labor has brought to all American workers. It has been a conflict I wrestled with until now. Until companies started posting record profits and shareholders got amazingly rich while the commitment to employees sharply declined. Is not the greatest asset of a company its employees?
What is not terribly confounding is the wage gap between management and labor. Ron posted a link on another thread illustrating the gap between the CEO of McDonald’s and a man working at one of their Chicago stores – something like $8.5 million per year to around $10,000 per year. With disparity like this, we need organized labor. The folks running companies prove time and again, with few exceptions, they will line their own pockets at the expense of the company’s solvency. Mitt Romney is a rich man, but this very practice probably cost his the White House. In this climate, we need labor unions, or so it seems to me.
Dan,
Others have already posted facts refuting your “expert’s” assertions; in cites and personal experience.
Here is another:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=102913
I understand that liberals have problems with simple math and reality but I will try to explain for you.
Although I disagree let’s “assume” that union workers make 20% more than non-union workers, and using simple round number that is 20/hr vs 16/hr (givens).
Company “A” has a plant in a “union” state employing 100 workers @41,600/yr (or 4,160,000 payroll/yr) vs no-nunion @ (3,328,000/yr). Company “A” will go out of business if it can’t compete so it must move “overseas” (thereby taking all money out of U.S. economy) or to a more competitive state (let’s say VA) where it’s payroll is 832k less (let’s say it moves to a non union state).
The results= Union state now has 100 less jobs 4mil less in local economy and 100 more families on taxpayer assistance (another drain on economy).
You can change the factors to your liking but the results are the same. If it were not so you would not be able to do a simple real estate search in Detroit and find 1k (3 br) houses for sale for less than 10k (when I was looking for my first house I was paying 4 times my yearly pay, I would love to have gotten one for 1/3rd of my pay).
Citing labor organization stats from someone who specializes in analysing the results of organization ? Crazy. What next…consulting doctors on medicine? Meteorologists on the weather? Where will it end?
hey Debbie,
…VERY well done!
Citing labor organization stats from someone who specializes in analysing the results of organization ? Crazy. What next…consulting doctors on medicine? Meteorologists on the weather? Where will it end?
I know what you mean. The libs used to screech about oil man George W. Bush making energy policy. It’s so much better now having a guy making decisions who knows nothing about nothing.
You mean the guy who was hit once by one guy
Hit once? Better count again.
http://blogdogcicle.blogspot.com/2012/12/union-guys-beat-up-fox-reporter-in.html
Ah, but what’s a little thug violence when it’s done by the left? It’s not nearly as serious as Rush and Sarah Palin causing a leftwinger to shoot Gabby Giffords because of something they didn’t say.
Thanks for all the comments folks. I’m glad I was able, with Dan’s help, to generate some thinking on a really critical issue confronting our country right now. I know we don’t all agree and that’s fine. Nonetheless, we have to think about what’s equitable treatment of employees. When we accomplish that our economy will grow. Believe me it will.
I’ve been busy with one event or another since breakfast this morning. It was a productive day for the college I lead.
#41 While even one blow is too many, I counted three ATTEMPTS by one guy (not guys plural) and then a union guy blocked any more. It appeared that one blow landed. You said he was beaten by thugs (plural). The story I read said they guy who got hit said it was one guy.
Anyway, suzie, I thought it worth pointing out that you’re once again exaggerating. Also called lying by some. But then, it’s all a game, right?
mike O, the guy has admitted he was purposely antagonizing them and was hoping for a reaction of some sort. I didn’t make that up.
He was not beaten up by multiple thugs, as suzie exaggerated. He was punched by one idiot who should be charged.
My right to work is exercised daily excluding vacations,family time, down time, and counting my blessings which are being appreciated more each day!!Glad I’m not on anyone elses time but mine.Exclusively mine.Carry on.
So the Michigan Governor claimed to not have this issue on his agenda and then gets the legislature to sneak it in for a vote with no discussion.
What an abortion of democracy. How about the state employees? Did they get an exception along and teachers, police, firemen and other state employees?
Good lord I can’t wait for the backlash to hit state legislation’s in 2013 and 2014. The GOP sees power slipping away and is going to ruin this country on its way down. With all the gerrymandering in the GOP state controlled legislators, we need to get together and move into GOP districts and upset the apple cart. It may be the only way to overcome the cheaters.
“So the Michigan Governor claimed to not have this issue on his agenda and then gets the legislature to sneak it in for a vote with no discussion.
What an abortion of democracy. How about the state employees? Did they get an exception along and teachers, police, firemen and other state employees?
Good lord I can’t wait for the backlash to hit state legislation’s in 2013 and 2014. The GOP sees power slipping away and is going to ruin this country on its way down. With all the gerrymandering in the GOP state controlled legislators, we need to get together and move into GOP districts and upset the apple cart. It may be the only way to overcome the cheaters.”
Cold, this is the stuff they talk about at the Club for Growth (or is it Clods for Growth?) confabs and the Koch Bros. picnics for multimillionaires.
The unions have to get roughly 260,000 signatures on petitions to put the Michigan RTW law to referendum. I don’t think it will stand (remember the Ohio teachers debacle that left Kasich eating crow). The masses are striking back — in elections and referendums. The RWers have gone too far, and the people aren’t going to put with it.
Is it that some folks have no common sense or just that they refuse to use it?
If this law is so beneficial to workers, why are there tens of thousands of workers protesting it?
If this law is so helpful to business why are there so many businesses competing in non “right-to-work” states? Why don’t the non-union businesses kick their butts?
Why would anyone confront and bait an angry crowd?
This law was about breaking unions (workers) and about the power of big business, you cheer that at your own risk. Not that I expect many to be bright enough to grasp that truth. Workers have been losing for well over two decades and when the only thing left is wages and benefits, they are the natural target.
You will never solve our economic woes by workers making less money, having less benefits and losing more jobs, so I cannot applaud the “brilliance” of anyone supporting this action.
Mike O, I’ll see your “Hoffa civil war” and raise you one Trump Revolution, but this hating on workers is going to end badly.
I don’t condone anybody attacking anybody, but when you deliberately try to provoke at minimum a verbal reaction (and with the knowledge that you might provoke a physical one), don’t be stunned or get all high and mighty when you do provoke a reaction.
Ah for the good old days when company “detectives” or union busters were mowing down those unruly mobs.
“Is it that some folks have no common sense or just that they refuse to use it?
If this law is so beneficial to workers, why are there tens of thousands of workers protesting it?
If this law is so helpful to business why are there so many businesses competing in non “right-to-work” states? Why don’t the non-union businesses kick their butts?”
Sandi makes some interesting points.
Why are there no unemployed-but-union-hating workers demonstrating en masse in support of right-to-work laws?
Why are most of the people who support RTW businessmen and fatcats who support labor rights-despising candidates?
I have always considered right to work state is another way to say right to screw you state. I keep saying it but I think we might be heading in or already there as to a Gilded Age, maybe we could call it Gilded Age 2.0
I don’t see what some people hate unions. In the musician union 1000 you get protected by your contracts and the clubs can’t screw you. If they do the union takes them to court. Believe me it has and is being done to artist as to not getting paid. I can get discounts and they pack a little money aside when I get older. So if you do not like the word union put in insurance.
Sandi,
Re: 1:45pm
In case you missed it, Michigan voters defeated the collective bargaining proposal 58% to 42% and as some liberals say… “the election is over, and your side lost, so this a mandate for RTW”.
This issue is about “choice”; the voters made a choice, the legislature made a choice and now workers have a choice; any liberal should appreciate that.
Re: Hoffa/trump… difference is that trump does not have thousands of thugs that will riot and physically attack media and others who disagree.
Finally re: “hating on workers is going to end badly”.
Apparently you refuse or cannot understand that no business = no workers = zero pay = taxpayer dole.
Sure taxpayers bailed out GM; or more accurately, the union bosses; since bondholders/stockholders got completely screwed. But that is not sustainable.
Actually I understand your passion, but your facts are ill founded. If you can bring yourself to realistically run the numbers and look at the “big picture” you will find they don’t match up with your vision of “reality”.
Dan.
Re:3:04
Are you suggesting that 58% of the voters (see post for sandi) are “businessmen and fatcats”?
Really?? Think about that, logically, for just one minute and get back with us.
Have you ever considered that the 58% are just “regular people”, who (if they have jobs) just want to go to work and (if they don’t have jobs) don’t feel obligated to protest, or might fear the “thugs” that the unions turn out?
Remember these folks would be happy to have a “job” and be able to pay their mortgage, while the union workers want to be able to smoke dope and drink beer at lunch without consequence (you can look that up).
I imagine these folks believed they “turned out” when they voted against the union position.
Are you supporting hoffa’s position of a “civil war”? if so I am sure these folks will turn out “en masse” and the cowardly “thugs” will run away.
As an aside; have you ever considered these peoples position? They look at their “union” employed neighbor cooking steaks every night on the grill, while they themselves are unemployed and trying to figure out how to make payments on a home that is worth pennies on the dollar?
An interesting comparison for liberals would be that the “union” folks are the 2% of workers while the “others” are left languishing,
Well, I guess that my comment started a rebust discussion about Right To Work legislation and what, in my view, its bad impacts on our economy. We’ve discussed unions and how bad they are, at least in the view of some. Below is a link that all of you should read & think about. It gives you at least 5 things you should thank unions for.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/05/148930/top-five-things-unions/?mobile=nc
“rebust discussion” I hope you know that should have been “robust discussion.”
RonMay, there’s a company that advertises in Roanoke called “Rebath”. Your “rebust” brought that to mind.
Mike O, you may know all the voters in Michigan but the truth remains that defeating an effort to make a change in a state’s constitution is not the same as defeating unions or supporting RTW.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/business/in-michigan-a-setback-for-unions.html?pagewanted=all
This effort is and will be heavily funded by big business and the only thing that will change is more employees who cannot afford to buy the products they make. Henry Ford knew that was the wrong way to run a business and this nation is bearing the fruits of that effort.
What is it you have against workers?
The masses are striking back
Actually…. the masses are not being heard. Elections are being stolen.
What you’re seeing right now in Michigan and will be seeing in a number of other states controlled by Republican legislatures and radical Governors in the next sisx months is full blown panic. They have these radical, anti union, anti women, social agendas and suddenly they see the writing on the wall that the country is rejecting this radicalism. So they are rushing to try to put all of that agenda into place before the butt kicking that is coming their way soon.They have alienated women, and awakened the sleeping giant of organized labor and the consequences are coming.
“So they are rushing to try to put all of that agenda into place before the butt kicking that is coming their way soon.”
And they don’t care how badly they damage the rest of the country doing it.