Arizona says NO to Obamacare

[sealybobo]

Right to work states
Basically union busting states...

Business interests led by the Chamber of Commerce lobbied extensively for right-to-work legislation in the Southern states. Critics from organized labor have argued since the late 1970's that while the National Right to Work Committee purports to engage in grass-roots lobbying on behalf of the "little guy", the National Right to Work Committee was formed by a group of southern businessmen with the express purpose of fighting unions, and that they "added a few workers for the purpose of public relations." They also argue that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has received millions of dollars in grants from foundations controlled by major U.S. industrialists like the New York based John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. which grew out of a family manufacturing business, and other "right wing" groups.

Opponents further argue that because unions are weakened by these laws, wages are lowered and worker safety and health is endangered. They cite statistics from the United States Department of Labor showing, for example, that in 2003 the rate of workplace fatalities per 100,000 workers was highest in right-to-work states.
wiki

WOW...the right to work for LESS $$ and the right to work in hazardous conditions to DIE in the workplace...

And, YOU have the right to be a pea brain...

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru

AKA, no right to your job states.

AKA right to fire states.

Right to work is soooo misleading. That's putting a positive spin on an anti labor thing.

Albert Camus said: "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners."

PEA brains don't think...they blurt out emotions steeped in FEAR...

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

No one should be voting because of racism, god, guns, abortion, gays.

If the GOP lost the wedge issues, they would have to completely change their tactics to win votes.

Now I can't say that national security isn't important, but it too is a way the GOP gets voters to vote against their own better financial interests. As if the GOP care enough to keep us safe.

And people who make $50K don't know that they might be costing themselves an extra $10K a year by voting for the anti labor party. I can't prove that, but I do know many people are making less than they were in 1999.

 

[Navy1960]

They [Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and promise to cure it. They've cured it so often that they've now made a profession of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, on aiding victims, and so forth. It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business. No matter how many programs are set up and operating, their proponents never claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved, meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being.
Ronald Wilson Reagan

"Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."


--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852


So enough with the quotes, both party's have their ideas as well, so spare me this notion of how the Democratic party is for the poor working man. If the democratic party had cared anything about the poor working man then they would have never signed the China Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, or a whole host of other trade agreements that led to outsourcing in the first place. As for the bill in Arizona I take it none you actually read it, other than scanned the article. The bill does not restrict anyone from signing up for a Federal Govt. sponsored health insurance program should it come to that. It simply asserts Arizona citizens rights to choose whatever Doctor or health plan they wish without interference from any party.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Barack Obama

The Arizona Law is simply enforcing Barack Obamas words, so now your all being contrary for the sake of being contrary? One other thing the law does, is take away any possible mandates from he Federal Govt. as it applies to healthcare and leaves that choice up to the citizens of the state of Arizona.

As for the "Right to Work" laws, I frankly find it surprising everytime someone who claims these states including my own are anti-union. In fact, "Right to Work States" are much less restrictive and a LOT more worker friendly than the so called Union states. If you are a worker here, you have the right to choose your employeer and to join or NOT to join a Union regardless of the employer. Further if you look at the latest unemployment numbers, what are the some of the highest states with unemployment? MI. which is a Union state, R.I.,CA.,Oh. Granted some Right to work states have numbers that are high too like Nv., S.C. and Fl. but some of the lowest numbers are in "right to work states as well. Now granted the wages in the Union states are higher, but high wages mean nothing if you price yourself out of a job, or the cost of living is so high that the wages don't meet your needs. So before anyone who has no idea what a "right to work state" really is judges it, I'd suggest you look into it. Want some examples, Here in Arizona, Boeing builds the Apache Attack Helicopter, most of the workers that work for Boeing on the line there are UAW members and they are members by choice!! Thats the key word "choice".


Right to work or employment without membership in labor organization

No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of non-membership in a labor organization. (Addition approved election Nov. 5, 1946, eff. Nov. 25, 1946; amended November 30, 1982.)

I's suggest rather than just scanning the surface of an issue and taking as the gospel truth what your party tells you. That ocasionally it might not hurt to actually do some research and make up your own mind.

 

[sealybobo]

Navy the conspiracy theorist.

 

[Navy1960]

Navy the conspiracy theorist.

*laughs* Good one!! going to give you a pos. rep. for that one!! made me laugh.

 

[sealybobo]

Navy the conspiracy theorist.

*laughs* Good one!! going to give you a pos. rep. for that one!! made me laugh.

We rarely call you guys conspiracy theorists. How's it feel when you know in your heart what you are saying is true but you can't exactly prove it and someone dismisses your points by simply calling you that?

I hate it.

PS. Cheney sent the anthrax, we never landed on the moon, THEY let 9-11 happen so they could invade Iraq and they stole the election.

 

[Navy1960]

Navy the conspiracy theorist.

*laughs* Good one!! going to give you a pos. rep. for that one!! made me laugh.

We rarely call you guys conspiracy theorists. How's it feel when you know in your heart what you are saying is true but you can't exactly prove it and someone dismisses your points by simply calling you that?

I hate it.

PS. Cheney sent the anthrax, we never landed on the moon, THEY let 9-11 happen so they could invade Iraq and they stole the election.

Whats interesting here sealy, though there is NOTHING you have ever posted I cannot disprove with data and have each time you post something. I have a feeling thats why my posts attract your attention so much, because you really want to learn the truth but are afraid to admit it. Take for example " right to work" you quoted the line " union busting" well if that were the case then in Arizona there would be no Unions as a result, care to see some info.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provisional estimates, in July 2003 the seasonally adjusted civilian labor force in Arizona numbered 2,674,200, with approximately 163,800 workers unemployed, yielding an unemployment rate of 6.1%, compared to the national average of 6.2% for the same period. Since the beginning of the BLS data series in 1978, the highest unemployment rate recorded was 11.7% in February 1983. The historical low was 3.7% in January 2001. In 2001, an estimated 7.8% of the labor force was employed in construction; 9.5% in manufacturing; 5.4% in transportation, communications, and public utilities; 20.2% in trade; 7.5% in finance, insurance, and real estate; 22.6% in services; 16.4% in government; and 2.6% in agriculture.

Organized labor has a long history in Arizona. A local of the Western Federation of Miners was founded in 1896, and labor was a powerful force at the constitutional convention in 1910. Nevertheless, the state's work force is much less organized than that of the nation as a whole. The US Department of Labor reported that in 2002, 120,000 of Arizona's 2,184,000 employed wage and salary workers were members of unions. This represented 5.5% of those so employed, down from 5.9% in 2001. The national average is 13.2%. In all, 144,000 workers (6.6%) were represented by unions. In addition to union members, this category includes workers who report no union affiliation but whose jobs are covered by a union contract. Arizona is one of 22 states with a right-to-work law.


The point here is this, ALL those people made the choice to join the Union sealy I know thats a jhard concept to get your hands on considering you come from MI. but here, if someone does not want to be a Union member they do not have to be. One more thing, I find it interesting that if something does not fit into that "party" talking points, there automatically has to be something amiss. This is not a theory, thats a fact!! I'm sorry if it does not fit in with the talking points, but sadly for you it's true. ..

 

[Bfgrn]

They [Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and promise to cure it. They've cured it so often that they've now made a profession of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, on aiding victims, and so forth. It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business. No matter how many programs are set up and operating, their proponents never claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved, meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being.
Ronald Wilson Reagan

"Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."


--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852


So enough with the quotes, both party's have their ideas as well, so spare me this notion of how the Democratic party is for the poor working man. If the democratic party had cared anything about the poor working man then they would have never signed the China Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, or a whole host of other trade agreements that led to outsourcing in the first place. As for the bill in Arizona I take it none you actually read it, other than scanned the article. The bill does not restrict anyone from signing up for a Federal Govt. sponsored health insurance program should it come to that. It simply asserts Arizona citizens rights to choose whatever Doctor or health plan they wish without interference from any party.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Barack Obama

The Arizona Law is simply enforcing Barack Obamas words, so now your all being contrary for the sake of being contrary? One other thing the law does, is take away any possible mandates from he Federal Govt. as it applies to healthcare and leaves that choice up to the citizens of the state of Arizona.

As for the "Right to Work" laws, I frankly find it surprising everytime someone who claims these states including my own are anti-union. In fact, "Right to Work States" are much less restrictive and a LOT more worker friendly than the so called Union states. If you are a worker here, you have the right to choose your employeer and to join or NOT to join a Union regardless of the employer. Further if you look at the latest unemployment numbers, what are the some of the highest states with unemployment? MI. which is a Union state, R.I.,CA.,Oh. Granted some Right to work states have numbers that are high too like Nv., S.C. and Fl. but some of the lowest numbers are in "right to work states as well. Now granted the wages in the Union states are higher, but high wages mean nothing if you price yourself out of a job, or the cost of living is so high that the wages don't meet your needs. So before anyone who has no idea what a "right to work state" really is judges it, I'd suggest you look into it. Want some examples, Here in Arizona, Boeing builds the Apache Attack Helicopter, most of the workers that work for Boeing on the line there are UAW members and they are members by choice!! Thats the key word "choice".


Right to work or employment without membership in labor organization

No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of non-membership in a labor organization. (Addition approved election Nov. 5, 1946, eff. Nov. 25, 1946; amended November 30, 1982.)

I's suggest rather than just scanning the surface of an issue and taking as the gospel truth what your party tells you. That ocasionally it might not hurt to actually do some research and make up your own mind.

How foolish of me...of COURSE, industrialists and corporations are only looking out for the workers...

"Right to work" has nothing to do with a right to a job or employment. The deceptively named "right to work" laws ban workers—who by a majority vote decided to form a union in their workplace—and employers from negotiating union security clauses. By law, unions must represent all workers—members and nonmembers—in contract negotiations and other workplace issues.

A "right to work" law would allow nonmember workers to get all the benefits of union membership and pay nothing, while forcing unions and their members to foot the bill for those not willing to pay their share. The result is weaker unions with inadequate re-sources to represent members.

It's no coincidence that some employer groups, Big Business and ultraconservative lawmakers back "right to work" laws because such laws weaken unions and in turn
depress wages. Studies show that workers in "right to Work" states earn significantly less, while workers in non-"right to work" states earn significantly more. A primary reason is that workers with a union contract earn higher pay—weakening unions lowers average pay. Workers of color and women workers who are union members make significantly higher wages.

The average worker in a "right to work" state earns about $5,333 less a year than workers in other states. (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001)

Hispanic union members earn 45 percent ($180) more a week than nonunion Hispanic workers. (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2002 )

African Americans earn 30 percent ($140) more a week if they are union members. (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2002)

Union women earn 30 percent more ($149) a week than nonunion women. (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2002)

It's not just about unions, but communities too

"Right to work" laws reach far beyond wages. Quality-of-life issues such as health care, education, worker safety and poverty suffer greatly in "right to work" states.

In "right to work" states 21 percent more people are without health insurance compared with those in free-bargaining states. (source: State Rankings 2000, A Statistical View of the 50 United States, Morgan Quinto Press)

"Right to work" states spend $1,699 less per elementary and secondary pupil than other states. (source: Education Vital Signs, 2000–2001 school year)

The infant mortality rate in “right to work” states is 17 percent higher than in other states, and the poverty rate is 12.5 percent compared with 10.2 percent in other states. (source: State Rankings 2000, A Statistical View of the 50 United States, Morgan Quinto Press; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2002)

The rate of workplace death is 51 percent higher in "right to work" states. (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001; AFL-CIO, "Death on the Job," April 2002)
http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/AFLCIO%20on%20RTW%20.pdf

1956 Republican Party Platform

Labor

Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."

The Eisenhower Administration has brought to our people the highest employment, the highest wages and the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by any nation. Today there are nearly 67 million men and women at work in the United States, 4 million more than in 1952. Wages have increased substantially over the past 3 1/2 years; but, more important, the American wage earner today can buy more than ever before for himself and his family because his pay check has not been eaten away by rising taxes and soaring prices.

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.

Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding.

We applaud the effective, unhindered, collective bargaining which brought an early end to the 1956 steel strike, in contrast to the six months' upheaval, Presidential seizure of the steel industry and ultimate Supreme Court intervention under the last Democrat Administration.

The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955 and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act. The Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked these needed changes by parliamentary maneuvers. The Republican Party pledges itself to overhaul and improve the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines of these recommendations.

 

[Nik]

They [Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and promise to cure it. They've cured it so often that they've now made a profession of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, on aiding victims, and so forth. It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business. No matter how many programs are set up and operating, their proponents never claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved, meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being.
Ronald Wilson Reagan

"Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."


--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852


So enough with the quotes, both party's have their ideas as well, so spare me this notion of how the Democratic party is for the poor working man. If the democratic party had cared anything about the poor working man then they would have never signed the China Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, or a whole host of other trade agreements that led to outsourcing in the first place. As for the bill in Arizona I take it none you actually read it, other than scanned the article. The bill does not restrict anyone from signing up for a Federal Govt. sponsored health insurance program should it come to that. It simply asserts Arizona citizens rights to choose whatever Doctor or health plan they wish without interference from any party.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Barack Obama

The Arizona Law is simply enforcing Barack Obamas words, so now your all being contrary for the sake of being contrary? One other thing the law does, is take away any possible mandates from he Federal Govt. as it applies to healthcare and leaves that choice up to the citizens of the state of Arizona.

As for the "Right to Work" laws, I frankly find it surprising everytime someone who claims these states including my own are anti-union. In fact, "Right to Work States" are much less restrictive and a LOT more worker friendly than the so called Union states. If you are a worker here, you have the right to choose your employeer and to join or NOT to join a Union regardless of the employer. Further if you look at the latest unemployment numbers, what are the some of the highest states with unemployment? MI. which is a Union state, R.I.,CA.,Oh. Granted some Right to work states have numbers that are high too like Nv., S.C. and Fl. but some of the lowest numbers are in "right to work states as well. Now granted the wages in the Union states are higher, but high wages mean nothing if you price yourself out of a job, or the cost of living is so high that the wages don't meet your needs. So before anyone who has no idea what a "right to work state" really is judges it, I'd suggest you look into it. Want some examples, Here in Arizona, Boeing builds the Apache Attack Helicopter, most of the workers that work for Boeing on the line there are UAW members and they are members by choice!! Thats the key word "choice".


Right to work or employment without membership in labor organization

No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of non-membership in a labor organization. (Addition approved election Nov. 5, 1946, eff. Nov. 25, 1946; amended November 30, 1982.)

I's suggest rather than just scanning the surface of an issue and taking as the gospel truth what your party tells you. That ocasionally it might not hurt to actually do some research and make up your own mind.

Surely you aren't so dishonest as to pretend that Democratic views from 1852 are somehow similar to Democratic views now, are you? Please explain exactly the point of the slavery quote.

 

[Navy1960]

They [Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and promise to cure it. They've cured it so often that they've now made a profession of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, on aiding victims, and so forth. It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business. No matter how many programs are set up and operating, their proponents never claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved, meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being.
Ronald Wilson Reagan

"Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."


--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852


So enough with the quotes, both party's have their ideas as well, so spare me this notion of how the Democratic party is for the poor working man. If the democratic party had cared anything about the poor working man then they would have never signed the China Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, or a whole host of other trade agreements that led to outsourcing in the first place. As for the bill in Arizona I take it none you actually read it, other than scanned the article. The bill does not restrict anyone from signing up for a Federal Govt. sponsored health insurance program should it come to that. It simply asserts Arizona citizens rights to choose whatever Doctor or health plan they wish without interference from any party.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Barack Obama

The Arizona Law is simply enforcing Barack Obamas words, so now your all being contrary for the sake of being contrary? One other thing the law does, is take away any possible mandates from he Federal Govt. as it applies to healthcare and leaves that choice up to the citizens of the state of Arizona.

As for the "Right to Work" laws, I frankly find it surprising everytime someone who claims these states including my own are anti-union. In fact, "Right to Work States" are much less restrictive and a LOT more worker friendly than the so called Union states. If you are a worker here, you have the right to choose your employeer and to join or NOT to join a Union regardless of the employer. Further if you look at the latest unemployment numbers, what are the some of the highest states with unemployment? MI. which is a Union state, R.I.,CA.,Oh. Granted some Right to work states have numbers that are high too like Nv., S.C. and Fl. but some of the lowest numbers are in "right to work states as well. Now granted the wages in the Union states are higher, but high wages mean nothing if you price yourself out of a job, or the cost of living is so high that the wages don't meet your needs. So before anyone who has no idea what a "right to work state" really is judges it, I'd suggest you look into it. Want some examples, Here in Arizona, Boeing builds the Apache Attack Helicopter, most of the workers that work for Boeing on the line there are UAW members and they are members by choice!! Thats the key word "choice".


Right to work or employment without membership in labor organization

No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of non-membership in a labor organization. (Addition approved election Nov. 5, 1946, eff. Nov. 25, 1946; amended November 30, 1982.)

I's suggest rather than just scanning the surface of an issue and taking as the gospel truth what your party tells you. That ocasionally it might not hurt to actually do some research and make up your own mind.

Surely you aren't so dishonest as to pretend that Democratic views from 1852 are somehow similar to Democratic views now, are you? Please explain exactly the point of the slavery quote.

I'd be happy to, that is to show that the demcratic party is not this pure bastion of good that is all for the "middle class " working man and has it's own sorted history as does the republican party. The fact is that political parties are made up of people that have agendas whatever they may be past, present, and future. So when it is portrayed as this defender of the middle class which is it NOT. I take it upon myself to remind people that no party not even my own has a license on that.. If your asking me do I think that democratic party as a whole has these views of course not, it's made up of millions upon millions of people. so allow then that repbulicans are also made up of millions upon millions of people and do not march in lock step with one another.

 

[Navy1960]

The Supreme Court of Maine succinctly stated this fundamental principle in its 1955 Pappas v. Stacey decision: “Freedom to associate of necessity means as well freedom not to associate.” But federal labor law, like many state laws that are modeled after it, doesn’t protect employees’ freedom in the commonly accepted sense of the word. It recognizes the right to join a union. At the same time, however, it authorizes and promotes the firing of employees for refusal to join or pay dues to a union that is certified by government bureaucrats as their “exclusive” (actually, monopoly) bargaining agent.
Twenty-two states have laws that apply the right-to-refrain principle to labor-management relations. These laws, known as Right to Work laws, bar the firing of employees for favoring a union or for refusing to join or pay dues to a union. If a worker’s freedom to affiliate with a union merits government protection (and the overwhelming consensus is that it does), then the freedom not to affiliate with a union must be equally protected.

Between 1995 and 2005, U.S. Department of Labor data show private-sector job growth in Right to Work states exceeded private-sector job growth in non-Right to Work states as a group by 79% and in Ohio alone by nearly 500%. Over the same period, inflation-adjusted U.S. Commerce Department data show real personal income growth in Right to Work states exceeded overall personal income growth in non-Right to Work states by 39% and exceeded Ohio’s meager increase by 142%. Meanwhile, U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that, from 1994 to 2004, the number of citizens covered by private health insurance grew by 11.5% in Right to Work states, slightly more than double the aggregate growth in non-Right to Work states. In Ohio, over the same period, the ranks of the privately insured actually declined by 0.2%.
Case For an Ohio Right to Work Law is Both Moral and Economic | National Institute for Labor Relations Research

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."-Thomas Jefferson


Right to Work became a political issue as a result of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), through which Congress, for the first time, gave Organized Labor statutory sanction to get workers fired for refusal to join a union.

Freedom-loving citizens first responded at the state level during the 1940’s, when the Roosevelt Administration’s wartime policies began putting intense pressure on businesses to acquiesce to the forced unionization of their employees, and the practice was spreading like wildfire.

Over the course of the decade, 12 states enacted Right to Work laws prohibiting forced union membership and payment of forced union dues as a condition of employment. Architect of 14(b) Successfully Courted Union Rank-and-File

In 1947, Congress overrode President Truman’s veto to enact revisions to the NLRA, known as the Taft-Hartley Act. Taft-Hartley did not change the NLRA’s forced-unionism provisions, but one clause did formally recognize states’ prerogative to enact Right to Work laws. This Right to Work clause, Section 14(b), enraged Big Labor.

A NILRR study found that the average adjusted annual income in major counties of right-to-work states was $46,135 in 2004, compared to $41,447 in states where forced unionism is allowed by law.

According to Greer, the substantially lower cost-of-living in most right-to-work states also refutes Duran’s assertion that right-to-work laws raise poverty rates. An analysis of data taken from a 2003 study actually finds adjusted poverty rates to be slightly higher in states where the right-to-work protection does not exist
Battle Over 2008 "Right-To-Work" Initiative Heats Up | Face the State

The bottom line of all this is this, that "right to work" means "right to choose", it does not mean non-union. Furhter, the assertion that in Arizona for example the 2 million plus people are somehow reaping the benefits of the the 140 thousand plus union workers is completly false. It assumes that all the workers in a company are there for the Unions benefit which they clearly are not!!. They are there to receive a wage for the job they perform.

 

[Nik]

They [Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and promise to cure it. They've cured it so often that they've now made a profession of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, on aiding victims, and so forth. It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business. No matter how many programs are set up and operating, their proponents never claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved, meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being.
Ronald Wilson Reagan

"Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."


--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852


So enough with the quotes, both party's have their ideas as well, so spare me this notion of how the Democratic party is for the poor working man. If the democratic party had cared anything about the poor working man then they would have never signed the China Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, or a whole host of other trade agreements that led to outsourcing in the first place. As for the bill in Arizona I take it none you actually read it, other than scanned the article. The bill does not restrict anyone from signing up for a Federal Govt. sponsored health insurance program should it come to that. It simply asserts Arizona citizens rights to choose whatever Doctor or health plan they wish without interference from any party.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Barack Obama

The Arizona Law is simply enforcing Barack Obamas words, so now your all being contrary for the sake of being contrary? One other thing the law does, is take away any possible mandates from he Federal Govt. as it applies to healthcare and leaves that choice up to the citizens of the state of Arizona.

As for the "Right to Work" laws, I frankly find it surprising everytime someone who claims these states including my own are anti-union. In fact, "Right to Work States" are much less restrictive and a LOT more worker friendly than the so called Union states. If you are a worker here, you have the right to choose your employeer and to join or NOT to join a Union regardless of the employer. Further if you look at the latest unemployment numbers, what are the some of the highest states with unemployment? MI. which is a Union state, R.I.,CA.,Oh. Granted some Right to work states have numbers that are high too like Nv., S.C. and Fl. but some of the lowest numbers are in "right to work states as well. Now granted the wages in the Union states are higher, but high wages mean nothing if you price yourself out of a job, or the cost of living is so high that the wages don't meet your needs. So before anyone who has no idea what a "right to work state" really is judges it, I'd suggest you look into it. Want some examples, Here in Arizona, Boeing builds the Apache Attack Helicopter, most of the workers that work for Boeing on the line there are UAW members and they are members by choice!! Thats the key word "choice".


Right to work or employment without membership in labor organization

No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of non-membership in a labor organization. (Addition approved election Nov. 5, 1946, eff. Nov. 25, 1946; amended November 30, 1982.)

I's suggest rather than just scanning the surface of an issue and taking as the gospel truth what your party tells you. That ocasionally it might not hurt to actually do some research and make up your own mind.

Surely you aren't so dishonest as to pretend that Democratic views from 1852 are somehow similar to Democratic views now, are you? Please explain exactly the point of the slavery quote.

I'd be happy to, that is to show that the demcratic party is not this pure bastion of good that is all for the "middle class " working man and has it's own sorted history as does the republican party. The fact is that political parties are made up of people that have agendas whatever they may be past, present, and future. So when it is portrayed as this defender of the middle class which is it NOT. I take it upon myself to remind people that no party not even my own has a license on that.. If your asking me do I think that democratic party as a whole has these views of course not, it's made up of millions upon millions of people. so allow then that repbulicans are also made up of millions upon millions of people and do not march in lock step with one another.

It is the party of the middle class....now. It may well not have been 150 years ago. Whatever it was then has little to no bearing on what it is now.

 

[rdking647]

I thought of moving to Arizona. Couldnt get health insurance since no private company would cover me and my wife at any price and AZ if to backwards to have a risk sharing pool like alot of states have. So instead Im going to Texas. AZ can kiss my ass

 

[asaratis]

Wow....they voted to prevent the federal government from doing something that the federal government isn't going to do anyway. Well, this sure is news.

Obama has repeatedly said nobody is going to be forced to go onto the public plan.

Obama has repeatedly lied to us. What makes this last statement any different?

By the way, his Cap and Trade plan is nothing more than a tax on consumers...to be collected by others and sent straight to Mother Government. He's taxing EVERYBODY!

 

[Harry Dresden]

Given that most of the young people starting entry level jobs in the workforce find themselves unable to afford health insurance if the company does not sponsor it, and small businessmen cannot afford to pay the price for good healthcare insurance, I believe that we will have to come up with something that works, or we will see in a decade, the present generation simply voting in a system that will turn your conservative hair very white.

maybe, maybe not.....when they see how much it is gonna cost them they just may say no....now wont that just turn your liberal hair very white....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Friday, June 12, 2009

PHOENIX -- Saying they are working to prevent socialism, members of the state House voted 34-19 Thursday to ask voters to block the federal government from forcing Arizonans to enroll in any universal health care program.

"We are a front-line battle state to stop the momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions,' argued Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, the sponsor of the measure.

"Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here.'
[

As a Arizona resident I applaud our state house for sending a message that Arizona doesn't want an intrusive Federal Govt. managing healthcare. I had posted this in another thread and thought it worth starting a thread topic on, as it shows that some states know best whats best for themselves as far as whats best for it's citizens. Arizona is attempting to do the same thing with the Forced Unionization bill comming soon. In that Arizona will assert it's right as a "right to work state". I think it's telling when states have to start asserting their rights to a Federal Govt. that has not idea that providing healthcare to the entire nation is something that it's not constitutionally allowed to do..

Don't forget to shut down them thar public school systems and close all of the libraries too. Gotta get rid of ALL that thar socialism.Don't forget " social security" Yer granny can get off her lazy ass and get a job and be a real Amurkin !.
BTW . I like that Nazi avatar.
Idiots..................

Navy has a Nazi Avatar?....Navy do you have a Nazi Avatar that only this meatball can see?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I would not count on the GOP losing Arizona anytime soon sealy, however, I do think this law will set up an interesting court battle of the constitutionality of the healthcare issue. If you read the article closely though, it does not deny people the ability to enroll in a Govt. sponsored healthcare program, what it does do however, is take away the mandates.

Reminds me of the Texas governor continually talking of secession.

it does?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Don't forget to shut down them thar public school systems and close all of the libraries too. Gotta get rid of ALL that thar socialism.Don't forget " social security" Yer granny can get off her lazy ass and get a job and be a real Amurkin !.
BTW . I like that Nazi avatar.
Idiots..................

So those are our choices.....As usual, all or nothing.
Idiots..................

That's exactly right. All or none. Lib or Conservo,Christian or not. Free or enslaved. Have or have not. Period.
The only form of govt.that was actually fairly successful were indigenous govt's and even they brainwashed and war mongered to some extent. All forms of " modern govt" have proven a disaster.
Someday, not in our lifetime or our great, great grandchildrens, there will be a world with no govt, no giant corporations,no religeon, no borders and no identity.I'm no fucking Amurkin.
I am a creature on a planet. Free as a deer !
I wish.
Individualism.
Might not even be on this planet since we are rapidly destroying it.

That's why I chose to live in the middle of nowhere, with some sense of old ways and lifestyles.If I weren't already middle aged I'd be in Brazil, as far as I could possibly get from " modernism", govt and Nazi control freaks.

far as you can from modernism....but yet ya still use a computer....can we say HYPOCRITE.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Anyways, so now that we have the majority, you guys are going to tie everything we do up in court for years and get your way because you stacked the deck. I wish you guys would stop with these frivilous lawsuits. How much are you costing the tax payers with these TRIAL LAWYERS and these judges that legislate from the bench.

Yes, judges lean left and right too believe it or not.

if the left does it too Mr.Mayor.....how come you are only bad mouthing the right?....i thought you said that unlike all these "RIGHTIES" here, that you are fair and balanced?....Bobo speak with forked tongue?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

I would not count on the GOP losing Arizona anytime soon sealy, however, I do think this law will set up an interesting court battle of the constitutionality of the healthcare issue. If you read the article closely though, it does not deny people the ability to enroll in a Govt. sponsored healthcare program, what it does do however, is take away the mandates.

Reminds me of the Texas governor continually talking of secession.

Republicans don't like courts or lawyers unless they are the ones using them for their own benefit.

Remember how much Ken Starr cost us? And still Clinton balanced the budget.

but the Dems love lawyers dont they Bobo.....like the lady who spilled coffee on herself and sued for damages....and people like you on her jury gave her a couple mill for her stupidity.....how much did that cost somebody Bobo?

 

[Harry Dresden]

They [Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and promise to cure it. They've cured it so often that they've now made a profession of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, on aiding victims, and so forth. It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business. No matter how many programs are set up and operating, their proponents never claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved, meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being.
Ronald Wilson Reagan

"Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."


--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852


So enough with the quotes, both party's have their ideas as well, so spare me this notion of how the Democratic party is for the poor working man. If the democratic party had cared anything about the poor working man then they would have never signed the China Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, or a whole host of other trade agreements that led to outsourcing in the first place. As for the bill in Arizona I take it none you actually read it, other than scanned the article. The bill does not restrict anyone from signing up for a Federal Govt. sponsored health insurance program should it come to that. It simply asserts Arizona citizens rights to choose whatever Doctor or health plan they wish without interference from any party.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Barack Obama

The Arizona Law is simply enforcing Barack Obamas words, so now your all being contrary for the sake of being contrary? One other thing the law does, is take away any possible mandates from he Federal Govt. as it applies to healthcare and leaves that choice up to the citizens of the state of Arizona.

As for the "Right to Work" laws, I frankly find it surprising everytime someone who claims these states including my own are anti-union. In fact, "Right to Work States" are much less restrictive and a LOT more worker friendly than the so called Union states. If you are a worker here, you have the right to choose your employeer and to join or NOT to join a Union regardless of the employer. Further if you look at the latest unemployment numbers, what are the some of the highest states with unemployment? MI. which is a Union state, R.I.,CA.,Oh. Granted some Right to work states have numbers that are high too like Nv., S.C. and Fl. but some of the lowest numbers are in "right to work states as well. Now granted the wages in the Union states are higher, but high wages mean nothing if you price yourself out of a job, or the cost of living is so high that the wages don't meet your needs. So before anyone who has no idea what a "right to work state" really is judges it, I'd suggest you look into it. Want some examples, Here in Arizona, Boeing builds the Apache Attack Helicopter, most of the workers that work for Boeing on the line there are UAW members and they are members by choice!! Thats the key word "choice".


Right to work or employment without membership in labor organization

No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of non-membership in a labor organization. (Addition approved election Nov. 5, 1946, eff. Nov. 25, 1946; amended November 30, 1982.)

I's suggest rather than just scanning the surface of an issue and taking as the gospel truth what your party tells you. That ocasionally it might not hurt to actually do some research and make up your own mind.

we have all seen what role SOME unions have played in the destruction of California....but i guess thats ok to the far left out here...after all it was Unions doing the damage not big bad Corporations....