Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Does "Right to Work" lead to lower wages and lack of benefits?
It leads to a balanced wage and benefits.
unions; everyone gets the same, no matter if they are hard or efficient workers.
right to work; The best workers get the best, the crappy ones get laid off or fired. The company can then thrive, expand and hire more people.
MY Union: Everyone gets the same wages and benefits through collective bargaining. DEFINITELY higher than non-union. Nobody gets raises or fired based on who he or she knows or who they're related to. Everyone pulls their share. If someone is a slacker we (union members) get rid of him or the company does since contract does not allow for slackers.
RW: Wages come through begging, who he or she is related to or whose ass they kiss. Can be fired at will and for no reason, even to make room for boss's nephew (I've seen it). Wages dependent on what the company wishes to pay at the time.
Since the 1940s, 22 states have passed laws barring unions from collecting mandatory fees from workers for labor representation. Supporters, mostly Republicans, insist the measure helps create a pro-business climate that attracts employers and increases jobs. Opponents say the law only leads to lower wages and poorer quality jobs.
The evidence on the issue is abundant, but also conflicting and murky. The clearest conclusion, according to many experts, is that the economies of states respond to a mix of factors, ranging from the swings in the national economy to demographic trends, and that isolating the impact of right-to-work is nearly impossible.
Claim: Right-to-work brings more jobs to a state.
According to a study commissioned by Indiana's Chamber of Commerce, which supports the right-to-work law, employment grew 100 percent in right-to-work states between 1977 and 2008 but only 57 percent in those without the law.
Claim: Right-to-work decreases wages.
The Economic Policy Institute, which is supported by organized labor, reports that workers in right-to-work states earn $1,500 less annually than their counterparts in states without the law, based on a 2009 analysis of census data.
But right-to-work supporters counter with the chamber's study showing that personal income grew 164.4% in right-to-work states between 1977 and 2008 while income grew 92.8% in non-right-to-work states.
Claim: Right-to-work is designed to weaken unions.
Unions lose some paying members when workers' dues are made voluntary, according to data gathered by Georgia State University professor Barry Hirsch and Trinity University professor David Macpherson at UnionStats.com.
However, by far the largest blow to union membership and finances has been the manufacturing decline and the loss of millions of jobs. Even in states without a right-to-work law, union membership dropped 54.2% between 1983 and 2010, according to data from the UnionStats.com website.
The AFT union is one of the largest and most powerful affiliates of
the vast, 13 million-member AFL-CIO empire.
More than a dozen years ago, Dr. Nelson created a cost-of-living index
that confirms what top union officials shrilly deny: that employees real,
spendable earnings are higher in Right to Work states.
The index for 2000, the most recent one now available, shows that living
expenses for employees in non-Right to Work states are overall 4.4% higher
than the national average. Overall living costs in Right to Work states
are 7.1% more affordable than the national average. (see Table 1 on linked page)
When the 2000 mean weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary employees
in the 50 states, as published on pp. 30-35 of the 2001 edition of the
Bureau of National Affairs Union Membership and Earnings Data Book, are
adjusted for differences in living costs, the real earnings of employees
in Right to Work states are shown to be higher.
Not just the Nelson index, but also other nationwide comparative cost-of-living
indices such as the one supplied in David Savageau and Ralph DAgostinos
Places Rated Almanac, show that living costs are significantly higher
and, consequently, real incomes are lower where Big Labor wields forced-dues
power.
My unscientific research...These are a three year average of median income per state according to the Census Bureau. Bolded states are "right to work" states. Awfully large concentration down there at the bottom isn't there?
New Hampshire 66,303
Connecticut 65,958
New Jersey 65,173
Maryland 64,596
Alaska 61,872
Virginia 61,544
Massachusetts 60,923
Utah 59,857
Colorado 59,669
Hawaii 59,125
Washington 58,330
California 56,418
DC 55,280
Minnesota 55,063
Vermont 53,490
Wyoming 53,236
Delaware 53,196
Nevada 53,082
Illinois 52,811
Rhode Island 52,771
Nebraska 51,504
Wisconsin 51,484
Oregon 50,938
North Dakota 50,847
New York 50,656
Iowa 50,504
Pennsylvania 49,826
South Dakota 48,168
Maine 48,081
Michigan 47,871
Texas 47,601
Idaho 47,528
Missouri 47,460
Arizona 47,093
Ohio 46,752
Kansas 46,722
Indiana 46,156
Oklahoma 45,577
Florida 45,350
Georgia 44,992
New Mexico 43,998
North Carolina 43,275
Alabama 42,218
Kentucky 42,091
South Carolina 42,059
Montana 42,005
Louisiana 41,896
West Virginia 40,824
Tennessee 40,026
Arkansas 38,600
Mississippi 36,850
I'm a public sector worker in right to work Florida.
What does that mean??
Why it means I have to pay for part of my retirement and benefits just like the private sector.
Gee novel idea that.
My unscientific research...These are a three year average of median income per state according to the Census Bureau. Bolded states are "right to work" states. Awfully large concentration down there at the bottom isn't there?
New Hampshire 66,303
Connecticut 65,958
New Jersey 65,173
Maryland 64,596
Alaska 61,872
Virginia 61,544
Massachusetts 60,923
Utah 59,857
Colorado 59,669
Hawaii 59,125
Washington 58,330
California 56,418
DC 55,280
Minnesota 55,063
Vermont 53,490
Wyoming 53,236
Delaware 53,196
Nevada 53,082
Illinois 52,811
Rhode Island 52,771
Nebraska 51,504
Wisconsin 51,484
Oregon 50,938
North Dakota 50,847
New York 50,656
Iowa 50,504
Pennsylvania 49,826
South Dakota 48,168
Maine 48,081
Michigan 47,871
Texas 47,601
Idaho 47,528
Missouri 47,460
Arizona 47,093
Ohio 46,752
Kansas 46,722
Indiana 46,156
Oklahoma 45,577
Florida 45,350
Georgia 44,992
New Mexico 43,998
North Carolina 43,275
Alabama 42,218
Kentucky 42,091
South Carolina 42,059
Montana 42,005
Louisiana 41,896
West Virginia 40,824
Tennessee 40,026
Arkansas 38,600
Mississippi 36,850
link?
Does "Right to Work" lead to lower wages and lack of benefits?
No.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-9.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n1/holmes.pdf
Does "Right to Work" lead to lower wages and lack of benefits?
Does "Right to Work" lead to lower wages and lack of benefits?
I'm a public sector worker in right to work Florida.
What does that mean??
Why it means I have to pay for part of my retirement and benefits just like the private sector.
Gee novel idea that.
Funny, I'm a public sector worker in CA (not an "at will") state and I do the same thing. Apparently it's not so novel.
link?
I said it was from the Census Bureau. You've heard of them, right?
Ranked from Highest to Lowest Using 3-Year-Average Medians
I'm a public sector worker in right to work Florida.
What does that mean??
Why it means I have to pay for part of my retirement and benefits just like the private sector.
Gee novel idea that.
Funny, I'm a public sector worker in CA (not an "at will") state and I do the same thing. Apparently it's not so novel.
Gotta laugh at that one.
Plenty of Public Sector workers get all of the retirement and benis paid for by the taxpayers. Probably loads of em in your State CA.
You should hear em scream when they are told that they will have to contribute to their own retirement and benis.
Thats what happened down here in Florida with FRS.
link?
I said it was from the Census Bureau. You've heard of them, right?
Ranked from Highest to Lowest Using 3-Year-Average Medians
Yes, I have. But it is not MY job to verify YOUR posted information by searching for a link YOU failed to provide in YOUR post.
It leads to a balanced wage and benefits.
unions; everyone gets the same, no matter if they are hard or efficient workers.
right to work; The best workers get the best, the crappy ones get laid off or fired. The company can then thrive, expand and hire more people.
MY Union: Everyone gets the same wages and benefits through collective bargaining. DEFINITELY higher than non-union. Nobody gets raises or fired based on who he or she knows or who they're related to. Everyone pulls their share. If someone is a slacker we (union members) get rid of him or the company does since contract does not allow for slackers.
RW: Wages come through begging, who he or she is related to or whose ass they kiss. Can be fired at will and for no reason, even to make room for boss's nephew (I've seen it). Wages dependent on what the company wishes to pay at the time.
Complete and utter lies.
Unions covet lazy workers, that way no one looks like they are slackers. No one is encouraged to work hard.
Look, I've been around to damn long to fall for such horseshit. So tell the truth or stfu.
My unscientific research...These are a three year average of median income per state according to the Census Bureau. Bolded states are "right to work" states. Awfully large concentration down there at the bottom isn't there?
New Hampshire 66,303
Connecticut 65,958
New Jersey 65,173
Maryland 64,596
Alaska 61,872
Virginia 61,544 87
Massachusetts 60,923
Utah 59,857 112
Colorado 59,669
Hawaii 59,125
Washington 58,330
California 56,418
DC 55,280
Minnesota 55,063
Vermont 53,490
Wyoming 53,236 not on list
Delaware 53,196
Nevada 53,082 95
Illinois 52,811
Rhode Island 52,771
Nebraska 51,504 90
Wisconsin 51,484
Oregon 50,938
North Dakota 50,847
New York 50,656
Iowa 50,504 93
Pennsylvania 49,826
South Dakota 48,168 88
Maine 48,081
Michigan 47,871
Texas 47,601 113
Idaho 47,528 92
Missouri 47,460
Arizona 47,093 104
Ohio 46,752
Kansas 46,722 91
Indiana 46,156 92
Oklahoma 45,577 90
Florida 45,350 101
Georgia 44,992 90
New Mexico 43,998
North Carolina 43,275 96
Alabama 42,218 92
Kentucky 42,091
South Carolina 42,059 89
Montana 42,005
Louisiana 41,896 95
West Virginia 40,824
Tennessee 40,026 91
Arkansas 38,600 90
Mississippi 36,850 102
Now how about you compare the cost of living in each of these locations...........do wages drive cost of living or does cost of living drive wages?? It's not as simple as you seem to want to make it.
I doubt those wages are all union wages.
Funny, I'm a public sector worker in CA (not an "at will") state and I do the same thing. Apparently it's not so novel.
Gotta laugh at that one.
Plenty of Public Sector workers get all of the retirement and benis paid for by the taxpayers. Probably loads of em in your State CA.
You should hear em scream when they are told that they will have to contribute to their own retirement and benis.
Thats what happened down here in Florida with FRS.
So prove it. Show us what states, counties or municipalities, provide ALL the retirement and health benefits to their employees.
My manager gets all his paid for. Did I mention that's not a union position?
