Does "Right to Work" lead to lower wages and lack of benefits?

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.

So you actually visited the link or were you just doing it to be petulant?

Yes, I visited the link once you posted it. Did I say your information was inaccurate or in error? No, I didn't.

What I SAID, was that it is not MY job to go search for a link to information YOU posted. it's YOUR job to provide the link. Not posting the link, and making somone ask you for it, makes people think you might be hiding something.
 
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.

So you actually visited the link or were you just doing it to be petulant?

Yes, I visited the link once you posted it. Did I say your information was inaccurate or in error? No, I didn't.

What I SAID, was that it is not MY job to go search for a link to information YOU posted. it's YOUR job to provide the link. Not posting the link, and making somone ask you for it, makes people think you might be hiding something.

If I had been hiding anything, I would not have mentioned WHERE I got the information...that anyone could have verified by visiting the Census Bureau website. Puhleese.
 
Funny, how you guys claim to be pro choice until it comes to unions. And then you should be compelled to be part of the union.

I am personally all for increasing incentives to produce, to increase the rights of workers to choose for themselves whether they want to be in the Union or not. I like businesses being able to lay off employees who can't carry their weight.

The fact is we need to do all we can to get the corruption out of our lives. Unfortunately, many unions have corrupted American society, much as some corporations have corrupted it.

does that include older workers who no longer can keep the pace they did when they were 20 years old?.....
 
Ya know this question is based on the ignorant assumption that every economy works the same.

Come to think of it most of our discussions about economics are based on that erroneous assumption.

Its economic, kids, not physics.

Details don't only matter details are the only things that matters.
 
So you actually visited the link or were you just doing it to be petulant?

Yes, I visited the link once you posted it. Did I say your information was inaccurate or in error? No, I didn't.

What I SAID, was that it is not MY job to go search for a link to information YOU posted. it's YOUR job to provide the link. Not posting the link, and making somone ask you for it, makes people think you might be hiding something.

If I had been hiding anything, I would not have mentioned WHERE I got the information...that anyone could have verified by visiting the Census Bureau website. Puhleese.

again, it is not the readers job to hunt down a link in order to verify something YOU post, it's your job to provide the link. It's standard board etiquette. You obviously had the link, as you posted the information. You were just being a bitch by making someone ask for it.
 
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


It's relative..Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas also have the lowest cost of living.

Southern States Offer the Most Bang for Your Cost of Living Buck - DailyFinance

and
News Headlines
 
Funny, how you guys claim to be pro choice until it comes to unions. And then you should be compelled to be part of the union.

I am personally all for increasing incentives to produce, to increase the rights of workers to choose for themselves whether they want to be in the Union or not. I like businesses being able to lay off employees who can't carry their weight.

The fact is we need to do all we can to get the corruption out of our lives. Unfortunately, many unions have corrupted American society, much as some corporations have corrupted it.

does that include older workers who no longer can keep the pace they did when they were 20 years old?.....

It's usually not even a matter of whether or not they can keep pace. Much cheaper for a company to lay off an older worker before they can collect a pension and then hire some kid they can lay off when he gets closer to retirement age.
 
Yes, I visited the link once you posted it. Did I say your information was inaccurate or in error? No, I didn't.

What I SAID, was that it is not MY job to go search for a link to information YOU posted. it's YOUR job to provide the link. Not posting the link, and making somone ask you for it, makes people think you might be hiding something.

If I had been hiding anything, I would not have mentioned WHERE I got the information...that anyone could have verified by visiting the Census Bureau website. Puhleese.

again, it is not the readers job to hunt down a link in order to verify something YOU post, it's your job to provide the link. It's standard board etiquette. You obviously had the link, as you posted the information. You were just being a bitch by making someone ask for it.

LOL...that's right...I was just making you beg. Thanks for caving to my bitchiness. :lol:
 
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.

Why don't you blow me? I said MY UNION. And unless you've worked in a 24/7/365 operation like a power plant you would know that everyone has to pull their weight or get on down the road. But since you don't I can safely assume you're just talking out of your greasy ass.

So you belong to the one and only union that expects their members to work hard for their employer?

And you just happen to be posting here.

:lol:

dude seriously. I'm in my 40's. Take your utter lies and hit the bricks.
 
If I had been hiding anything, I would not have mentioned WHERE I got the information...that anyone could have verified by visiting the Census Bureau website. Puhleese.

again, it is not the readers job to hunt down a link in order to verify something YOU post, it's your job to provide the link. It's standard board etiquette. You obviously had the link, as you posted the information. You were just being a bitch by making someone ask for it.

LOL...that's right...I was just making you beg. Thanks for caving to my bitchiness. :lol:

I thought women liked it when we begged? ;)
 
when people discuss "Right-To-Work" they only talk about it from a union point of view, because it limits the ability of unions to be able to hold companies hostage to extort wages.

but what people don't realize is it gives every employer the ability to fire anyone whenever they feel like it.

people need to stop talking about union rules when discussing this policy.
the Republicans are wrong to support this policy.

a lot of people think that California, the democrat state, doesn't have this kind of policy and they are wrong.
California used to be a "Right-To-Work" state but too many illegal immigrants started suing the state saying they had "Right-To-Work", therefor California changed the name to an "At-Will Work" state, which is the same or worse. (look it up)

this kind of policy has ruined jobs in California.
most people i know are temporarily employed.(even though the company doesn't say it)

The reason jobs are leaving the State of California has NOTHING to do with it being a Right To Work State (which it isn't)...it's because the Democratic Party that controls your state has spent it into insolvency. Jobs are leaving the State and people are leaving the State because it's going down the toilet and liberals keep right on pulling the handle as fast as they can.
 
Funny, how you guys claim to be pro choice until it comes to unions. And then you should be compelled to be part of the union.

I am personally all for increasing incentives to produce, to increase the rights of workers to choose for themselves whether they want to be in the Union or not. I like businesses being able to lay off employees who can't carry their weight.

The fact is we need to do all we can to get the corruption out of our lives. Unfortunately, many unions have corrupted American society, much as some corporations have corrupted it.

Louisiana is a RTW state... and while we have unions here, there really is no advantage to joining a union vs. not joining one.. the wages have stabilized pretty much. Most people here would rather NOT join a union.
 
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?

Ignore Claudette. Just another case of getting all of the information from Rush Limbaugh.

Sorry to disappoint there Goose but I don't listen to Rush or talk radio. Period.

I don't watch Hannity and I never watched Beck.
 
Funny, how you guys claim to be pro choice until it comes to unions. And then you should be compelled to be part of the union.

I am personally all for increasing incentives to produce, to increase the rights of workers to choose for themselves whether they want to be in the Union or not. I like businesses being able to lay off employees who can't carry their weight.

The fact is we need to do all we can to get the corruption out of our lives. Unfortunately, many unions have corrupted American society, much as some corporations have corrupted it.

Louisiana is a RTW state... and while we have unions here, there really is no advantage to joining a union vs. not joining one.. the wages have stabilized pretty much. Most people here would rather NOT join a union.

So it has produced just the effect envisioned. Low cost, no benefit wages have driven down the union wages.......just like the conservatives intended

Rather than being able to bargain as a group, you are offered a take it or leave it proposition and the workforce as a whole suffers
 
Funny, how you guys claim to be pro choice until it comes to unions. And then you should be compelled to be part of the union.

I am personally all for increasing incentives to produce, to increase the rights of workers to choose for themselves whether they want to be in the Union or not. I like businesses being able to lay off employees who can't carry their weight.

The fact is we need to do all we can to get the corruption out of our lives. Unfortunately, many unions have corrupted American society, much as some corporations have corrupted it.

does that include older workers who no longer can keep the pace they did when they were 20 years old?.....

It's usually not even a matter of whether or not they can keep pace. Much cheaper for a company to lay off an older worker before they can collect a pension and then hire some kid they can lay off when he gets closer to retirement age.
and companies like that should go out of business tomorrow...
 
does that include older workers who no longer can keep the pace they did when they were 20 years old?.....

It's usually not even a matter of whether or not they can keep pace. Much cheaper for a company to lay off an older worker before they can collect a pension and then hire some kid they can lay off when he gets closer to retirement age.
and companies like that should go out of business tomorrow...
Indeed. Get rid of your most experienced workers in lieu of a younger one that still wipes his snot on his sleeve by comparison?

No brainer.
 
Constitutional "rights" always seem to get in the way of the left wing agenda. Unions are OK as long as they don't force workers to join and they don't force workers to contribute to political agenda and life styles of the rich and famous union leaders.
 
Does "Right to Work" lead to lower wages and lack of benefits?

Yes.

Union Workers Earn More Than Nonunion

Union workers are also better trained and enjoy a safer work environment. And....to top it off....the reason non-union workers are doing so much better is because their companies are trying to keep unions out.



The training is a function of the company, not the union status of the employee.

The average business owner is a guy who likes to make decisions and do things his own way. This is not the kind of guy who looks forward to having to take orders from a union slacker who is plotting to slow down the productivity and increase costs unnecessarily.

The guy who wants to start a business and do things his way is the kind of guy who would move to a state in which he needn't be controlled by leaches who want to steal his money.

This kind of a guy would not set up shop in a place where he knew that his control of the workplace would be eroded by folks who have no interest in contributing to the health, profitability, growth and progress of the company.

This is the kind of a guy that would move out of California, Michigan and Illinois.

This is the kind of guy that creates jobs, wealth and solid communities.

Do you think Atlas Shrugged is a fantasy? Take a look at Detroit.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top