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

[code1211]

Right to work really means right to pay your workers substandard wages with no benefits

You mean like Honda, Toyota, Suburu, Isuzu and all of their suppliers?

More tripe

UAW Not Welcome In The South | The Truth About Cars

The new two tier wages in the north are lower.....

The spin goes on.

Thanks for the link. The auto makers in indiana are the ones that I listed and those are coveted jobs and God-sends for the communities into which they move.

Unions remove an entire segment of expense from the creative abilities of the managers to create efficiencies and maintain employment as they try to produce a better value product for their customers.

Expanding sales is the best way to maintain jobs.


From the link:

In 2001, Nissan workers in Smyrna rejected U.A.W. representation by a 2-to-1 vote, a result branded as a “devastating defeat” by the World Socialist Website. Back then, the New York Times called the results “no better than in the union’s failed attempt to organize the same plant in 1989.”

 

[code1211]

it is generally reported that average annual income in right to work states, the ones in which Republican business owners bribe Republican Politicians to fight unionization tooth and nail, are approximately $1,500 per year. That is to say that the average annual earrings per worker in states that Do Not Have "Right-to-work" laws is $1,500 per year greater than in states in which the elected officials do not fight the presence of Unions.

So there is your answer. Also, if you want to see how well it can work take a look at Germany, which I believe is not only the most heavily unionized country on earth, but also the most prosperous. They, the Germans, have better pay, better benefits, better leave policy, better training, and better job retention. Its their Unions that cause this to happen, and we could do the same here by elimination "Right to Work" laws that do nothing but encourage the race to the bottom among the employed.

The Union worker is always better off than her or his non union counterpart, just as a soldier is better off with his unit rather than alone and lost in enemy territory, just as a child is better off in the structured setting of the family or school rather than out on the streets alone, just as an elderly person is better off in the nest of the extended family than homeless and alone. Unions are the second level of human organization, right behind the family and right in front of community governance. We come together in the workforce for the reason that it is our last defense from those who would exploit our every twinge of muscle, who would divide and concur us on the workplace floor.

And those who would fight a union, what are they? They are the slave-traders of older times, they are the industrialists who move operations to China and India, they are the lobbyist in Washington, and they are the right wing Fascists who would trample on workers for the sake of money, money, and more money so long as it lands in their pockets.

One thing for sure: They are not the UAW workers currently out of work in Detroit.

 

[code1211]

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

Destruction of unions is the method to lower wages across the board. It's that simple. Across the board = all white and blue collars.

Reducing wages makes no sense whatsoever nor does effectively support new economic growth. Instead it drives economic displacement.

So, to re-cap, it is your assertion that unions were broken by the evil capitalists who did not want to pay higher wages.

Did it escape your laser like focus that the death of unions has occurred because the competition from outside of our borders has forced the union shops to compete with the non union shops and the value of the union produced products was found wanting?

The reason unions have dissolved is that the costs that unions force are too great to allow a competitive product to be produced.

The choice is to create efficiencies or to buy it from China.

What is your choice?

 

[code1211]

Destruction of unions is the method to lower wages across the board. It's that simple. Across the board = all white and blue collars.

Reducing wages makes no sense whatsoever nor does effectively support new economic growth. Instead it drives economic displacement.

Destruction of unions is the method to lower wages across the board. It's that simple. Across the board = all white and blue collars.

No it isn't there are minimum wage laws. Unions are outdated money sucking pigs.

Corporate america is the money sucking pig big time. No question about it.

Are you saying reducing wages to minimum wage is not a reduction in wages?

No family can sustain themselves on minimum wage. It would increase the social services budgets across the USA.

What employee stays on minimum wage for more than a couple pay cycles?

 

[The T]

No it isn't there are minimum wage laws. Unions are outdated money sucking pigs.

Corporate america is the money sucking pig big time. No question about it.

Are you saying reducing wages to minimum wage is not a reduction in wages?

No family can sustain themselves on minimum wage. It would increase the social services budgets across the USA.

What employee stays on minimum wage for more than a couple pay cycles?

Those that don't have families to support?