Right to work "states"

[asterism]

Source and evidence of causal link?

The bottom 10 poorest states
Where median incomes are lowest
Rank State Median Income
1 Mississippi $35,693
2 Arkansas $37,987
3 West Virginia $39,170
4 Tennessee $40,034
5 South Carolina $41,548
6 Montana $41,587
7 Kentucky $41,828
8 Alabama $42,144
9 North Carolina $42,337
10 Louisiana $42,423
Source:U.S. Census Bureau

America's wealthiest (and poorest) states - Sep. 16, 2010

U.S. states with right-to-work laws

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

* Alabama
* Arizona †
* Arkansas †
* Florida †
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Mississippi †
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma †
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Utah
* Virginia
* Wyoming

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right to work for less

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).[1] Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).[2] Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim right to work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Don’t be fooled—federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.

Right to work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job by weakening unions that help to ensure worker safety by fighting for tougher safety rules. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.[3]

Do you have a comparison of the cost of living? or are you just going to list the average income and assume we are dumb enough not to know that the cost of living changes place to place?

It's not even average income, it's median income as collected by the Census. Even if it were an accurate median, it's still just median which is only one piece of the puzzle. Without taking into account other variables (median, mean, standard deviation, sample characteristics, result shape, etc.) and then building trends the median is essentially useless.

However, it is very easy to use sample characteristics to manipulate one piece of the puzzle if a desired outcome is known. That's why median income is used so much.

 

[Bfgrn]

Source and evidence of causal link?

The bottom 10 poorest states
Where median incomes are lowest
Rank State Median Income
1 Mississippi $35,693
2 Arkansas $37,987
3 West Virginia $39,170
4 Tennessee $40,034
5 South Carolina $41,548
6 Montana $41,587
7 Kentucky $41,828
8 Alabama $42,144
9 North Carolina $42,337
10 Louisiana $42,423
Source:U.S. Census Bureau

America's wealthiest (and poorest) states - Sep. 16, 2010

U.S. states with right-to-work laws

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

* Alabama
* Arizona †
* Arkansas †
* Florida †
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Mississippi †
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma †
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Utah
* Virginia
* Wyoming

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right to work for less

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).[1] Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).[2] Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim right to work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Don’t be fooled—federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.

Right to work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job by weakening unions that help to ensure worker safety by fighting for tougher safety rules. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.[3]

Do you have a comparison of the cost of living? or are you just going to list the average income and assume we are dumb enough not to know that the cost of living changes place to place?

If you would read the article, that is addressed.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The bottom 10 poorest states
Where median incomes are lowest
Rank State Median Income
1 Mississippi $35,693
2 Arkansas $37,987
3 West Virginia $39,170
4 Tennessee $40,034
5 South Carolina $41,548
6 Montana $41,587
7 Kentucky $41,828
8 Alabama $42,144
9 North Carolina $42,337
10 Louisiana $42,423
Source:U.S. Census Bureau

America's wealthiest (and poorest) states - Sep. 16, 2010

U.S. states with right-to-work laws

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

* Alabama
* Arizona †
* Arkansas †
* Florida †
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Mississippi †
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma †
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Utah
* Virginia
* Wyoming

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right to work for less

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).[1] Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).[2] Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim right to work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Don’t be fooled—federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.

Right to work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job by weakening unions that help to ensure worker safety by fighting for tougher safety rules. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.[3]

Do you have a comparison of the cost of living? or are you just going to list the average income and assume we are dumb enough not to know that the cost of living changes place to place?

It's not even average income, it's median income as collected by the Census. Even if it were an accurate median, it's still just median which is only one piece of the puzzle. Without taking into account other variables (median, mean, standard deviation, sample characteristics, result shape, etc.) and then building trends the median is essentially useless.

However, it is very easy to use sample characteristics to manipulate one piece of the puzzle if a desired outcome is known. That's why median income is used so much.

That wasn't really my point.

I did the same search and came up with the same single information.
Poor state = lower pay

Even if it means in those states peoples money goes farther.

He dug up the info he wanted and didn't give it any thought, none at all.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you have a comparison of the cost of living? or are you just going to list the average income and assume we are dumb enough not to know that the cost of living changes place to place?

It's not even average income, it's median income as collected by the Census. Even if it were an accurate median, it's still just median which is only one piece of the puzzle. Without taking into account other variables (median, mean, standard deviation, sample characteristics, result shape, etc.) and then building trends the median is essentially useless.

However, it is very easy to use sample characteristics to manipulate one piece of the puzzle if a desired outcome is known. That's why median income is used so much.

That wasn't really my point.

I did the same search and came up with the same single information.
Poor state = lower pay

Even if it means in those states peoples money goes farther.

He dug up the info he wanted and didn't give it any thought, none at all.

Well, if we are going to 'think' and more importantly care about our fellow Americans, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average worker in a right to work state makes less and the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher.

 

[Claudette]

Wow, I'm in a right to work state and it's the 6th wealthiest in the nation. Oh, I almost forgot, employers still have to abide by local, state and federally mandated labor practices and labor laws. Oops.
Does the OP want to try some other fear mongering tactic since this one obviously isn't working?

Ditto Ringel.

I live in Florida, a right to work State.

My job is unionized but I don't belong to the union.

Wonder if I could do that in NY?? Bet not.

 

[asterism]

It's not even average income, it's median income as collected by the Census. Even if it were an accurate median, it's still just median which is only one piece of the puzzle. Without taking into account other variables (median, mean, standard deviation, sample characteristics, result shape, etc.) and then building trends the median is essentially useless.

However, it is very easy to use sample characteristics to manipulate one piece of the puzzle if a desired outcome is known. That's why median income is used so much.

That wasn't really my point.

I did the same search and came up with the same single information.
Poor state = lower pay

Even if it means in those states peoples money goes farther.

He dug up the info he wanted and didn't give it any thought, none at all.

Well, if we are going to 'think' and more importantly care about our fellow Americans, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average worker in a right to work state makes less and the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher.

$40,000 goes much further in Tennessee than does $64,000 in Connecticut.

As to workplace deaths, there isn't enough information at the BLS to know whether Right to Work is a factor at all. Maybe Unions are just that good at having dangerous jobs legislated out of existence in their areas while people who still want to do those jobs relocate.

Farm work is inherently dangerous. Specifically, small time tobacco farming. Unions can appear to make it safer by making it too expensive to run a small time tobacco farm but that doesn't mean they are looking out for the best interests of those willing to do that dangerous job. Unless one is of the perspective that it's really in their best interests to take that choice and opportunity away from them.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Mini 14

No disrespect meant but " I had to let an employee go " does this mean your a company man such as but not limited to Manager, Supervisor, Foreman, or You own the Company?

" Only because I found someone better " was that at brown nosing, sucking up OR was the employee "Blue Collar Worker" just a plain old lazy good for nothing Bum, and if so, I would of FIRED that lazy (Y) to !!!

OR did was the Employee just a plain old worthless Bum?

I own the company.

The employee is a great guy, and has been a good employee, but I found someone better.....simple as that.

We parted on good terms, and I'm sure he'll land another job soon. I'll do all I can to help him.

-you say as you kick him to the curb to fend for himself

Doing all you could would include keeping him around part-time until he landed another job.

It's funny how you claim to have the guy's interest in mind as you throw him out like a worn-out cog when a new model arrives.

Nobody was kicked to the curb. A wise business decision was made to aid in protecting the business. To aid in moving the business forward. If an employee works hard, but their overall performance lags, they are not a valuable employee.

You are projecting that he could afford to keep the employee on a part time basis, when you have no idea what the financial situation of the business is. You have no idea if severence was offered to the employee upon his release.

I'll say it again, BUISINESS IS BUSINESS......In a world of rainbows, unicorns, pastel pastures, and rose scented fairy dust farts, your projection may be true......That's not the world as we know it. It's never been that way, and never will be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hannity just had one of the focus groups on with Fran Lutz......It was very interesting. A mix of all opinions........One question was asked of a teacher who is union, It was asked, "Do you have any real power over how the union spends your dues. What power do you have either indivudually or collectivelly to determine where they spend your dues?"........The guy said "actually, we really don't."

That's very telling.......That says, if you're a dem or repub, and the union is donating monies to political campaigns you don't support, tough shit.

The problem with most unions nowadays is they are too entrenched in politics. They should be banned from all political contributions unless each and everyone of their members agree to it..........Particularly government employee unions.

The NEA spends more money on elections than anyone else in the country.

(Hear that lefties, a union spends more money than any corporation on elections. I am still waiting for everyone to condemn that.

Top National Donors | Follow The Money )

They are planning to double their war chest by doubling the contribution required of all their members from $10 to $20 dollars per member. Any member who does not like this can vote against it, and pay up if they loose the vote.

I would love to ban unions from politics, but I am too much a fan of the Constitution to justify it. I can, however, see the justification in a law requiring the unions not to spend any dues on politics. If they want to get involved in politics they should ask for contributions from members.

Would you also ban corporations if you weren't such a 'Constitutional' scholar?


There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli

If you are half the genius you think you are you would know that current federal law, and many states, require anyone who wants to get into political activism to support a particular cause, like, for example, the environment, form a union and report income and expenditures to the government. By some strange coincidence, actual incumbent politicians are exempt from most of those restrictions. This is obviously designed to give incumbent politicians the ability to regulate spending against them.

I do not want you to misinterpret my point here, so I will be as clear as I can. Only people who think that politicians have more right to get elected than anyone has to run against them oppose corporate spending in elections. That makes the real question here, do you support political dynasties that are designed to shut down dissent and opposition?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I forgot to mention that parking in public/metered spaces on the weekends is still free down here

I remember people looking at me like I was crazy for telling them they do not have to pay meters downtown after 5pm, or on weekends and holidays. Good thing it is actually printed on every meter or they would still think I was trying to scam them somehow.

Then you have San Francisco, where you cannot even park in front of your house for free, and your guests better not stay all day.

 

[Bfgrn]

The NEA spends more money on elections than anyone else in the country.

(Hear that lefties, a union spends more money than any corporation on elections. I am still waiting for everyone to condemn that.

Top National Donors | Follow The Money )

They are planning to double their war chest by doubling the contribution required of all their members from $10 to $20 dollars per member. Any member who does not like this can vote against it, and pay up if they loose the vote.

I would love to ban unions from politics, but I am too much a fan of the Constitution to justify it. I can, however, see the justification in a law requiring the unions not to spend any dues on politics. If they want to get involved in politics they should ask for contributions from members.

Would you also ban corporations if you weren't such a 'Constitutional' scholar?


There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli

If you are half the genius you think you are you would know that current federal law, and many states, require anyone who wants to get into political activism to support a particular cause, like, for example, the environment, form a union and report income and expenditures to the government. By some strange coincidence, actual incumbent politicians are exempt from most of those restrictions. This is obviously designed to give incumbent politicians the ability to regulate spending against them.

I do not want you to misinterpret my point here, so I will be as clear as I can. Only people who think that politicians have more right to get elected than anyone has to run against them oppose corporate spending in elections. That makes the real question here, do you support political dynasties that are designed to shut down dissent and opposition?

Your argument is non sequitur. You oppose unions spending on either incumbents or challengers but not corporations spending on either incumbents or challengers?

Pretty simple and straightforward question without the need for all your obfuscation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would you also ban corporations if you weren't such a 'Constitutional' scholar?


There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli

If you are half the genius you think you are you would know that current federal law, and many states, require anyone who wants to get into political activism to support a particular cause, like, for example, the environment, form a union and report income and expenditures to the government. By some strange coincidence, actual incumbent politicians are exempt from most of those restrictions. This is obviously designed to give incumbent politicians the ability to regulate spending against them.

I do not want you to misinterpret my point here, so I will be as clear as I can. Only people who think that politicians have more right to get elected than anyone has to run against them oppose corporate spending in elections. That makes the real question here, do you support political dynasties that are designed to shut down dissent and opposition?

Your argument is non sequitur. You oppose unions spending on either incumbents or challengers but not corporations spending on either incumbents or challengers?

Pretty simple and straightforward question without the need for all your obfuscation.

That might actually make sense if I had already said I think unions have the right to spend as much as they want. Unions are corporations, so any consistent person would support both of them spending, or oppose them both.

I do, however, think it is a bad idea for unions to directly support people they are negotiating with. The reason for this should be obvious, but if you are having trouble seeing it I suggest you look up conflict of interest. If I could think of a way to right a law that forbids, but does not forbid them spending in politics, it I would support that law 100%. Since I cannot I just have to support them spending even in areas I think they should not.

That is the difference between me and you. My principles actually allow me to support something that I think is iffy because it does more harm to try and stop it than accepting it.

 

[JBeukema]

Of the 10 poorest states in the country, seven of them are right to work states.

Source and evidence of causal link?

The bottom 10 poorest states
Where median incomes are lowest
Rank State Median Income
1 Mississippi $35,693
2 Arkansas $37,987
3 West Virginia $39,170
4 Tennessee $40,034
5 South Carolina $41,548
6 Montana $41,587
7 Kentucky $41,828
8 Alabama $42,144
9 North Carolina $42,337
10 Louisiana $42,423
Source:U.S. Census Bureau

America's wealthiest (and poorest) states - Sep. 16, 2010

U.S. states with right-to-work laws

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

* Alabama
* Arizona †
* Arkansas †
* Florida †
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Mississippi †
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma †
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Utah
* Virginia
* Wyoming

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right to work for less

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).[1] Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).[2] Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim right to work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Don’t be fooled—federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.

Right to work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job by weakening unions that help to ensure worker safety by fighting for tougher safety rules. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.[3]

I'll have to get back to you after I read more on the subject. If the federal law does as you claim, then one wonder how the state law has any effect at all.

 

[JBeukema]

Source and evidence of causal link?

The bottom 10 poorest states
Where median incomes are lowest
Rank State Median Income
1 Mississippi $35,693
2 Arkansas $37,987
3 West Virginia $39,170
4 Tennessee $40,034
5 South Carolina $41,548
6 Montana $41,587
7 Kentucky $41,828
8 Alabama $42,144
9 North Carolina $42,337
10 Louisiana $42,423
Source:U.S. Census Bureau

America's wealthiest (and poorest) states - Sep. 16, 2010

U.S. states with right-to-work laws

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

* Alabama
* Arizona †
* Arkansas †
* Florida †
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Mississippi †
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma †
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Utah
* Virginia
* Wyoming

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right to work for less

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).[1] Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).[2] Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim right to work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Don’t be fooled—federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.

Right to work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job by weakening unions that help to ensure worker safety by fighting for tougher safety rules. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.[3]

Ah. You said "poorest." If I have $1 Million and I only make $20,000 per year as income am I poor? Also, you used median income as your cite. Median income is very far removed from net worth (and the purchasing power of that net worth). Median income (especially as collected by the government) is different from average income or even the average of the population within an acceptable standard deviation. Then there is the difference in costs for a similar standard of living. $40,000 a year in Tennessee is way better than $64,000 a year in Connecticut.

Might you know of any studies that take such things into account and compare what might be called their real income?

 

[JBeukema]

It's not even average income, it's median income as collected by the Census. Even if it were an accurate median, it's still just median which is only one piece of the puzzle. Without taking into account other variables (median, mean, standard deviation, sample characteristics, result shape, etc.) and then building trends the median is essentially useless.

However, it is very easy to use sample characteristics to manipulate one piece of the puzzle if a desired outcome is known. That's why median income is used so much.

That wasn't really my point.

I did the same search and came up with the same single information.
Poor state = lower pay

Even if it means in those states peoples money goes farther.

He dug up the info he wanted and didn't give it any thought, none at all.

Well, if we are going to 'think' and more importantly care about our fellow Americans, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average worker in a right to work state makes less and the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher.

Source? Preferably not from a third party and not the union's agitprop division

 

[Bfgrn]

The bottom 10 poorest states
Where median incomes are lowest
Rank State Median Income
1 Mississippi $35,693
2 Arkansas $37,987
3 West Virginia $39,170
4 Tennessee $40,034
5 South Carolina $41,548
6 Montana $41,587
7 Kentucky $41,828
8 Alabama $42,144
9 North Carolina $42,337
10 Louisiana $42,423
Source:U.S. Census Bureau

America's wealthiest (and poorest) states - Sep. 16, 2010

U.S. states with right-to-work laws

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

* Alabama
* Arizona †
* Arkansas †
* Florida †
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Mississippi †
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma †
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Utah
* Virginia
* Wyoming

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right to work for less

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).[1] Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).[2] Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim right to work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Don’t be fooled—federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.

Right to work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job by weakening unions that help to ensure worker safety by fighting for tougher safety rules. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.[3]

Ah. You said "poorest." If I have $1 Million and I only make $20,000 per year as income am I poor? Also, you used median income as your cite. Median income is very far removed from net worth (and the purchasing power of that net worth). Median income (especially as collected by the government) is different from average income or even the average of the population within an acceptable standard deviation. Then there is the difference in costs for a similar standard of living. $40,000 a year in Tennessee is way better than $64,000 a year in Connecticut.

Might you know of any studies that take such things into account and compare what might be called their real income?

The study is done annually by the AFL-CIO using federal Bureau of Labor Statistics and other reliable sources. It appears very comprehensive.

Here's the 2010 report:

'Death on the Job' Report, 2010

 

[Binky]

What cracks me up is that either people have forgotten, or are young and don't care, or they just didn't pay attention in school when the subject of labor unions popped up in class. Or could be they missed that day. Anyway, the reason the unions were started to begin with was to protect the workers from management using mental, physical abuse and bullying on employees. Workers were pounded on. They were not allowed to take a potty break unless the foreman decided to let them go. They worked for very nominal wages, and this was long before the min. wage ever came into existance. Employees were threatened over this, that or what have you. Factories were filthy, stinky and dangerous places to work in. Machinery was in disrepair. For millions, it was a living hell to work in one. Long hours with no benefits whatsoever etc.

Unions were created to ensure the workers would be treated fairly.

 

[Ringel05]

What cracks me up is that either people have forgotten, or are young and don't care, or they just didn't pay attention in school when the subject of labor unions popped up in class. Or could be they missed that day. Anyway, the reason the unions were started to begin with was to protect the workers from management using mental, physical abuse and bullying on employees. Workers were pounded on. They were not allowed to take a potty break unless the foreman decided to let them go. They worked for very nominal wages, and this was long before the min. wage ever came into existance. Employees were threatened over this, that or what have you. Factories were filthy, stinky and dangerous places to work in. Machinery was in disrepair. For millions, it was a living hell to work in one. Long hours with no benefits whatsoever etc.

Unions were created to ensure the workers would be treated fairly.

True but then times changed, unions morphed into something more (or less depending on one's point of view). This economic cycle unions are under assault and to a degree rightfully so, eventually the cycle will come back to where unions are once again required for workers economic parity.

 

[Bfgrn]

What cracks me up is that either people have forgotten, or are young and don't care, or they just didn't pay attention in school when the subject of labor unions popped up in class. Or could be they missed that day. Anyway, the reason the unions were started to begin with was to protect the workers from management using mental, physical abuse and bullying on employees. Workers were pounded on. They were not allowed to take a potty break unless the foreman decided to let them go. They worked for very nominal wages, and this was long before the min. wage ever came into existance. Employees were threatened over this, that or what have you. Factories were filthy, stinky and dangerous places to work in. Machinery was in disrepair. For millions, it was a living hell to work in one. Long hours with no benefits whatsoever etc.

Unions were created to ensure the workers would be treated fairly.

True but then times changed, unions morphed into something more (or less depending on one's point of view). This economic cycle unions are under assault and to a degree rightfully so, eventually the cycle will come back to where unions are once again required for workers economic parity.

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
President John F. Kennedy

Unions have not morphed into anything. Unions have been under a constant, deliberate and well funded attacked for 30 years by the same entities that have been attacking the programs that created a robust middle class.

The need for unions is based on human nature, human foible and necessary buffers to those tendencies that have not changed, and never will...

 

[JBeukema]

If unionism is so bad, how do conservatives explain the 50s?

 

[Mini 14]

The need for unions is based on human nature, human foible and necessary buffers to those tendencies that have not changed, and never will...

That, and a never-ending supply of lazy, uneducated, blue collar chumps who are easily manipulated into doing the union-masters' bidding.