Right-To-Work Wage Myth

[Lakhota]

By Terry Krepel

Fox News host Alisyn Camerota twice propagated the false claim that workers in so-called "right-to-work" states make $7,000 more a year than those in states without right-to-work laws. In fact, average wages in states with right-to-work laws are lower than those without.

Guest-hosting the December 11 edition of Fox News' America Live, Camerota said to guest Leslie Marshall during a discussion of a right-to-work law in Michigan: "The president said something that was possibly incorrect yesterday. He said that it's legislation like this that will lower workers' wages, when in fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in their latest report say that it's the right-to-work states where workers' wages are higher, on average $49,000 versus $42,000. Here are the statistics. So the president was actually inaccurate when he said that this would lower workers' wages."

Camerota's claim, however, is false. According to a June 20 Congressional Research Service report on right-to-work laws, the average annual wage in right-to-work states is $42,465, compared with $49,495 in "union security" states.

Meanwhile, a graphic that appeared during Camerota's interview actually got the numbers correct:

Fox's Camerota Twice Repeats False Claim About Salaries In "Right-To-Work" States | Blog | Media Matters for America

Right to Work Laws: Legislative Background and Empirical Research - Congressional Research Service

 

[Lakhota]

Right-wing media falsely claimed that workers at organized work places are compelled to pay dues that go toward union political activities and that so-called "right-to-work" legislation in Michigan would give workers a choice about paying for these activities. In fact, workers at unionized work places already can choose whether to pay for political activities of their union.

Right-Wing Media Are Wrong About Worker Contributions For Unions' Political Spending | Research | Media Matters for America

 

[francoHFW]

Dem orgs don't have to lie to make an argument...Pub dupes!!

 

[Lakhota]

All labor benefits from unions - both union and non-union.

 

[Avatar4321]

Then why do you have to force people to join unions? Why do you have to forceably take union dues?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Then why do you have to force people to join unions? Why do you have to forceably take union dues?

They have the choice. They could work somewhere else. If business owners felt so strongly, they wouldn't have accepted closed shop deals.

BTW, I know of no one who is in a trade that would choose not to work for union wages and benefits.

 

[Clementine]

Right-wing media falsely claimed that workers at organized work places are compelled to pay dues that go toward union political activities and that so-called "right-to-work" legislation in Michigan would give workers a choice about paying for these activities. In fact, workers at unionized work places already can choose whether to pay for political activities of their union.

Right-Wing Media Are Wrong About Worker Contributions For Unions' Political Spending | Research | Media Matters for America

Aren't the unions still fuming over the decision to make them give workers enough notice when they intend to take money for political campaigns?

Unions don't like giving workers choices and that is creepy.

 

[007]

All labor benefits from unions - both union and non-union.

Businesses don't. It bleeds them to death. The proof of that is overwhelming.

Now STFU.

 

[Lakhota]

Right-wing media falsely claimed that workers at organized work places are compelled to pay dues that go toward union political activities and that so-called "right-to-work" legislation in Michigan would give workers a choice about paying for these activities. In fact, workers at unionized work places already can choose whether to pay for political activities of their union.

Right-Wing Media Are Wrong About Worker Contributions For Unions' Political Spending | Research | Media Matters for America

Aren't the unions still fuming over the decision to make them give workers enough notice when they intend to take money for political campaigns?

Unions don't like giving workers choices and that is creepy.

It's not creepy when you understand the reality. Unions like to vote as a block for pro-labor candidates and policies. That is the opposite of the Koch brothers trying to coerce their employees to vote for pro-management (anti-labor) candidates and policies.

 

[Dutch]

Then why do you have to force people to join unions? Why do you have to forceably take union dues?

Because they can get all of the benifits of the union without paying dues. It would be like someone not paying income tax, sales tax, and payroll tax usIng and benifitting from everything those taxes pay for.

 

[Lakhota]

Then why do you have to force people to join unions? Why do you have to forceably take union dues?

Because they can get all of the benifits of the union without paying dues. It would be like someone not paying income tax, sales tax, and payroll tax usIng and benifitting from everything those taxes pay for.

Precisely.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Right-wing media falsely claimed that workers at organized work places are compelled to pay dues that go toward union political activities and that so-called "right-to-work" legislation in Michigan would give workers a choice about paying for these activities. In fact, workers at unionized work places already can choose whether to pay for political activities of their union.

Right-Wing Media Are Wrong About Worker Contributions For Unions' Political Spending | Research | Media Matters for America

Aren't the unions still fuming over the decision to make them give workers enough notice when they intend to take money for political campaigns?

Unions don't like giving workers choices and that is creepy.

Union workers pick their own leadership. What commpany, that isn't employee owned, has one person one vote standards. You're confused.

 

[Avatar4321]

Then why do you have to force people to join unions? Why do you have to forceably take union dues?

Because they can get all of the benifits of the union without paying dues. It would be like someone not paying income tax, sales tax, and payroll tax usIng and benifitting from everything those taxes pay for.

Then dont give them the benefits. Not really rocket science there.

But then, that's not really the reason for it. So there really isnt any need to lie about it.

 

[Lakhota]

Anti-union conservatives have a goal, a plan, and a reason:

Goal: To weaken and destroy unions.

Plan: Divide and conquer.

Reason: Greed - To dilute and lower labor wages and benefits.

 

[Politico]

Man this butthurt is getting old.

 

[JFK_USA]

All labor benefits from unions - both union and non-union.

Businesses don't. It bleeds them to death. The proof of that is overwhelming.

Now STFU.

Except it wasn't in the 1990s. Or in the 1960s. Why is it so wrong for workers to get together and negotiate their own working conditions and pay with the company. Why should they be forced to just take whatever their employer throws at them with absolutely no recourse.

And if you "Just quit" is ignoring that these people have families and now have to go through so many changes at work. I remember working for a company that when they hired me they were "union-free" because it's important to have open communication between employees and management. Yeah right. In that time, they laid off support staff that helped make me and my co-workers more efficient, so now we had twice as much work. Did we get a pay raise? No. Did management listen to our complaints? Nope. But did people just up and quit? No but they were looking around for new jobs.

It's something in a bad economy that businesses try to squash workers rights because they feel they have the momentum to get rid of certain rights for workers because people want jobs. It's unethical. There is nothing wrong with workers negotiating with their place of work for better conditions and better pay.

 

[Lakhota]

Collective bargaining is common sense.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[jgarden]

Who actually gets to receive "dividends" from stocks and bonds that you don't even own.

Our conservative "friends" would ridicule the concept of getting something for nothing, but that is exactly what occurs in "right-to-work" states where those in the company, but not in the union, receive the same wages and benefits as the union members who paid for the services of lawyers and other professionals to negotiate legal and binding collective agreements.

Under any other set of circumstances, the conservatives would be venting their self-righteous indignation from the rooftops.

 

[Lakhota]

Who actually gets to receive "dividends" from stocks and bonds that you don't even own.

Our conservative "friends" would ridicule the concept of getting something for nothing, but that is exactly what occurs in "right-to-work" states where those not in the union receive the same wages and benefits as the union members who paid for the services of lawyers and other professionals to negotiate legal and binding collective agreements.

Exactly. "Right-to-work" provides a free ride on the backs of union members.