Right-To-Work Wage Myth

[Glensather]

There's just one problem with this:

Unions since the Jimmy Hoffa days have been nothing more than cudgels... they're trying to fix the problems they have with their employers with brute force rather than precision.

Unions used to mean something. Now they're just weapons.

 

[Stephanie]

poor Unions are still whining

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

MSNBC Anchors Laugh As Michigan Governor Claims Union-Busting Is Good For Workers | ThinkProgress

 

[tinydancer]

It's extortion to demand that some one pay an organization just to be able to work.

 

[Wiseacre]

There is some questions over that wage differential between RTW and non-RTW states. Many of the RTW states had lower average wages before they instituted RTW laws. Some of the non-RTW states have the advantage of decades of more manufacturing and better schools of higher education, so maybe whatever the true wage differential is can't be blamed on the RTW laws. There are no doubt a lot of other factors involved in why some states have higher average wages than others; RTW laws may only be incidental.

 

[Lakhota]

Myths And Facts About "Right-To-Work" Laws

Are workers in states without right-to-work laws forced to join unions?

Do right-to-work laws lead to higher wages and benefits?

Will right-to-work laws lead to lower unemployment in states that adopt them?

Do right-to-work laws protect workers from supporting political activities they disagree with?

ANSWERS: Myths And Facts About "Right-To-Work" Laws | Research | Media Matters for America

 

[Lakhota]

Right-Wing Media Are Wrong About Worker Contributions For Unions' Political Spending

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.

In Fact, Workers At Organized Work Places Are Not Required To Be Full Union Members.

NLRB: Workers That Don't Want Full Union Membership "Pay Only That Share Of Dues Used Directly For Representation" Of Union Contract They Work Under. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) explains that workers do not have to be full union members, but instead must only pay for the union representation they receive by working at a union shop, regardless of their membership status:

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

 

[PratchettFan]

This is what confuses me. A state that does not have a right-to-work law does not require a business have a closed shop. That decision is up to the business. In a right-to-work state, a business is not allowed to make that decision. The government tells it what it can or cannot do. Yet the people who support this are the same people who are constantly screaming about governmental interference with business. Seems a tad inconsistant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is what confuses me. A state that does not have a right-to-work law does not require a business have a closed shop. That decision is up to the business. In a right-to-work state, a business is not allowed to make that decision. The government tells it what it can or cannot do. Yet the people who support this are the same people who are constantly screaming about governmental interference with business. Seems a tad inconsistant.

"a tad inconsistant" is a polite way of pointing out the hypocrisy on the right. The GOP has devolved into a party ruled by dogma but ever willing to violate the rules when it is in their best interests.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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

Life In Provo [INFOGRAPHIC] | Provo Buzz

well here's a non union state/community and if fact its the most conservative county in the USA so figure that one out. Did ya see the average income.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Here's the thing you lib morons dont seem to get.
In a RTW state the people who work hard get paid for their efforts. Those who dont.....dont.
I fail to see the issue with that.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Because..... they don't own the fucking business?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

But the problem you have now is the opposite and this is what right to work laws are addressing. The reality is that there are entire career fields where union membership is MANDATORY. You are outright FORCED to pay union dues. Other union memberships are forced as a matter of being hired. This type of practice is downright wrong and inconsistent with what unions are here for. I had to be part of a union here in WA because I ran a daycare. As the OWNER of the company I was still forced to join the union and pay those dues. Why? No real reason, I was offered nothing in return. I had an arbitrary legal requirement because the fat cats negotiated something with the state.


The argument that the non players are leeching off the unions because they are representing them is flat out false. Sorry, it does not work that way. Collective bargaining is a direct result of employees unsatisfied with what management is giving them. If the workers want to bargain collectively they should have that right at any time. That in no way means that anyone should be forced to do so.

The big lie that liberals have been pushing here is that they want to protect your rights. They are not protecting your right to collectively bargain - they are enforcing your obligation to do so. You want to know why the right is against this as they are always calling for lesser government: because it is government that is allowing laws that force people into contracts that they never wanted to be a part of in the first place.


It is NOT a right when you are forced to participate. That is not what rights are about. The left is not trying to protect a right, they are trying to enforce an obligation.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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

It's the wrong argument on whether or not they make more in a non-right to work state. The reason? Unions bargain for more and more pay and benefit every year. They are bloated bargains that create false labor wage signals from the market.

let's instead, see whcih ststae have higher or lower unemployment. Which is the real argument.

What makes this one really sad, is that it came from the mouth of Bill O'Really.
But there it is. It's the facts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reilly-says-unemployment-lower-right-work-st/

Bill O'Reilly says unemployment is lower in 'right-to-work' states

On the Feb. 24, 2011, edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly said that the jobs picture is better in "right to work" states -- that is, states in which workers can refuse to pay dues or fees to the union that represents them in bargaining.

"The right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do," O’Reilly said while interviewing Caroline Heldman, a political scientist at Occidental College.

We thought we’d check to see whether O’Reilly is correct.

First, some background. According to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, 22 states have passed some form of right-to-work law (the exact provisions can vary) -- 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 and Wyoming. The other 28 states do not have such laws.

To test O’Reilly’s claim, we turned to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which is the official source for unemployment statistics in the United States. BLS' most recent state-by state data is for December 2010.

We consulted with Gary Burtless, a labor economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, about the fairest way to look at the data. We agreed that it was best to compare right-to-work and non-right-to-work states through data weighted according to state population. That way, California’s unemployment rate would be given more weight than, say, Wyoming’s.

When we did the math, we found that the unemployment rate in the 22 right-to-work states was 9.17 percent, compared to 9.65 in the 28 non-right-to-work states. (The national unemployment rate that month was 9.4 percent that month -- right in the middle.) So O’Reilly is basically correct.

As always, there’s a question about causation -- that is, whether right-to-work status actually produces low unemployment. Of the 11 states with the lowest unemployment (there was a tie for 10th place) eight were right-to-work states. Of those, seven states -- North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma -- are from the Great Plains and the Mountain West, which have in general been less hard-hit during the recent recession.


So there you have it, more people are employed in right to work states. As it says, right to work, not right to make more by not bargaining.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

That is a union problem, not an employer problem.

Please support the right to choose.

 

[PratchettFan]

Here's the thing you lib morons dont seem to get.
In a RTW state the people who work hard get paid for their efforts. Those who dont.....dont.
I fail to see the issue with that.

Possibly. You would have to support that claim with hard evidence, not just claim it. However, there is one thing which is clear. When the government tells business what kind of labor contracts they can or cannot engage in and how they will conduct their hiring decisions, that is socialism. I just fine it amusing that the right is pushing a socialist agenda. Should I start calling you comrade?

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Actually, I must respectfully disagree with you on this premise and, at least in my case. I was a union member for 25 years in a right to work state. I, like the vast majority of union members at my company, were conservative voting members who made good salaries, had good benefits and made the company we worked for a boat-load of money. When I started there in the early 80s, the company was earning a $100 million per year profit, which allowed them to expand into 22 other states and, by the time I retired, were making a 1.5 billion per year profit. As I understand it, this year will be 1.82 Billion profit, And I congratulate their success.

I know, first hand, what working in a "right to work state" does to all involved. Few people here do. They merely use conjecture and innuendo to make points that have little, to no, value except to demean. ESPECIALLY those on the left.

Being in a union environment within the confines of a right to work state had no adverse effect on us in the least. When I was hired I was told that I had the right to "refuse" union representation and would receive the same wages and benefits that union employees received. I joined the Teamsters. And, why not? There is always safety in numbers. Always. I paid twice my hourly salary, once a month, and it covered my healthcare, pension and dues for the month. It started out at $26 dollars a month in 1981 and ended up at $62 dollars a month 25 years later.

How many folks here can say the same thing?

I, and the vast majority of the people I worked with, had only one problem with our union. They spent money from OUR dues on political campaigns WITHOUT our consent, or even the ability to VOTE on such spending. A union member (I believe an auto worker) sued and won the right to have that money refunded. As of this date, I don't believe that he has received any compensation.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here's the thing you lib morons dont seem to get.
In a RTW state the people who work hard get paid for their efforts. Those who dont.....dont.
I fail to see the issue with that.

Possibly. You would have to support that claim with hard evidence, not just claim it. However, there is one thing which is clear. When the government tells business what kind of labor contracts they can or cannot engage in and how they will conduct their hiring decisions, that is socialism. I just fine it amusing that the right is pushing a socialist agenda. Should I start calling you comrade?

I already addressed this false claim above. I noticed that you ignored it.

Perhaps you would actually like to back up your false claims instead of parroting them...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Here's the thing you lib morons dont seem to get.
In a RTW state the people who work hard get paid for their efforts. Those who dont.....dont.
I fail to see the issue with that.

Possibly. You would have to support that claim with hard evidence, not just claim it. However, there is one thing which is clear. When the government tells business what kind of labor contracts they can or cannot engage in and how they will conduct their hiring decisions, that is socialism. I just fine it amusing that the right is pushing a socialist agenda. Should I start calling you comrade?

I am the hard evidence. I retired at 46....in a RTW state.
When a union forces people to join it's OK?
Because the union is nothing more than an extension of the Dem party.