The Right to Work for less money

[GoneBezerk]

Uh, many auto maker jobs moved to places like TN and SC where unions aren't welcome because the common man there doesn't like mafia asswipes showing up to tell them to pay them kickback money.

SEIU is a bunch of service sector goon union members. They showed up at LAX last month shutting down traffic to/from the airport protesting the service contract inside LAX despite none of the union goons being employed there. The workers inside held a press conference complaining SEIU was pressuring them to join their union.

Scum like you don't live in reality. Oh, but your "suit' pic is so sneaky....we know you're a trash bag occupy nut.

The pro-union idiots here need to explain why unions in Michigan have fallen in numbers......that shows they are not popular. Things aren't popular because they are bad.....idiots.

Unionization is down nationally, because more and more people are employed in the service sector, where unions are less common (and so many states have rules like right-to-work that have the effect of prohibiting unionization, meaning that it only continues to the extent it does in incumbent industries).

 

[kwc57]

"Right-to-work" laws do not create jobs. Nevada, the state with the highest unemployment rate, in the nation, is a "right-to-work" state. Massachusetts and Texas have the same unemployment rate. Ditto for New York and Georgia.

1) Read

2) Weep

'Since Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, signed the legislation making his state the nation’s 23rd right-to-work state in early February, Indiana has added about 43,000 jobs, while Michigan has lost about 7,300, said Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich.'

Indiana's move pushed Michigan on right-to-work - Washington Times


The genie is very much out of the bottle now.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Didn't read the article did you?

 

[SniperFire]

But that's exactly what "right-to-work" laws do. You don't have to pay anything to the union for the benefits you get from the contract. Note that no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years.

Ahh.. I see your point. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I think the Right to Work laws are bad law. They're yet another case of responding to the unforeseen consequences of one bad law (or in this case the unfortunate body of labor law), with something just as bad or even worse. That seems to be all we do anymore, make up new shitty laws to paper over the crap from older shitty laws.

Okay, confession. I'm confused.

I thought the whole idea behind RTW was to outlaw businesses that require union membership as a condition of employment. Now you're saying no business in any state can make that requirement?

I need to do more research. I'm hearing conflicting messages.

It outlaws 'union security agreements' - deals which are tucked into collective bargaining agreements which require all employees to pay union dues.

 

[Bern80]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

Most hi-tech jobs are non-union jobs and they pay extremely well.

.

No one is saying an industry has to be unionized to pay well. The technology sector requires a special skill set very few people have, so those people are able to command a wage premium (although, many of those jobs are being outsourced to China and India, so it may not be the boon it appears to be on the surface).

More to the point very few are willing to do what it takes to acquire this skill set. The solution to making more money, to the point where being in a union is irrelevent is exceedingly simple. You find out what jobs are in demand, that pay what you want and you go out and acquire the skill set necessary to do that job. It is not the high skill jobs that are going overseas. It is the low skill jobs, like manufacturing. If you want people's income to rise and the economy to improve you have to teach people these skills, instead of getting the american peopel to focus on this class warefare thing where people who are dependent on government think they should earn more without requiring more of themselves to do something that pretty much anyone else can do.

 

[ScienceRocks]

For the party that says they respect a persons choice to do something. Well, you're now telling me that person shouldn't have that choice in this case?

 

[Koios]

The pro-union idiots here need to explain why unions in Michigan have fallen in numbers......that shows they are not popular. Things aren't popular because they are bad.....idiots.

Simple. Low median household income, comparatively. Thus fewer shit-pay service jobs are created to serve MI households.

Meanwhile, take highly-unionized states, such as Alaska (#1, and GOP-leaning) or California (#2, and Dem-leaning). They have high median incomes, and thus are adding jobs rapidly. CA, hardest-hit by the Bush Great Recession, is #2 in jobs added, of the 50 states. Alaska, the highest unionized, as a percentage of its workforce, and near the highest median household income, has only 7.1% unemployment.

 

[Koios]

1) Read

2) Weep

'Since Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, signed the legislation making his state the nation’s 23rd right-to-work state in early February, Indiana has added about 43,000 jobs, while Michigan has lost about 7,300, said Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich.'

Indiana's move pushed Michigan on right-to-work - Washington Times


The genie is very much out of the bottle now.

What that conservative Moony rag fails to understand is right-to-work does not create a job; it only limits the amount union dues paid.

LOL

Why did Indiana experience a job boom, and neighboring Michigan lose more jobs?

I'm not sure. Are you?

 

[Paulie]

You're missing an important point in your question. You'er able to provide a product at a lower cost, but only because you're taking money out of the pockets of others to pay for it.

Oh, well, if anyone is stealing as part of their work, the argument is null and void. That should definitely be against he law.

But that's exactly what "right-to-work" laws do. You don't have to pay anything to the union for the benefits you get from the contract. Note that no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years.

By forcing me to pay the dues, you've forced me into membership with the union by default.

I don't agree with getting the union benefits if you haven't paid dues though. It should be one or the other.

 

[Koios]

What that conservative Moony rag fails to understand is right-to-work does not create a job; it only limits the amount union dues paid.

LOL

Why did Indiana experience a job boom, and neighboring Michigan lose more jobs?

I'm not sure. Are you?

So I did a quick search. Here's where most of the jobs added, ranking Indiana 5th in nation, came from:

"The companies are Angie's List, Elkhart-based Atwood Mobile Products, BidPal, Inc., Brunswick Fort Wayne Operations, Café Valley, Inc., ExactTarget, Inventure Foods, Mitsubishi Engine North America, and Moorehead Communications, Inc." (excerpted from: Indiana companies unveil 2,550 new jobs )

 

[eflatminor]

Ahh.. I see your point. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I think the Right to Work laws are bad law. They're yet another case of responding to the unforeseen consequences of one bad law (or in this case the unfortunate body of labor law), with something just as bad or even worse. That seems to be all we do anymore, make up new shitty laws to paper over the crap from older shitty laws.

Okay, confession. I'm confused.

I thought the whole idea behind RTW was to outlaw businesses that require union membership as a condition of employment. Now you're saying no business in any state can make that requirement?

I need to do more research. I'm hearing conflicting messages.

It outlaws 'union security agreements' - deals which are tucked into collective bargaining agreements which require all employees to pay union dues.

But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."

That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?

What am I missing?

 

[kwc57]

The pro-union idiots here need to explain why unions in Michigan have fallen in numbers......that shows they are not popular. Things aren't popular because they are bad.....idiots.

Simple. Low median household income, comparatively. Thus fewer shit-pay service jobs are created to serve MI households.

Meanwhile, take highly-unionized states, such as Alaska (#1, and GOP-leaning) or California (#2, and Dem-leaning). They have high median incomes, and thus are adding jobs rapidly. CA, hardest-hit by the Bush Great Recession, is #2 in jobs added, of the 50 states. Alaska, the highest unionized, as a percentage of its workforce, and near the highest median household income, has only 7.1% unemployment.

Have you checked the cost of living between unionized and RTW states? I have. Those "higher" paying incomes are eaten up in housing, food, transportation, etc. There are plenty of lists of per capita income by state and cost of living calculators to check it out.

 

[kwc57]

What that conservative Moony rag fails to understand is right-to-work does not create a job; it only limits the amount union dues paid.

LOL

Why did Indiana experience a job boom, and neighboring Michigan lose more jobs?

I'm not sure. Are you?

Read the article.

 

[SniperFire]

What that conservative Moony rag fails to understand is right-to-work does not create a job; it only limits the amount union dues paid.

LOL

Why did Indiana experience a job boom, and neighboring Michigan lose more jobs?

I'm not sure. Are you?

You are intentionally obtuse. But I am here to help!:


'Between 2000 and 2011, right-to-work states have seen an increase of 11.3 percent in the number of residents between the ages of 25-34, according to the Bureau of the Census. Non-right-to-work states, over that same period of time, have seen an increase of only 0.6 percent.

Right-to-work means increasing wages. Private-sector, inflation-adjusted employee compensation in right-to-work states has grown by 12.0 percent between 2001-2011, according to data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics. That compares with just 3.0 percent over the same period in forced-unionization states.

Right-to-work means low unemployment. Between 1999 and 2009, non-farm private-sector employment grew 3.7 percent in right-to-work states, but decreased 2.8 percent in non-right-to-work states. Further, the vast majority of jobs created during the Obama administration have been in states with a right-to-work law.'

Right-to-Work: More and Better Jobs. Making Michigan Home Again. [Mackinac Center]

 

[GoneBezerk]

California's wages are affected by the overpaid actors, singers, athletes, etc in California. If someone is making $20M a year making movies....spreading that amount among other workers drives their income average higher than they really make, idiot.

Alaska also has high paying jobs in the oil and fishing business. Alaska in the first place is expensive due to shipping costs, so most people there make extra money to even live there.

You're an idiot. You need to explain why Michigan's unions have gone downhill, jobs have left and Republicans now run the state after the mess created by you scum.

The pro-union idiots here need to explain why unions in Michigan have fallen in numbers......that shows they are not popular. Things aren't popular because they are bad.....idiots.

Simple. Low median household income, comparatively. Thus fewer shit-pay service jobs are created to serve MI households.

Meanwhile, take highly-unionized states, such as Alaska (#1, and GOP-leaning) or California (#2, and Dem-leaning). They have high median incomes, and thus are adding jobs rapidly. CA, hardest-hit by the Bush Great Recession, is #2 in jobs added, of the 50 states. Alaska, the highest unionized, as a percentage of its workforce, and near the highest median household income, has only 7.1% unemployment.

 

[kwc57]

He'll have a hard time showing that, because very few people express those aims explicitly (and even less do so publicly), but there is a massive willful indifference on the right to the plight of the average person.

Uh-huh, right. The problem with that statement is that the right is made up of average people.

Because people never, ever, do things that contradict their own self-interest.

You have a point. Blacks keep voting Democrat which is intent on keep them dependent on their social programs.

 

[GoneBezerk]

California once being a great place to live has high prices for homes because of the location, location and location.

Companies need to pay high salaries to lure workers there to afford a house, so wages go up.

Liberals then claim that means the union jobs in say the shipping yards or in some AG field is the reason Joe Schmoe makes $100K right out of college working near LA.....because they are insane.

Simple. Low median household income, comparatively. Thus fewer shit-pay service jobs are created to serve MI households.

Meanwhile, take highly-unionized states, such as Alaska (#1, and GOP-leaning) or California (#2, and Dem-leaning). They have high median incomes, and thus are adding jobs rapidly. CA, hardest-hit by the Bush Great Recession, is #2 in jobs added, of the 50 states. Alaska, the highest unionized, as a percentage of its workforce, and near the highest median household income, has only 7.1% unemployment.

Have you checked the cost of living between unionized and RTW states? I have. Those "higher" paying incomes are eaten up in housing, food, transportation, etc. There are plenty of lists of per capita income by state and cost of living calculators to check it out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

If we lived in a country where unions took dues and returned an actual benefit for the worker I would have no problem with closed shops if that is what the employer and employees wanted. The way it works in this country is unions take over an entire trade, lock all non members out, and then force both employees and employers to subsidize their political activity without giving a real benefit to anyone other than the union. They then use that clout to get laws passed that actually force people to join unions in order to get work, which effectively makes both union dues and special collections, which are both deducted from wages without the consent of the employee, a tax.

No one can justify that to me.

On top of that, if people did not have to work for unions, and thus pay dues, they would actually be working for more money.

 

[kwc57]

The very topic we're discussing in this thread is a perfect example. Workers in "right-to-work" states are paid less money, are less likely to have employer-provided health insurance coverage, and are less likely to have pension.

Holy shit, I'd better let my wife with an associates degree know she shouldn't be making $100k+, have health insurance or a pension since she lives in Oklahoma. Polk said so. In fact, I'd better let all of my neighbors know they shouldn't either. Thanks for repeating Dear Leader and the media's big lie or we wouldn't have known.

I know you're smart enough to know the difference between average compensation and the compensation of specific individuals.

I'm sure you're smart enough to know the problem with making generalizations.

 

[Koios]

California's wages are affected by the overpaid actors, singers, athletes, etc in California. If someone is making $20M a year making movies....spreading that amount among other workers drives their income average higher than they really make, idiot.

Alaska also has high paying jobs in the oil and fishing business. Alaska in the first place is expensive due to shipping costs, so most people there make extra money to even live there.

You're an idiot. You need to explain why Michigan's unions have gone downhill, jobs have left and Republicans now run the state after the mess created by you scum.

Simple. Low median household income, comparatively. Thus fewer shit-pay service jobs are created to serve MI households.

Meanwhile, take highly-unionized states, such as Alaska (#1, and GOP-leaning) or California (#2, and Dem-leaning). They have high median incomes, and thus are adding jobs rapidly. CA, hardest-hit by the Bush Great Recession, is #2 in jobs added, of the 50 states. Alaska, the highest unionized, as a percentage of its workforce, and near the highest median household income, has only 7.1% unemployment.

You're so stupid your head hurts. Why are fishing and oil jobs high-paying? Or the many thousands of studio workers highly paid?

BECAUSE THEY'RE UNIONIZED, one unioin of which used to be headed up by Ronald Reagan, whom you may have heard of. If not, google it.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Forced union membership..................Facism, for the public good !!!! Isnt it always ?