Wisconsin will be 25th State with right-to-work.

[Wyatt earp]

How many 24 year Olds in blue states, have a pick up truck, bass boat , own mobile home, a few $900 dollar handguns and rifles?

In the blue state they are living in a crappy ass , closest of an apartment, or in moms basement, making a little more money but just have a car and playstation 4 to fantasize about how great life could be.

 

[Katzndogz]

If employers in right to work states pay less post the info. Otherwise it's just what you think will happen.

When given a choice people choose not to join a union. To oppose this unions set up a program where employees could choose not to join the union but must still pay union dues as if they were in the union. Right to work means that they don't have to pay dues unless they actually join.

Right to work states haven't eliminated unions. Unions can still exist and still negotiate on behalf of their members.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If employers in right to work states pay less post the info. Otherwise it's just what you think will happen.

When given a choice people choose not to join a union. To oppose this unions set up a program where employees could choose not to join the union but must still pay union dues as if they were in the union. Right to work means that they don't have to pay dues unless they actually join.

Right to work states haven't eliminated unions. Unions can still exist and still negotiate on behalf of their members.

And that's the crux of the matter that Leftwats just can't ignore. Just like with Social Security or just about any other component of the Leftist regime the simple question is, "If it's so great, then why not make it voluntary?". But the communist Left with NEVER make their policies voluntary because they know people will opt out. Social Security, unions, few if anybody would participate in these things had they a choice.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Wisconsin is set to become the 25th right-to-work state
Wisconsin is poised to strip union power even further after the state Assembly passed a so-called right-to-work bill Friday, which Gov. Scott Walker (R) has vowed to sign.

Once signed, the bill will make Wisconsin the 25th state to pass a right-to-work law. Neighboring Michigan and Indiana passed right-to-work laws in late 2012. In states without such laws, employees can be compelled to pay union dues even if they don’t want to become members if they benefit from union-negotiated contracts.

The Wisconsin bill was rushed through the legislature after being introduced late last month to avoid a repeat of the massive protests over similar union restrictions four years ago. The bill passed in a party-line vote, with no Democrats supporting it.

“It’s prudent to not let this languish for months,” state Sen. Steve Nass (R) told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In 2011, tens of thousands of protesters turned out in opposition to a bill curtailing public employee union power, which eventually became law. Thousands of workers protested last week as senators debated the right-to-work bill, according to reports.

Though he called the debate a “distraction” in December, Walker has also said that he supports the measure. In an interview with The Washington Post last month, he said that he “absolutely” would sign the bill.

During last year’s legislative session, right-to-work laws were proposed in 20 states, though none passed them. This year, lawmakers have proposed versions of such laws in New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio and Missouri. The table below shows all state action on right-to-work, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.
Wisconsin is set to become the 25th right-to-work state - The Washington Post

Soon states that protect the rights and freedom of working people will outnumber those still under the shadow of union mafia thugs. It also should be noticed that the in the Leftwatisphere, protests have lost a lot of steam, sometimes only a half dozen protesters still keeping the faith. That's what I enjoy even more than Wisconsin adopting right to work, the demoralization of the Left. They are losers and they lost again.

"Billionaire Koch brothers gave $8 million to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker recall campaign, Dem chair says"
Billionaire Koch brothers gave 8 million to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker recall campaign Dem chair says PolitiFact Wisconsin

For $8 mil I'm sure Gov. Walker'd kill his own parents.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Wisconsin is set to become the 25th right-to-work state
Wisconsin is poised to strip union power even further after the state Assembly passed a so-called right-to-work bill Friday, which Gov. Scott Walker (R) has vowed to sign.

Once signed, the bill will make Wisconsin the 25th state to pass a right-to-work law. Neighboring Michigan and Indiana passed right-to-work laws in late 2012. In states without such laws, employees can be compelled to pay union dues even if they don’t want to become members if they benefit from union-negotiated contracts.

The Wisconsin bill was rushed through the legislature after being introduced late last month to avoid a repeat of the massive protests over similar union restrictions four years ago. The bill passed in a party-line vote, with no Democrats supporting it.

“It’s prudent to not let this languish for months,” state Sen. Steve Nass (R) told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In 2011, tens of thousands of protesters turned out in opposition to a bill curtailing public employee union power, which eventually became law. Thousands of workers protested last week as senators debated the right-to-work bill, according to reports.

Though he called the debate a “distraction” in December, Walker has also said that he supports the measure. In an interview with The Washington Post last month, he said that he “absolutely” would sign the bill.

During last year’s legislative session, right-to-work laws were proposed in 20 states, though none passed them. This year, lawmakers have proposed versions of such laws in New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio and Missouri. The table below shows all state action on right-to-work, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.
Wisconsin is set to become the 25th right-to-work state - The Washington Post

Soon states that protect the rights and freedom of working people will outnumber those still under the shadow of union mafia thugs. It also should be noticed that the in the Leftwatisphere, protests have lost a lot of steam, sometimes only a half dozen protesters still keeping the faith. That's what I enjoy even more than Wisconsin adopting right to work, the demoralization of the Left. They are losers and they lost again.

"Billionaire Koch brothers gave $8 million to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker recall campaign, Dem chair says"
Billionaire Koch brothers gave 8 million to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker recall campaign Dem chair says PolitiFact Wisconsin

For $8 mil I'm sure Gov. Walker'd kill his own parents.

Or maybe he should go back in time and kill yours before they fouled the earth with a little shit like you.

Fuck you.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Wisconsin is set to become the 25th right-to-work state
Wisconsin is poised to strip union power even further after the state Assembly passed a so-called right-to-work bill Friday, which Gov. Scott Walker (R) has vowed to sign.

Once signed, the bill will make Wisconsin the 25th state to pass a right-to-work law. Neighboring Michigan and Indiana passed right-to-work laws in late 2012. In states without such laws, employees can be compelled to pay union dues even if they don’t want to become members if they benefit from union-negotiated contracts.

The Wisconsin bill was rushed through the legislature after being introduced late last month to avoid a repeat of the massive protests over similar union restrictions four years ago. The bill passed in a party-line vote, with no Democrats supporting it.

“It’s prudent to not let this languish for months,” state Sen. Steve Nass (R) told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In 2011, tens of thousands of protesters turned out in opposition to a bill curtailing public employee union power, which eventually became law. Thousands of workers protested last week as senators debated the right-to-work bill, according to reports.

Though he called the debate a “distraction” in December, Walker has also said that he supports the measure. In an interview with The Washington Post last month, he said that he “absolutely” would sign the bill.

During last year’s legislative session, right-to-work laws were proposed in 20 states, though none passed them. This year, lawmakers have proposed versions of such laws in New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio and Missouri. The table below shows all state action on right-to-work, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.
Wisconsin is set to become the 25th right-to-work state - The Washington Post

Soon states that protect the rights and freedom of working people will outnumber those still under the shadow of union mafia thugs. It also should be noticed that the in the Leftwatisphere, protests have lost a lot of steam, sometimes only a half dozen protesters still keeping the faith. That's what I enjoy even more than Wisconsin adopting right to work, the demoralization of the Left. They are losers and they lost again.

"Billionaire Koch brothers gave $8 million to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker recall campaign, Dem chair says"
Billionaire Koch brothers gave 8 million to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker recall campaign Dem chair says PolitiFact Wisconsin

For $8 mil I'm sure Gov. Walker'd kill his own parents.

Or maybe he should go back in time and kill yours before they fouled the earth with a little shit like you.

Fuck you.

American politics. Welcome to the NFL. If ya can't take it go home.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Or I can place you on permanent ignore like I do to all worthless vermin.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Or I can place you on permanent ignore like I do to all worthless vermin.

Go ahead. Can still make fun of you and your posts, you just wont know what everyone's laughing about.

 

[HenryBHough]

A victory for workers who don't want to be forced to "donate" to The Democrat National Committee's outstanding efforts to fundamentally transform America into a Socialist Worker's Paradise - like North Korea?

 

[Coyote]

The right to work for less. That is an achievement. Nothing says I love 'Murica more than turning it into a third world country.

Yes, because the 24 states that have right to work turned into third world countries.

Idiot.

Right to work states have some of the lowest wages. It's not a good policy for workers.

Right To Work A Failed Policy A New Hampshire update Economic Policy Institute

Wrong. Right to work states have the lowest unemployment and the best wages overall. Union states have a caste system in which those who are in the union are paid well, but those outside of the union suffer from artificially inflated property values and the cost for goods. How Labor Unions Cause Inflation The Freeman Foundation for Economic Education

And moreover such a system can't survive long. The economic breakdown of Detroit demonstrates the long term effect of artificial manipulations of the free market. A virtual shanty town is the result when the bubble finally bursts.

'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified

One of the enduring myths of legislation designed to bring ‘right-to-work’ laws to the states is the notion that these laws actually have something to do with the right to work.


They decidedly do not.

Let’s begin by noting that many Americans continue to believe that unionism is based around the concept of the ‘closed shop’ —an agreement between an employer and the union representing the employer’s workers requiring that the employer hire only labor union members or, if nonmembers are employed, they must become a member of the union within a stated period of time or lose their job.


Not true.

<snip>

But did you know that Taft-Hartley further requires that the union be additionally obligated to provide non-members’ with virtually all the benefits of union membership even if that worker elects not to become a card-carrying union member?

<snip>

To compensate for this, Taft-Hartley required that, while nobody could be forced to join the union, non-members would be required to pay dues to the union as if they were members. These are called “agency fees”—the equivalent of union dues when paid by a non union-member.


Which brings us to myth number 2….


Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to pursue.


Again….not true.

<snip>

And not everyone agrees that the laws actually do bring business into a state.

According to a report written by economists Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto reviewing the results of Oklahoma’s right-to-work laws, and published by the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws do not always work out quite so well.

Abby Rapoport, writing in the American Spectator, describes the results of the Lafer/Allegretto study—

“Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries “dependent on consumer spending in the local economy” the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.

“It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers,” says Lafer.”

Still, there may be a credible argument to be made with regard to ‘right-to-work’ presenting greater opportunities for economic growth in the states that adopt the laws as both sides of the argument are likely to agree that these laws have the effect of weakening unions—and weakened unions tend to be good for business…or at least the owner of the business.​

<snip>

In another landmark study done by the Economic Policy Institute—a non-profit think tank which bills itself as non-partisan but, to be fair, is considered by many conservatives to lean to the left as a result of union financial support—it was determined that right-to-work laws result in lower wages, for both union and non-union workers alike, by an average $1500 per year as adjusted for cost of living in each state.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The right to work for less. That is an achievement. Nothing says I love 'Murica more than turning it into a third world country.

Yes, because the 24 states that have right to work turned into third world countries.

Idiot.

Right to work states have some of the lowest wages. It's not a good policy for workers.

Right To Work A Failed Policy A New Hampshire update Economic Policy Institute

Wrong. Right to work states have the lowest unemployment and the best wages overall. Union states have a caste system in which those who are in the union are paid well, but those outside of the union suffer from artificially inflated property values and the cost for goods. How Labor Unions Cause Inflation The Freeman Foundation for Economic Education

And moreover such a system can't survive long. The economic breakdown of Detroit demonstrates the long term effect of artificial manipulations of the free market. A virtual shanty town is the result when the bubble finally bursts.

'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified

One of the enduring myths of legislation designed to bring ‘right-to-work’ laws to the states is the notion that these laws actually have something to do with the right to work.


They decidedly do not.

Let’s begin by noting that many Americans continue to believe that unionism is based around the concept of the ‘closed shop’ —an agreement between an employer and the union representing the employer’s workers requiring that the employer hire only labor union members or, if nonmembers are employed, they must become a member of the union within a stated period of time or lose their job.


Not true.

<snip>

But did you know that Taft-Hartley further requires that the union be additionally obligated to provide non-members’ with virtually all the benefits of union membership even if that worker elects not to become a card-carrying union member?

<snip>

To compensate for this, Taft-Hartley required that, while nobody could be forced to join the union, non-members would be required to pay dues to the union as if they were members. These are called “agency fees”—the equivalent of union dues when paid by a non union-member.


Which brings us to myth number 2….


Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to pursue.


Again….not true.

<snip>

And not everyone agrees that the laws actually do bring business into a state.

According to a report written by economists Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto reviewing the results of Oklahoma’s right-to-work laws, and published by the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws do not always work out quite so well.

Abby Rapoport, writing in the American Spectator, describes the results of the Lafer/Allegretto study—

“Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries “dependent on consumer spending in the local economy” the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.

“It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers,” says Lafer.”

Still, there may be a credible argument to be made with regard to ‘right-to-work’ presenting greater opportunities for economic growth in the states that adopt the laws as both sides of the argument are likely to agree that these laws have the effect of weakening unions—and weakened unions tend to be good for business…or at least the owner of the business.​

<snip>

In another landmark study done by the Economic Policy Institute—a non-profit think tank which bills itself as non-partisan but, to be fair, is considered by many conservatives to lean to the left as a result of union financial support—it was determined that right-to-work laws result in lower wages, for both union and non-union workers alike, by an average $1500 per year as adjusted for cost of living in each state.

You actually used a source that discloses the fact that it takes union contributions?

OMG, I think I just sharted!

 

[Coyote]

The right to work for less. That is an achievement. Nothing says I love 'Murica more than turning it into a third world country.

Yes, because the 24 states that have right to work turned into third world countries.

Idiot.

Right to work states have some of the lowest wages. It's not a good policy for workers.

Right To Work A Failed Policy A New Hampshire update Economic Policy Institute

Wrong. Right to work states have the lowest unemployment and the best wages overall. Union states have a caste system in which those who are in the union are paid well, but those outside of the union suffer from artificially inflated property values and the cost for goods. How Labor Unions Cause Inflation The Freeman Foundation for Economic Education

And moreover such a system can't survive long. The economic breakdown of Detroit demonstrates the long term effect of artificial manipulations of the free market. A virtual shanty town is the result when the bubble finally bursts.

'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified

One of the enduring myths of legislation designed to bring ‘right-to-work’ laws to the states is the notion that these laws actually have something to do with the right to work.


They decidedly do not.

Let’s begin by noting that many Americans continue to believe that unionism is based around the concept of the ‘closed shop’ —an agreement between an employer and the union representing the employer’s workers requiring that the employer hire only labor union members or, if nonmembers are employed, they must become a member of the union within a stated period of time or lose their job.


Not true.

<snip>

But did you know that Taft-Hartley further requires that the union be additionally obligated to provide non-members’ with virtually all the benefits of union membership even if that worker elects not to become a card-carrying union member?

<snip>

To compensate for this, Taft-Hartley required that, while nobody could be forced to join the union, non-members would be required to pay dues to the union as if they were members. These are called “agency fees”—the equivalent of union dues when paid by a non union-member.


Which brings us to myth number 2….


Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to pursue.


Again….not true.

<snip>

And not everyone agrees that the laws actually do bring business into a state.

According to a report written by economists Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto reviewing the results of Oklahoma’s right-to-work laws, and published by the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws do not always work out quite so well.

Abby Rapoport, writing in the American Spectator, describes the results of the Lafer/Allegretto study—

“Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries “dependent on consumer spending in the local economy” the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.

“It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers,” says Lafer.”

Still, there may be a credible argument to be made with regard to ‘right-to-work’ presenting greater opportunities for economic growth in the states that adopt the laws as both sides of the argument are likely to agree that these laws have the effect of weakening unions—and weakened unions tend to be good for business…or at least the owner of the business.​

<snip>

In another landmark study done by the Economic Policy Institute—a non-profit think tank which bills itself as non-partisan but, to be fair, is considered by many conservatives to lean to the left as a result of union financial support—it was determined that right-to-work laws result in lower wages, for both union and non-union workers alike, by an average $1500 per year as adjusted for cost of living in each state.

You actually used a source that discloses the fact that it takes union contributions?

OMG, I think I just sharted!

So what specifically is wrong with it's data? For example, it's true that unions must represent both union and non-union workers with the same compensations, support for unlawful firing and benefits. Essentially - right to work means that people can be parisites on the unions without paying a thing. Right to work is not about right to work - it's all about union busting.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes, because the 24 states that have right to work turned into third world countries.

Idiot.

Right to work states have some of the lowest wages. It's not a good policy for workers.

Right To Work A Failed Policy A New Hampshire update Economic Policy Institute

Wrong. Right to work states have the lowest unemployment and the best wages overall. Union states have a caste system in which those who are in the union are paid well, but those outside of the union suffer from artificially inflated property values and the cost for goods. How Labor Unions Cause Inflation The Freeman Foundation for Economic Education

And moreover such a system can't survive long. The economic breakdown of Detroit demonstrates the long term effect of artificial manipulations of the free market. A virtual shanty town is the result when the bubble finally bursts.

'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified

One of the enduring myths of legislation designed to bring ‘right-to-work’ laws to the states is the notion that these laws actually have something to do with the right to work.


They decidedly do not.

Let’s begin by noting that many Americans continue to believe that unionism is based around the concept of the ‘closed shop’ —an agreement between an employer and the union representing the employer’s workers requiring that the employer hire only labor union members or, if nonmembers are employed, they must become a member of the union within a stated period of time or lose their job.


Not true.

<snip>

But did you know that Taft-Hartley further requires that the union be additionally obligated to provide non-members’ with virtually all the benefits of union membership even if that worker elects not to become a card-carrying union member?

<snip>

To compensate for this, Taft-Hartley required that, while nobody could be forced to join the union, non-members would be required to pay dues to the union as if they were members. These are called “agency fees”—the equivalent of union dues when paid by a non union-member.


Which brings us to myth number 2….


Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to pursue.


Again….not true.

<snip>

And not everyone agrees that the laws actually do bring business into a state.

According to a report written by economists Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto reviewing the results of Oklahoma’s right-to-work laws, and published by the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws do not always work out quite so well.

Abby Rapoport, writing in the American Spectator, describes the results of the Lafer/Allegretto study—

“Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries “dependent on consumer spending in the local economy” the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.

“It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers,” says Lafer.”

Still, there may be a credible argument to be made with regard to ‘right-to-work’ presenting greater opportunities for economic growth in the states that adopt the laws as both sides of the argument are likely to agree that these laws have the effect of weakening unions—and weakened unions tend to be good for business…or at least the owner of the business.​

<snip>

In another landmark study done by the Economic Policy Institute—a non-profit think tank which bills itself as non-partisan but, to be fair, is considered by many conservatives to lean to the left as a result of union financial support—it was determined that right-to-work laws result in lower wages, for both union and non-union workers alike, by an average $1500 per year as adjusted for cost of living in each state.

You actually used a source that discloses the fact that it takes union contributions?

OMG, I think I just sharted!

So what specifically is wrong with it's data? For example, it's true that unions must represent both union and non-union workers with the same compensations, support for unlawful firing and benefits. Essentially - right to work means that people can be parisites on the unions without paying a thing. Right to work is not about right to work - it's all about union busting.

Try getting a source that isn't paid to say that right to work is bad.

Geez, do I have to explain that?

 

[Anathema]

I can guarantee you that the Union I am part of would not negotiate for people who are not paying dues. It's that simple.

 

[Coyote]

Right to work states have some of the lowest wages. It's not a good policy for workers.

Right To Work A Failed Policy A New Hampshire update Economic Policy Institute

Wrong. Right to work states have the lowest unemployment and the best wages overall. Union states have a caste system in which those who are in the union are paid well, but those outside of the union suffer from artificially inflated property values and the cost for goods. How Labor Unions Cause Inflation The Freeman Foundation for Economic Education

And moreover such a system can't survive long. The economic breakdown of Detroit demonstrates the long term effect of artificial manipulations of the free market. A virtual shanty town is the result when the bubble finally bursts.

'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified

One of the enduring myths of legislation designed to bring ‘right-to-work’ laws to the states is the notion that these laws actually have something to do with the right to work.


They decidedly do not.

Let’s begin by noting that many Americans continue to believe that unionism is based around the concept of the ‘closed shop’ —an agreement between an employer and the union representing the employer’s workers requiring that the employer hire only labor union members or, if nonmembers are employed, they must become a member of the union within a stated period of time or lose their job.


Not true.

<snip>

But did you know that Taft-Hartley further requires that the union be additionally obligated to provide non-members’ with virtually all the benefits of union membership even if that worker elects not to become a card-carrying union member?

<snip>

To compensate for this, Taft-Hartley required that, while nobody could be forced to join the union, non-members would be required to pay dues to the union as if they were members. These are called “agency fees”—the equivalent of union dues when paid by a non union-member.


Which brings us to myth number 2….


Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to pursue.


Again….not true.

<snip>

And not everyone agrees that the laws actually do bring business into a state.

According to a report written by economists Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto reviewing the results of Oklahoma’s right-to-work laws, and published by the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws do not always work out quite so well.

Abby Rapoport, writing in the American Spectator, describes the results of the Lafer/Allegretto study—

“Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries “dependent on consumer spending in the local economy” the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.

“It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers,” says Lafer.”

Still, there may be a credible argument to be made with regard to ‘right-to-work’ presenting greater opportunities for economic growth in the states that adopt the laws as both sides of the argument are likely to agree that these laws have the effect of weakening unions—and weakened unions tend to be good for business…or at least the owner of the business.​

<snip>

In another landmark study done by the Economic Policy Institute—a non-profit think tank which bills itself as non-partisan but, to be fair, is considered by many conservatives to lean to the left as a result of union financial support—it was determined that right-to-work laws result in lower wages, for both union and non-union workers alike, by an average $1500 per year as adjusted for cost of living in each state.

You actually used a source that discloses the fact that it takes union contributions?

OMG, I think I just sharted!

So what specifically is wrong with it's data? For example, it's true that unions must represent both union and non-union workers with the same compensations, support for unlawful firing and benefits. Essentially - right to work means that people can be parisites on the unions without paying a thing. Right to work is not about right to work - it's all about union busting.

Try getting a source that isn't paid to say that right to work is bad.

Geez, do I have to explain that?

So are you saying it's ok for non-paying people to take advantage of paying people by getting the same benefits?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Wrong. Right to work states have the lowest unemployment and the best wages overall. Union states have a caste system in which those who are in the union are paid well, but those outside of the union suffer from artificially inflated property values and the cost for goods. How Labor Unions Cause Inflation The Freeman Foundation for Economic Education

And moreover such a system can't survive long. The economic breakdown of Detroit demonstrates the long term effect of artificial manipulations of the free market. A virtual shanty town is the result when the bubble finally bursts.

'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified

One of the enduring myths of legislation designed to bring ‘right-to-work’ laws to the states is the notion that these laws actually have something to do with the right to work.


They decidedly do not.

Let’s begin by noting that many Americans continue to believe that unionism is based around the concept of the ‘closed shop’ —an agreement between an employer and the union representing the employer’s workers requiring that the employer hire only labor union members or, if nonmembers are employed, they must become a member of the union within a stated period of time or lose their job.


Not true.

<snip>

But did you know that Taft-Hartley further requires that the union be additionally obligated to provide non-members’ with virtually all the benefits of union membership even if that worker elects not to become a card-carrying union member?

<snip>

To compensate for this, Taft-Hartley required that, while nobody could be forced to join the union, non-members would be required to pay dues to the union as if they were members. These are called “agency fees”—the equivalent of union dues when paid by a non union-member.


Which brings us to myth number 2….


Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to pursue.


Again….not true.

<snip>

And not everyone agrees that the laws actually do bring business into a state.

According to a report written by economists Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto reviewing the results of Oklahoma’s right-to-work laws, and published by the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws do not always work out quite so well.

Abby Rapoport, writing in the American Spectator, describes the results of the Lafer/Allegretto study—

“Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries “dependent on consumer spending in the local economy” the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.

“It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers,” says Lafer.”

Still, there may be a credible argument to be made with regard to ‘right-to-work’ presenting greater opportunities for economic growth in the states that adopt the laws as both sides of the argument are likely to agree that these laws have the effect of weakening unions—and weakened unions tend to be good for business…or at least the owner of the business.​

<snip>

In another landmark study done by the Economic Policy Institute—a non-profit think tank which bills itself as non-partisan but, to be fair, is considered by many conservatives to lean to the left as a result of union financial support—it was determined that right-to-work laws result in lower wages, for both union and non-union workers alike, by an average $1500 per year as adjusted for cost of living in each state.

You actually used a source that discloses the fact that it takes union contributions?

OMG, I think I just sharted!

So what specifically is wrong with it's data? For example, it's true that unions must represent both union and non-union workers with the same compensations, support for unlawful firing and benefits. Essentially - right to work means that people can be parisites on the unions without paying a thing. Right to work is not about right to work - it's all about union busting.

Try getting a source that isn't paid to say that right to work is bad.

Geez, do I have to explain that?

So are you saying it's ok for non-paying people to take advantage of paying people by getting the same benefits?

I'm saying that NOBODY should be forced to sign on to a union just to find a job and forced to contribute to the Democrat Party. How hard is that?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I can guarantee you that the Union I am part of would not negotiate for people who are not paying dues. It's that simple.

Nobody's claiming they should. That's a Leftist red herring.

 

[Papageorgio]

The right to work for less. That is an achievement. Nothing says I love 'Murica more than turning it into a third world country.

Yes, because the 24 states that have right to work turned into third world countries.

Idiot.

Yep. Less pay and less benefits. Again. That is an achievement.

Wisconsin will have the same wages, after the bill is passed, your doom and gloom prediction is unfounded.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The right to work for less. That is an achievement. Nothing says I love 'Murica more than turning it into a third world country.

Only something a slacker would worry about.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The right to work for less. That is an achievement. Nothing says I love 'Murica more than turning it into a third world country.

Only something a slacker would worry about.

I do suspect that one of the perks of union membership is the "right" to strike and picket. It used to be that if you went on strike and didn't work, you didn't get paid, but now backpay is part of negotiations with management, meaning employers are forced to pay for the sloth of their employees.