As the fight over Michigan's Right to Work legislation heats up, many pro-forced unionism journalists and media outlets have suggested that a law protecting worker freedom would jeopardize the state's economic prospects. The case for Right to Work has always rested on the importance of defending worker freedom, but Right to Work laws also have a proven track record of encouraging economic growth. In fact, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research recently put together a blog post debunking a particularly misleading column making the economic case against a Michigan Right to Work law:
Mr. Gallagher’s column left out several obvious and relevant facts. For example, he suggested Right to Work laws somehow lower incomes without acknowledging the basically undisputed fact that on average the cost of living is significantly lower in Right to Work states than in forced-unionism states.
As the National Institute for Labor Relations Research pointed out in a fact sheet published last month, in 2011 the cost of living in states where forced union dues are permitted was nearly 20% higher than in Right to Work states.
Comments
I see a pattern..........
What I noticed during the elections is the states with the highest levels of people living on government assistance are the states that have RTW enacted. That tells me that the workers are making way less than a living wage and are having to get handouts due to low wages in the state, or no jobs. Companies don't even consider a states RTW issue's when looking to move or invest in a state. The consider infrastructure, taxes, workforce, and consumers who make enough to actually purchase something. RTW is a joke and Oklahoma has felt the sting since they enacted it. They've lost over 1/3 of their manufacturing jobs.
hello
cool page dude
As I see it....
Governor Rick Snyder says, …. if workers see no "value" in unions they should not have to pay union dues.
=
Oh! Happy Day for those workers who are attracted, not to those employment opportunities in a low wage job, but they do see this "value" in an employment opportunity making a good living wage, not having to pay their fair share in union representation. Not one penny, in recognition of the livable wage he or she is about to receive, and acknowledging some support for what unions fought for, and who will continue to fight for, health benefits, safe working conditions, retirement benefits, a living wage, worker representation.
=
Realizing the “value” choice these workers made, with good safe working conditions and benefits, they can now feel secure in stable wages, and now, maybe for the first time, or in a long while, being able to feed and care for their families. Being able to purchase those things that a living wage offers. Living the American dream. Perhaps now, being able to put a down payment on a home? Being able to sleep at night. All this because he or she made the right "value" choice and decided to rather than take a job opportunity with lower wages, with no benefits, no value, these workers realize without too much thought, there is “value” in a union environment, and with no union participation whatsoever to support the very environment that choices in what "value” offers. One which fosters good working conditions now, and into the future. The other without.
=
The worker choosing “value“, Governors Snyder’s logic, one would think the worker be responsive, to play fair. But “right to work” is not about what’s fair.
=
One then wonders, why is the police and fire unions exempt? Why not make this “value” thing fair for everybody while we are destroying unions? Where is this “equal protection” of Article 1 of the Michigan Constitution speaks of?
=
The argument that “right to work” is a solution to unemployment levels, really? Right to work state employment levels have absolutely not a thing to do with a worker’s right to work! How does ones work or “right to work” effect overall employment if either the business or the state is unable to attract new business? A worker has no control of this. What should matter to the worker, given his or her opportunity, responsibility and abilities, is the participation and contribution towards the process of obtaining better working conditions. Letting others contribute and make life easier in order to provide a living wage for you and your family is not “right to work” but is what is now, as some consider the 47% solution.
=
Corporations lobby their political allies in Congress and state legislatures to oppose and destroy unions in order to dictate what’s best for the worker. To make the worker subordinate in order to profit off of worker low wages that this would bring. Is this not the argument rather than the unemployment issue?
=
To subordinate that very same worker who, if not for his labor, his labor down on the factory floor making the product, these companies would not see the profits that they enjoy. There would be no company.
=
My advice to those who this applies to, you make that job choice, but when you go to bed at night, before you fall asleep, think about your “values“ in not supporting those others who sacrificed and made it possible for you to enjoy and benefit in what your choice in “values” has made possible. Have a good sleep.
forced unionism
Right to work nutjobs have played semantics with us for far too long. "forced unionism" has never happened. I am a union employee and happily support the people who fight for my wellbeing. Instead "right to work" allows cooperations to pay employees less in wages and benefits. Stop the war on labor now, we are legion.
RIGHT TO WORK
If your statement is true that"right to work allows cooperations(sic) to pay employees less in wages and benefits" then I ask you, why would any worker choose to not be in a union? All right to work does is give the employee a choice. If joining the union is clearly the better choice then they will do that, if not then so be it. What is wrong with giving them a choice? If unions are worried about loosing their power through membership losses due to Right to Work then that says about all there is to say about it, and perhaps that is the real reason the unions are upset. It all comes down to the money. The union wants the employees dues money and not let them keep it and doesn't want the employee to have a choice.
Your comment is really
Your comment is really sickening! The Union, the one's who have fought for the employees rights, pay raises, holidays, vacation, week-ends, breaks,anything else that free loaders take for granted, end up having to represent these free riders on a day to day basis, not to mention negotiating a contract for them. You and the other free riders obviously think the world owes you something. You wouldn't expect cable if you didn't pay your cable bill, would you? oh wait, you would just probably hook up to your neighbors cable and sponge off them.
Hooray for the Michigan
Hooray for the Michigan worker.
How disheartening it must have been for people everyday being forced to acknowledge they were trapped in these unions and couldn't think for themselves. Lower wages respectively, higher costs of living and lack of self initiative. I can't imagine what it would be like not being able to wake up everyday and make my own choices. Here's to the majority of workers in America (non-union) that get up everyday and get the job done for their family and communities. Welcome to the majority.
My income has almost tripled
My income has almost tripled after moving to LA where my field is unionized.
The benefits I receive far outweigh my union dues.
People really are ignorant when it comes to not being able to see what their dues actually get them.
In my case, it's and excellent retirement package and excellent helathcare benefits that would cost me well in excess of $500 a month if I had to pay fir them.
Oh, and union dues are to tax deductible, morons.
My income has almost tripled
My income has almost tripled after moving to LA where my field is unionized.
The benefits I receive far outweigh my union dues.
People really are ignorant when it comes to not being able to see what their dues actually get them.
In my case, it's and excellent retirement package and excellent helathcare benefits that would cost me well in excess of $500 a month if I had to pay fir them.
Oh, and union dues are to tax deductible, morons.
Unions
I am a union member and wonder how many of us would continue to pay our full dues if we did not have to.
forced unionism
Respectfully, you have been misinformed. We have employees in both RTW states and non RTW states. Wages are fair and competitive and above market averages. Employees should have the right to choose whether they want to be a union member or not. RTW state simply means they will not be forced to pay dues in order to have a job. Why would someone want to take that right away? My husband worked for a union and was not happy. Fortunately, he was able to vote out of the union because he works in a RTW state. Unions are desperate and will do all they can to spin the truth. I feel sorry for the uneducated that beleive their untruths.
oh boy
lady I guess you didn't pay attention to the above comment. not only will employees that work for the union have lower rate of pay they also have no choice when it comes to trying to get better pay/benefits because the companies will be in control of that only. and this is coming from a union member who chooses to be in the Union and is proud.
oh boy
lady I guess you didn't pay attention to the above comment. not only will employees that work for the union have lower rate of pay they also have no choice when it comes to trying to get better pay/benefits because the companies will be in control of that only. and this is coming from a union member who chooses to be in the Union and is proud.
desperation
Republicans are desperate to dissolve unions and what better way than to attack them from within. I see right through your veil of deception.
Forced Unionism
Geo - "forced unionism has never happened?" You cannot be serious. Because it does happen is why there are right to work laws. In any right to work state you may continue to "happily support" a union.
RTW does not belong in Union shops
It is unfortunate that individuals expect RTW to enable them to work in a union shop. They want to receive all the benefits afforded to them because of the Union which represents the workers in that shop, but want the right not to pay for those benefits. Get a job somewhere else then and leave the union shops to the individuals who chose to work there and deserve the benefits the are afforded which have been negotiated by their representatives in the contract negotiations with that companies management.
RTW does not belong in Union shops
It is unfortunate that individuals expect RTW to enable them to work in a union shop. They want to receive all the benefits afforded to them because of the Union which represents the workers in that shop, but want the right not to pay for those benefits. Get a job somewhere else then and leave the union shops to the individuals who chose to work there and deserve the benefits the are afforded which have been negotiated by their representatives in the contract negotiations with that companies management.
So basically you are saying
So basically you are saying that you as an individual are totally incapable of negotiating your pay? The basic truth is that if no unions existed and the employer did not pay a decent prevailing wage and benefits then it would cease to attract top talent. It is simple economics. The issue I have with unions is that poor performance is rewarded at the expense of the company. Employers and employees alike should have the benefit of making a choice. If I was an employee and did not want to join the union it should be my right to CHOOSE (aka: FREEDOM) if I want to join that union. If I am an employer it is my right to CHOOSE (again aka:FREEDOM) if I want a union free shop. The simple fact is this, employers have been for years and will continue to move out of the US because the cost of doing business is too high here. Why is this? "Unions who are legion" are the new cancer of society.
greed
This is simply an issue of greed. Right to work is a
way to divide and weaken labor. The cost of living was
also lower for slaves. We also see non-union work
places with higher health and safety problems. Just
look at the coal industry. Walmart leaves tens of
thousands of their workers in need of state funded
health care and assistance.There isn't negotiation for
pay as an individual at Walmart.If the cost of
business was too high, Walmart wouldn't produce
billionaires. Didn't we hear these exact claims when we
called for an end to slavery and child labor?
Economics are simple facts,
Economics are simple facts, opinions are just interpretations of facts. If the cost of living is commenserate with pay, then "purchase power" of the dollar is equally affected and advantage of any local economy is thereby nullifed compared to another regions retention of "personal wealth". This works fine as long as the person "stays put" and their industries or economic base do the same. What has happened though? History would prove you wrong at every turn. Downside personally? Rich union states retirees coming here with superior purchase power and buying up once affordable land, and artificially inflating the real market value. Why do you come? Ironically to avoid property and retirement taxes. In other words, retirees bail out and run away from the economic areas that built their nest egg. how funny.
Lack of facts
This is just noise. Many retire to warmer states. You can't be bailing with no job or no paying of taxes. What happen to the claim all the jobs move to low wage non-union states?
I would call it bailing when a corporation takes US technology to low wage countries.