Reply With Quote
Shazbot.
Please note that the earlier articles compared with cost of living. You later, counter arguments did not.
MYTH: Right-To-Work Leads To Higher Wages And Benefits
USA Today Op-Ed: Right-To-Work Creates Higher Wages, Which Help Grow Economy. In a December 6 opinion article in USA Today, Mackinac Center for Public Policy's F. Vincent Vernuccio claimed:
In other words, though Michigan's economy is going in the right direction, it can't let up now. And that's where a right-to-work law comes in to play.
Consider a few top-line facts about right-to-work states. Private-sector employee compensation in right-to-work states has grown by an inflation-adjusted 12.0% between 2001-2011, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics. That compares with just 3.0% over the same period in states where workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of getting a job.
With growing paychecks come growing populations. Between 2000 and 2011, right-to-work states have seen an increase of 11.3% 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, have seen an increase of only 0.6%. [USA Today, 12/6/2012]
On Fox, Guest Said Right-To-Work Legislation Increases Compensation And Improves The Economy.In a December 7 segment on Fox News' America's Newsroom, Penn State Financial Group's Matt McCall pushed the same numbers Vernuccio cited to suggest right-to-work laws bolstered wages and reduced unemployment:
McCALL: Well, If you look at the numbers, Bill, Steve's hit it right on the head. If you look from 2001 to 2011, look at the right-to-work states. Inflation adjusted compensation rose for employees, private sector employees, about 12 percent versus the non-right-to-work states only increased by 3 percent. So what happens when you're making more money? You then increase the amount of people that want to move to your state. In that same time frame -- you take a look again at right-to-work states -- you saw the population from 25-34 increase by 11.3 percent. In non-right to work states, increase by .6. So what that means is as more people move to your state, it's more tax revenue, you have more jobs, more companies coming there. So really, if you put it all together, it's great for the local economy. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 12/7/2012 via Media Matters]
WSJ: Michigan GOP Lawmakers Consider "Right-To-Work" Law "To Help The Lagging State Economy." In a December 5 editorial, The Wall Street Journal claimed that there are "economic benefits" to a so-called "right-to-work" law for Michigan and promoted it as a "happy possibility":
Unions lost big in Michigan in November when voters rejected Proposal 2, Big Labor's plan to canonize collective bargaining in the state cons ution. Now they are facing a backlash with the happy possibility that Michigan could become the 24th right-to-work state.
Lawmakers have been preparing to introduce a right-to-work bill in the state legislature, and the labor cavalry is heading to the Wolverine state.
[...]
[T]he economy has languished. Michigan is the fifth most unionized state in the country and the birthplace of the UAW. According to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan has lost 7,300 jobs since January, while next-door Indiana, which became a right-to-work state earlier this year, has been on the upswing.
[...]
[I]f a right-to-work law passed the legislature, unions could still try to repeal it on the ballot, as they did this year with the emergency manager law, which let the Governor appoint emergency financial managers who could redo collective-bargaining agreements. By the time a similar fight could be waged against right to work, voters could have had more than a year to see the law's economic benefits. [The Wall Street Journal, 12/5/12]
FACT: Studies Show Right-To-Work Laws Lead to Lower Wages and Benefits For Workers
Economic Policy Ins ute: Right-To-Work Laws Force Employees To "Work For Lower Wages And Fewer Benefits." Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz, researchers at the Economic Policy Ins ute (EPI), studied what they called "the compensation penalty of 'right-to-work' laws" and concluded:
[O]ur findings -- that "right-to-work" laws are associated with significantly lower wages and reduced chances of receiving employer-sponsored health insurance and pensions -- are based on the most rigorous statistical analysis currently possible. These findings should discourage right-to-work policy initiatives. The fact is, while RTW legislation misleadingly sounds like a positive change in this weak economy, in reality the opportunity it gives workers is only that to work for lower wages and fewer benefits. For legislators dedicated to making policy on the basis of economic fact rather than ideological passion, our findings indicate that, contrary to the rhetoric of RTW proponents, the data show that workers in "right-to-work" states have lower compensation -- both union and nonunion workers alike.
EPI estimated that right to work leads to a 3 percent decrease in hourly wages and a decrease in benefits for all workers.
[Economic Policy Ins ute, 2/17/11, 4/5/11]
McClatchy: "Numerous Studies Have Found That Wages For Both Union And Non-Union Workers Are Lower In States With Right-To-Work Laws." McClatchy Newspapers reported that wages are lower for all workers in states that have passed right-to-work laws:
Numerous studies have found that wages for both union and non-union workers are lower in states with right-to-work laws. Others have found that workplace safety suffers in right-to-work states, where workers are less likely to secure job safety enhancements beyond federal and state regulations. [McClatchy Newspapers, 2/16/12]
Congressional Research Service: Workers In Right-To-Work States Make An Average Of $7,000 Less Than Those In Non-Right-To-Work States. Citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Research Service reported that the average wage in a right-to-work state was $42,465, compared with $49,495 in "labor security" states. [Congressional Research Service, 6/20/12]
Economic Policy Ins ute: Wages for Union And Non-Union Workers Are Lower by "An Average of $1,500 a year." In an EPI article, political economist Gordon Lafer explained that right-to-work laws not only lead to lower wages, but also led to reduced benefits for workers:RTW laws lower wages for union and non-union workers by an average of $1,500 a year and decrease the likelihood employees will get health insurance or pensions through their jobs. By lowering compensation, they have the indirect effect of undermining consumer spending, which threatens economic growth. For every $1 million in wage cuts to workers, $850,000 less is spent in the economy, which translates into a loss of six jobs. [Economic Policy Ins ute,9/16/11]Hofstra University's Lonnie Stevans: "Wages And Personal Income Are Both Lower In Right-To-Work States." In an analysis of the economic impact of "right-to-work" laws, Hofstra University professor Lonnie Stevans wrote:
Wages and personal income are both lower in right-to-work states, yet proprietors' income is higher. As a result, while right-to-work states may maintain a somewhat better business environment relative to non-right-to-work states, these benefits do not necessarily translate into increased economic verve for the right-to-work states as a whole -- there appears to be little 'trickle-down' to the largely non-unionized workforce in these states. [Review of Law & Economics, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2009]
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...rk-laws/191810
Shazbot.
Please note that the earlier articles compared with cost of living. You later, counter arguments did not.
ALEC is funded by large corporations which we know always have the "freedom and choice" of their employees as key value
Michigan Anti-Union Law Drafted by ALEC
BOTTARI: It's clear, when you look at the ALEC library of bills, they have about 20 or 30 ways to kneecap and defund and screw around with union financing, and they have about 20 and 30 other ways to kneecap and defund and screw around with trial lawyers. It is very clear that they're targeting the big backers of the Democratic Party, that it is a completely partisan move, and that it—you know, it hurts. It hits unions where it hurts—in the financing end. And they need that money to pay for organizers, they need that money to be a political force in the arena and to stand up for workers against CEOs and big corporate heads like the Koch brothers and their anti-worker agenda.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13349...rafted-by-alec
ALEC's decades of 'right-to-work' effort pay off in Michigan
‘Forced unionism’
In a publication celebrating its 25th year, ALEC said it “began striking out against forced unionism and for the right to work in 1979.” ALEC members endorsed the law as model legislation and began introducing it in states in 1980.
Federal law prohibits workplaces from requiring employees to belong to a union and pay dues. However, employees, be they union members or not, may still enjoy the benefits of a union-negotiated contract.
While labor organizations cannot compel workers to join the union, they can require workers at a unionized workplace to pay an “agency fee” to cover the cost of negotiating contracts on a worker’s behalf.
Unions argue that these fees, which are less than membership dues, prevent “free riders” who would reap the benefits of union representation without chipping in.
Right-to-work laws ban this arrangement, creating “open shops,” where new employees at a workplace that is unionized do not have to join the union, pay dues or pay the lesser agency fee.
Back to work
At its November conference in D.C., ALEC members on the Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force voted to re-endorse 55 pieces of model legislation it has passed over the years, including the “right-to-work” bill, according to do ents released by the liberal watchdog group
Common Cause.
Since 2010, members of the task force have included some of the nation’s largest non-union and anti-union companies, including McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Bank of America and MillerCoors. All four of the companies quit the organization this year after ALEC faced scrutiny for its sponsorship of voter ID legislation.
Though long on ALEC’s agenda, “right-to-work” has been a tough sell in the states for decades. Since ALEC created the model legislation, only four states have passed it into law. In 1992, ALEC members introduced the bill in 11 state legislatures, including Michigan.
None of them passed.
In 1995, ALEC reported that its legislator-members introduced the bill in nine states, but again none passed new laws, according to ALEC annual reports. Idaho passed the law in 1985, but no state would pass it again until 2001, when 54 percent of Oklahomans approved a “right-to-work” cons utional amendment. The text of the Oklahoma law matched, word-for-word, that of ALEC’s model bill.
In 2012, a slew of ALEC members sponsored the bill in Indiana, which Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law in February.
Key parts of the Michigan law are identical to the text in the ALEC model bill.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/...t-pay-michigan
Not Just Union-Busting: 5 Other Terrible Things Michigan Republicans Did in the Lame Duck
1. Doctors can refuse healthcare for women if they feel like it
2. Ridiculous anti-sharia bill introduced
3. Another anti-union law on the books
4. Anti-abortion “super bill” passes
5. Denying food stamps for hungry citizens because of "moral" objections
http://www.alternet.org/civil-libert...tter760998&t=4
Lol moonbat RSS feed.
TBThe Great Boutons Stalker trashtalking the most useful web protocol since smtp and html
Only a simpleton like you could screw up a RSS feed.TB
Lol @ stalking. Mocking is a better descriptor.
The Racist Roots of "Right to Work" Laws
Muse was a fixture in far-right politics in the South before settling into his anti-labor crusade. In his 1946 book "Southern Exposure," crusading journalist Stetson Kennedy wrote:
The man Muse is quite a character. He is six foot four, wears a ten-gallon hat, but generally reserves his cowboy boots for trips Nawth. Now over fifty, Muse has been professionally engaged in reactionary enterprises for more than a quarter of a century.
As Kennedy described, these causes included opposing women's suffrage, child labor laws, integration and growing efforts to change the Southern political order, as represented in the threat of Roosevelt's New Deal.
Muse's sister and associate at the Christan American Association, Ida Darden, openly complained about the First Lady's "Eleanor Clubs" saying they (as related by Kennedy):
...stood for "$15 a week salary for all ****** house help, Sundays off, no washing, and no cleaning upstairs." As an afterthought, she added, "My ****** maid wouldn’t dare sit down in the same room with me unless she sat on the floor at my feet!"
Allowing herself to go still further, the little lady went on to say, "Christian Americans can’t afford to be anti-Semitic, but we know where we stand on the Jews, all right.
But for far-right conservatives like Muse, as well as industry groups like the Southern States Industrial Council, labor -- including black labor -- posed an especially dangerous threat in Texas.
Thanks to a burgeoning wartime economy, along with labor organizing drives spearheaded by the Congress of Industrial Organizations and, to a lesser extent, the American Federation of Labor, unions were rapidly growing in Texas.
After hovering around 10 percent of the workforce during the 1930s, union membership exploded by 225 percent during the next decade.
Muse and the Christian American Association saw danger.
Not only were the unions expanding the bargaining power --
and therefore improving the wages and working conditions --
of working-class Texans, they also cons uted a political threat.
The CIO in particular opposed Jim Crow and demanded an end to segregation.
Unions were an important political ally to FDR and the New Deal.
And always lurking in the shadows was the prospect of a Red Menace, stoked by anti-communist hysteria.
Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., who saw an alliance with labor as crucial to advancing civil rights as well as economic justice for all workers, spoke out against right-to-work laws;
this 1961 statement by King was widely circulated this week during Michigan's labor battles:Interestingly, 11 years later, Kansas also passed a right-to-work law, with the support of Texas-born energy businessman Fred Koch, who also viewed unions as vessels for communism and integration.
In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’
It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…
Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights.
Koch's sons Charles and David went on to form the Tea Party group Americans for Prosperity, which pushed for the Michigan right-to-work measure, and
is now advocating for states that already have such laws, like North Carolina and Virginia, to further enshrine them in their state cons utions.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13432...t-to-work-laws
Interesting. The VRWC war-on-employees includes the racist war on blacks.
nah, right wingers, "Christians", Repugs aren't racist, never have been!
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-08-2018 at 03:39 PM.
https://www.news-leader.com/story/ne...ess/867457002/From a historical perspective, the vote was not a surprise. More than 90 percent of the time, Missourians have sided against their elected state representatives when asked to vote on a law passed by lawmakers.
Show me
Missouri.
Tell that to the SEICU
more than 20 point margin.
Republicans only get their ty policies in many states when they can gerrymander legislatures enough to ram things down voters' throats.
Voters occasionally push back.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
