Right to Work

For your discussion:

http://www.epi.org/publication/working-hard-i...

As Indiana works to rebuild its economy following the Great Recession, some advocates are promoting the idea that the state’s future hinges on adoption of a so-called “right-to-work”(RTW) law. Despite the name, right-to-work laws do not confer any sort of right to a job. Rather, they dilute union bargaining strength by making it harder for workers’ organizations to sustain themselves financially.1 Proponents argue that by weakening labor laws, RTW will lure outside companies—particularly manufacturers—into the state.2

In Indiana and elsewhere, large sums of money have been devoted to backing RTW bills, with lobbyists claiming that RTW significantly improves both the number of jobs in a state and the wages people earn because companies that had avoided the state will flock there. The evidence shows that these claims are completely without scientific foundation.

In 2011, RTW bills were advanced in nearly a dozen states, but not one of these states adopted such a statute. Most recently, New Hampshire rejected right to work when 41 Republican legislators concluded that the policy would harm rather than help their state (Rayno 2011). Legislators spent many months digging into the economic facts surrounding RTW, resulting in rejection of the policy by legislators who might otherwise have looked to RTW as a hopeful solution in hard times. In an editorial titled “Facts show RTW makes no sense for New Hampshire,” a Republican member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives explained that careful examination of the data had convinced him that “RTW would be a huge step in the wrong direction for our state”(Copeland 2011).

RTW proponents: working hard to make Indiana look bad
Recently, national organizations promoting right-to-work laws have turned their focus to Indiana, creating a flurry of new claims on behalf of the policy. The Chamber of Commerce, the National Right to Work Committee, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and even an Oklahoma-based corporate advocacy group have issued reports or public statements aimed at convincing Hoosiers to adopt a right-to-work law. Each paints a dire picture of Indiana’s economy and suggests that only by adopting an anti-union statute can the state save itself from a future of low wages and disappearing jobs. To support this conclusion, RTW advocates have promoted a series of highly misleading assertions, while simultaneously concealing information that reflects poorly on the RTW cause. For instance:
The National Right to Work Committee issued a “factsheet” stating that job growth over the past decade was slower in Indiana than in the “Midwest” RTW states (National Institute for Labor Relations Research 2011). The factsheet does not disclose that the higher “average” for these states is due entirely to North Dakota, whose growth was sped up by the discovery of oil, which has nothing to do with RTW.3Without North Dakota, the rest of the states averaged a net job loss. If the National Right to Work Committee had focused on manufacturing instead of oil, it would have found that in the past two years Indiana added more than twice as many manufacturing jobs as all the Midwest RTW states combined (Figure A). If businesses and workers are “voting with their feet,” they are voting for Indiana.
The National Right to Work Committee also produced a Powerpoint presentation, Indiana and Right to Work, that quotes an executive of Fantus, a site-location firm, warning that “approximately 50 percent of our clients … do not want to consider locations unless they are in right-to-work states”(National Right to Work Committee 2011). The committee neglects to mention that the quote is based on a report from 1975, and that by 1986, the firm’s executive vice president reported that the figure had fallen to 10 percent (Warren 1986).
In its Rich States, Poor States report, the American Legislative Exchange Council promotes RTW by noting that RTW Texas has added more jobs in the past decade than any other state and declaring Texas “the state with the best policy to emulate”(Laffer et al. 2011, 13). What ALEC doesn’t tell readers is that for the last four years, the state’s job growth has come entirely through government jobs, while the private sector shrank—clearly a trend that cannot be credited to RTW (Fletcher 2011).

In January, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce published a report claiming that from 1977 to 2008, per capita income grew at a faster rate in RTW states than non-RTW states and concluding that if Indiana adopted an RTW law, Hoosiers would enjoy similar income growth. What the Chamber failed to disclose is that, while the overall average of the 22 RTW states was impressive—led by fast-growing states such as North Dakota and Virginia—the actual state-by-state numbers showed no relationship whatsoever between RTW laws and income growth. Four of the five fastest-growing states in the country were non-RTW states, and Indiana’s growth was 25 percent greater than that of its nearest RTW neighbor, Iowa (Vedder et al. 2011; Lafer 2011).

In all these cases, lobbyists have trumpeted spurious connections and/or concealed much more telling data—all in the service of painting a hopeless picture of Indiana’s economy. Political advocates who begin with an ideological conclusion and then search for data to support their cause are usually able to find some set of numbers that appears to point to the desired outcome. But such methods are a disservice to public debate and to legislators charged with forging effective economic policy. When subjected to rigorous scholarly analysis, it is clear that the arguments advanced by RTW advocates are not borne out by economic reality.

Where did the rest go?

Anyway, for your review:

http://www.epi.org/publication/working-hard-i...

Anything that keeps money out of the hands of unions is good in my book.

"Right to Work" refers to giving people the right to hold a job without being compelled to pay extortion in the form of union dues.

Spook and Tag, I actually read the entire article. I'll be happy to discuss when you do the same. Fair warning, it's longer than a Reader diatribe.

GlitterSucks wrote:

Spook and Tag, I actually read the entire article. I'll be happy to discuss when you do the same. Fair warning, it's longer than a Reader diatribe.

Well, didn't read the whole thing - looked too much like I was starting "War and Peace".

I doubt if much of anything can change my views on Unions and Union membership.
I have been a Union Member (UAW)
Supervised in two Union plants (Steel Workers, BCTGM)
Both worked and supervised in non Union plants.
I've experienced it from all angles.

macktrapper wrote:

"Right to Work" refers to giving people the right to hold a job without being compelled to pay extortion in the form of union dues.

I read all of what was pasted (sometimes it takes a while for everything to show up when you post multiple pastes).

Right to Work is a brand, carefully crafted (like Right to Life) to delude an American public inclined to stand up for rights (or those that they perceive as being their own, individual rights anyway) that there is some right endangered by the presence of unions.

The right that is imperiled by so-called right to work laws is the right of labor (meaning workers) to organize to present a case for a better situation--and utilize the power of collective action as leverage. And yes, as is always the case, such rights also entail obligations--such as financial participation (at a minimum) in the entity that bargains for salary and benefits. There are means by which a union can be ousted, or changed, should members feel that they are being shortchanged. But there is no way to reap the benefits without payment, nor any way for an individual system to coexist meaningfully with a collective one.

macktrapper wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, didn't read the whole thing - looked too much like I was starting "War and Peace".
I doubt if much of anything can change my views on Unions and Union membership.
I have been a Union Member (UAW)
Supervised in two Union plants (Steel Workers, BCTGM)
Both worked and supervised in non Union plants.
I've experienced it from all angles.

As have I, albeit my union experience was working as a cashier in a grocery store during college. Pissed me off having money taken from my check, trying to make money over the summer between my frosh and soph year, obviously a temp job, working in Cleveland area going to OSU. I just found the article interesting on RTW states and if the allegations of job creation were proven true or not. I do know that statistics can be manipulated which it appeared to me, that it really doesn't make a difference whether RTW or not, it's about manufacturing going over seas. You can hate unions all you want. In my opinion, it has to do with the jobs that are actually here, union or not, and nothing to do with unions. We can't all be white collar workers, which America seems to be fixated on, you need to be a chief. Well, you can be chief, but if you have no line staff to lead, you're nothing; except in debt for a college education that you can't use.

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
I read all of what was pasted (sometimes it takes a while for everything to show up when you post multiple pastes).
Right to Work is a brand, carefully crafted (like Right to Life) to delude an American public inclined to stand up for rights (or those that they perceive as being their own, individual rights anyway) that there is some right endangered by the presence of unions.
The right that is imperiled by so-called right to work laws is the right of labor (meaning workers) to organize to present a case for a better situation--and utilize the power of collective action as leverage. And yes, as is always the case, such rights also entail obligations--such as financial participation (at a minimum) in the entity that bargains for salary and benefits. There are means by which a union can be ousted, or changed, should members feel that they are being shortchanged. But there is no way to reap the benefits without payment, nor any way for an individual system to coexist meaningfully with a collective one.

Reader, click on the link. There's a ton more. I would say it would suffice to go to the end of the article and read the summary.

GlitterSucks wrote:

<quoted text>Reader, click on the link. There's a ton more. I would say it would suffice to go to the end of the article and read the summary.

And miss all this good stuff about regression analysis and all? I admit it. I'm a geek and this is the stuff that turns me on:

Rigorous studies—using regression analysis to home in on the effect of RTW laws— show that RTW laws:

--reduce wages by $1,500 a year, for both union and nonunion workers, after accounting for different costs of living in the states (Gould and Shierholz 2011)

--lower the likelihood that employees get healthcare or pensions through their jobs—again, for both union and nonunion employees (Gould and Shierholz 2011)

--have no impact whatsoever on job growth (Lafer and Allegretto 2011)

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
I read all of what was pasted (sometimes it takes a while for everything to show up when you post multiple pastes).
Right to Work is a brand, carefully crafted (like Right to Life) to delude an American public inclined to stand up for rights (or those that they perceive as being their own, individual rights anyway) that there is some right endangered by the presence of unions.
The right that is imperiled by so-called right to work laws is the right of labor (meaning workers) to organize to present a case for a better situation--and utilize the power of collective action as leverage. And yes, as is always the case, such rights also entail obligations--such as financial participation (at a minimum) in the entity that bargains for salary and benefits. There are means by which a union can be ousted, or changed, should members feel that they are being shortchanged. But there is no way to reap the benefits without payment, nor any way for an individual system to coexist meaningfully with a collective one.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the best jobs I have had were in non union plants hands down, whether I was supervising or working a skilled trade.
I have done far better bargaining on my own behalf.

I know this was a somewhat long article but I thought it was interesting. I have always heard the proponents for Right to Work clamor about how much of an economic boost it is and that it gives companies the freedom and ability to bring jobs to a state. Then I read this article, reporting objective statistics completely refuting those assertions.

I personally have mixed feelings about Unions. Largely, I have felt that they tend to protect the bad employees and keep the good employees from excelling. But I also see the value in collective bargaining and how it benefits the members. I also see that it raises the competition in the labor market, thereby increasing the wages for non-union jobs, as well.

I am becoming more and more cynical as I grow older, too. And it seems to me that most Right to Work groups are are likely fronts for big business so that they can find a way to increase their profits by wringing more money from their employees through legislation.

-Just Sayin- wrote:

I know this was a somewhat long article but I thought it was interesting. I have always heard the proponents for Right to Work clamor about how much of an economic boost it is and that it gives companies the freedom and ability to bring jobs to a state. Then I read this article, reporting objective statistics completely refuting those assertions.
I personally have mixed feelings about Unions. Largely, I have felt that they tend to protect the bad employees and keep the good employees from excelling. But I also see the value in collective bargaining and how it benefits the members. I also see that it raises the competition in the labor market, thereby increasing the wages for non-union jobs, as well.
I am becoming more and more cynical as I grow older, too. And it seems to me that most Right to Work groups are are likely fronts for big business so that they can find a way to increase their profits by wringing more money from their employees through legislation.

I'm -Just Sayin- right on!

Spook and Tag can hate unions all they want, but if RTW were to be the standard all across the USA, we would be right back to needing unions. The "threat" from both sides keeps everyone honest; more honest I guess would be more apropos.

macktrapper wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the best jobs I have had were in non union plants hands down, whether I was supervising or working a skilled trade.
I have done far better bargaining on my own behalf.

That doesn't seem to be the case across the board, according to the studies.

Not only do union workers fare better in non-RTW states, but so do non-union workers.

-Just Sayin- wrote:

I know this was a somewhat long article but I thought it was interesting. I have always heard the proponents for Right to Work clamor about how much of an economic boost it is and that it gives companies the freedom and ability to bring jobs to a state. Then I read this article, reporting objective statistics completely refuting those assertions.
I personally have mixed feelings about Unions. Largely, I have felt that they tend to protect the bad employees and keep the good employees from excelling. But I also see the value in collective bargaining and how it benefits the members. I also see that it raises the competition in the labor market, thereby increasing the wages for non-union jobs, as well.
I am becoming more and more cynical as I grow older, too. And it seems to me that most Right to Work groups are are likely fronts for big business so that they can find a way to increase their profits by wringing more money from their employees through legislation.

Very interesting about the RTW group that influenced Oklahoma--and the results.

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
That doesn't seem to be the case across the board, according to the studies.
Not only do union workers fare better in non-RTW states, but so do non-union workers.

I'm only speaking from my own personal experience.

I don't want to be on either side of the Union fence again if I can help it.

GlitterSucks wrote:

<quoted text>I'm -Just Sayin- right on!
Spook and Tag can hate unions all they want, but if RTW were to be the standard all across the USA, we would be right back to needing unions. The "threat" from both sides keeps everyone honest; more honest I guess would be more apropos.

You'd still have unions, but the worker could elect not to join and pay the extortion fee.