• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 💪Muscle Gelz® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.musclegelz.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

Right To Work State

FUZO

Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
751
Reaction score
125
Points
0
Location
USA
IML Gear Cream!
Looks like Michigan won.No more paying union dues
 
good, now workers that were forced to give union dues to the democrat party won't have to.
 
Here's am example of what a union can do for you in Michigan

The Chrysler Jefferson North assembly plant is shown in Detroit, Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012. Chrysler has reinstated more than a dozen Jefferson North assembly line workers who were filmed drinking and smoking pot during their breaks.

Chrysler has reinstated more than a dozen Jefferson North assembly line workers who were filmed drinking and smoking pot during their breaks.

The Big Three automaker suspended two workers without pay for a month and outright fired 13 other employees in September 2010, after television station Fox 2 filmed the men drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana during their shift breaks over a period of several days.

At the time the video was aired, Scott Garberding, Chrysler's senior vice president of manufacturing, told the TV station, "I'm very, very disturbed about what I just saw in the video and I want to make it clear that we at Chrysler take it very seriously."

But the United Auto Workers (UAW), the union representing the assembly line employees, filed grievances on behalf of the workers that were fired.

And a third-party arbitrator sided with the union, agreeing that Chrysler had to give the workers back their jobs. They started back at the factory this week.

"Chrysler Group LLC acknowledges the reinstatement of a number of employees from the Jefferson North assembly plant who were discharged from the company in September 2010 after appearing in a local TV station's story about their off-duty conduct," the automaker said in a statement reported by Fox 2.

"While the company does not agree with the ultimate decision of the arbitrator, we respect the grievance procedure process as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement and our relationship with the UAW. Unfortunately, the company was put in a very difficult position because of the way the story was investigated and ultimately revealed to the public. These employees from Jefferson North have been off work for more than two years. The time has come to put this situation behind us and resume our focus on building quality products that will firmly establish Chrysler Group's position in the marketplace."
 
i'd rather have more people working at lower wages and no so cadillac benefits versus high unemployment and the workers paying more to help those who aren't working...right to work is a good thing...but LAM will disagree and blame cause that's what he does...
 
what will that do to your retirement benefits?

I have retirement benefits through other plans then my job for more security and for the union worker that doesnt pay there dues nothing will happen.If anything does then that will show how shitty your union is.The people marching right now on Detroit do you really think there going to be unhappy if they dont pay there dues and still have a job and at the same pay.No they will take that extra money now and pay some bills
 
i'd rather have more people working at lower wages and no so cadillac benefits versus high unemployment and the workers paying more to help those who aren't working...right to work is a good thing...but LAM will disagree and blame cause that's what he does...

easy for you to say you work in healthcare your industry is protected from "free trade agreements" to keep the numbers of medical personnel limited so pay remains high. along with the racket at the AMA that control the numbers of new MD's produced in US medical schools annually.

since this is the economy that you desire you should probably stop bitching about it... because it's never going to get better until wages are brought up. decades of debt based consumption which peaked in 2008 obviously was unsustainable.

Household Sector: Liabilities: Household Credit Market Debt Outstanding (CMDEBT)
Household Sector: Liabilities: Household Credit Market Debt Outstanding (CMDEBT) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

* we see the debt start to increase when Nixon took the US dollar completely fiat and then it exploded after the deregulation of the banks and markets in the 80's. in non-comunists country's all deregulation amounts to is higher costs for consumers and increased profits flow from the bottom to the top.

right now out of all the wealthy industrialized country's in the OECD the US has the highest percentage of low paid workers in the at 25% of the total labor force. with another 20% of the labor force reporting to be underemployed.

low wages for the majority in the US (70% of the total workforce) is the main cause of slow economic growth since the 70's, asset bubble/burst cycles that have occurred since the 80's and and slow recession recovery after each economic downturn and especially that of 2008.

low wages are also responsible for the high numbers of US workers receiving TANF (food stamp) benefits. the purchasing power of those wages having been severely reduced from monetary policy enacted in the 80's and basically any type of financial innovation that creates money that is not backed by a commodity. it reduces the value of the wages paid to those that work in the real economy, think of legalized forgery there is more money so the money out there is worth less, etc.

* and it's not just me that disagrees it's all of the nobel prize winning economists in the past half century, the economists at the ILO, OECD, Brookings, EPI, and just about every heavily cited economist in the world today. Even the IMF recommends to developing nations to NOT follow the US model of labor.

the US has the 3rd lowest union participation rate in the OECD, has the highest percentage of low paid workers out of all the wealthy industrialized country's in the OECD at 25% of the total labor force and the US has off-shored 6x the numbers of jobs as to the EU 15 combined. US workers are the least protected in the OECD, it costs nothing to reduce US workforces as was seen in the recession of 2008 when 50% of the total job losses in the OECD occurred in the US alone.

Employment Protection in 2008 in OECD and selected non-OECD countries*
Employment policies and data - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

* raw data is here: http://www.oecd.org/els/employmentpoliciesanddata/42768860.xls

* the US has no central collective bargaining group that fights for labor in the country, federal government politicians are in the pockets of the markets and they put no upward pressure on wages hence the stagnant federal minimum wage. the US federal minimum wage has frozen and not kept up with inflation or the cost of living. the low labor union participation rate in the US also helps to push wages down as labor has no collective power to push them up. a large reserve workforce also helps to put downward pressure on wages. the US federal minimum wage amounts to 30% of the median wage and has been the topic of numerous economic reports for decades.

Hundreds of Economists Say: Raise the Minimum Wage
http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/epi_minimum_wage_2006.pdf

* 50% of the total US workforce is part-time which means there is no job security

* 70% of the total US workforce earns less than $49K a year or an inflation adjusted $29K in 1990's dollars

* 40% of the total US workforce earns less than $15K a year or an inflation adjusted $8500 in 1990's dollars

* and 80% of the total US population lives in the metro area
 
Great! Unions are the primary reason the rust belt has been dying on the vine since the 80's.

according to whom? there isn't a single economist in the world that is not a talking head for the radical right that has ever written or stated such. when profits started to decline from a decreasing global market shares production was moved south of the border, to China, etc. with the rest of the US manufacturing sector.

you've never been in a union or live in a big city so what exactly do you know about them exactly besides what you hear on tv?

the rust belt died because they continued to churn out crap and didn't adjust to the new high mileage cars like Toyata, Honda, etc. when they arrived to the US in the 70's, etc.
 
Last edited:
Union is still obligated to protect those employees who decided not to join the union. In other word, these employees get free protection from the union. It is good for them.
 
IML Gear Cream!
according to whom? there isn't a single economist in the world that is not a talking head for the radical right that has ever written or stated such. when profits started to decline from a decreasing global market shares production was moved south of the border, to China, etc. with the rest of the US manufacturing sector.

you've never been in a union or live in a big city so what exactly do you know about them exactly besides what you hear on tv?

the rust belt died because they continued to churn out crap and didn't adjust to the new high mileage cars like Toyata, Honda, etc. when they arrived to the US in the 70's, etc.


I'm sorry lam, but you just don't know everything. For starters my grandfather, a skilled trade, was the first person at his GM plant to take the 'new' 30 and out and retire at age 48yo. Don't tell me where I've lived or what I do or don't know about unions in rust belt states like the great shithole called Michigan.
 
Union is still obligated to protect those employees who decided not to join the union. In other word, these employees get free protection from the union. It is good for them.

Who's the loafer now! :roflmao: Payback's a bitch.


I bet the herd won't take kindly to those who don't join.
 
according to whom? There isn't a single economist in the world that is not a talking head for the radical right that has ever written or stated such. When profits started to decline from a decreasing global market shares production was moved south of the border, to china, etc. With the rest of the us manufacturing sector.

You've never been in a union or live in a big city so what exactly do you know about them exactly besides what you hear on tv?

The rust belt died because they continued to churn out crap and didn't adjust to the new high mileage cars like toyata, honda, etc. When they arrived to the us in the 70's, etc.


liberalism is a mental disorder
 
liberalism is a mental disorder

this coming from a person that gets 100% of their information on economics from tv and right wing politicians and takes it as gospel....:roflmao:

and once again you might want to learn the meaning of words that you hear on tv because there are several types of liberalism depending on what era of world history one is referencing.

however it was economic liberalism that came to the US via the neo-cons in the late 70's. and it is that doctrine of economic policy which has destroyed the real US economy. Reaganomics/supply-side economics is economic liberalism.

I feel sorry for you. you know absolutely nothing about everything but somehow have confused an utter lack of complete knowledge and information with being learned.

did you suffer some type of head trauma in a bad accident or something? how do you get dressed in the morning?
 
according to whom? there isn't a single economist in the world that is not a talking head for the radical right that has ever written or stated such. when profits started to decline from a decreasing global market shares production was moved south of the border, to China, etc. with the rest of the US manufacturing sector.

you've never been in a union or live in a big city so what exactly do you know about them exactly besides what you hear on tv?

the rust belt died because they continued to churn out crap and didn't adjust to the new high mileage cars like Toyata, Honda, etc. when they arrived to the US in the 70's, etc.

You conveniently left out poor quality control and high cost of labor with shrinking margins. So much goes ointo a downturn like this that your generalization is laughable for a "smart" person. Put the book down and live in a state in the rust belt and get some real facts from people that were there. You won't though because its not some European economist telling the "facts."
 
You conveniently left out poor quality control and high cost of labor with shrinking margins. So much goes ointo a downturn like this that your generalization is laughable for a "smart" person. Put the book down and live in a state in the rust belt and get some real facts from people that were there. You won't though because its not some European economist telling the "facts."

please do tell exactly where is this "high cost of unions"? and in what economic journal or paper is this high union cost mentioned?

If you do a search on the world "union" you see where it comes up the the difference in the cost of union and non-union workers in the same sector.

Employment Cost Index News Release

Union - 117
Non-union - 114

and why has globalization not caused a decline in labor union participation rates in other OECD country's? why is the union participation rate in Canada still at 30% where the US used to be in the late 70's and early 80's if they are in the same geographical area as the US and the same general markets for goods and services?

why do the union autoworkers workers in Germany make double what US auto workers make?

http://macromon.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/bls_hourly-comp-cost-for-manufacturing.jpg

why do all of the country's in the OECD that rank the highest for social justice and economic stability all have trade union density numbers in the 60% rate and up?

Below is the OECD Rankings for Social Justice and I put the labor density participation rate next to it:

OECD Social Justice/Trade Union Density
1. Iceland/80%
2. NOrway/55%
3. Denmark/70%
4. Sweden/67%
5. Finland/70%
6. Netherlands/
7. Switzerland
8. Luxembourg/40%
9. Canada/30%
10. France/8%
*
*
27. United States/11% (rank in OECD is #30
28. Greece/26%
29. Chile/13%
30. Mexico/13%
31. Turkey/10%

* why do all of the country's in the OECD with high labor density rates and much smaller financial sectors have much more stable economy's with less recessions?

the decline of labor unions is explicit to the US and the US alone in the OECD, the result of POLITICS from the 80's thanks to good old Red Ronnie and the anti-labor union movement from the right. all part of the plan to drive labor costs as low as it can go in the US. The immigration reform under Reagan increased the numbers of low skilled workers in the US, this helps to push wages down for those on the lower end of the education and skill ladder in the unskilled positions reducing their costs of labor and increasing their income and earnings.

http://i1182.photobucket.com/albums/x455/tdean2011/ImmigrationintheUS-NumberandPercent1900-2010.jpg

your all a bunch of suckers and have no idea what's going on in the real world...keep "learning" economics from politicians on tv.

 
Ed Schultz brought up a good point (Yes, I know he's a liberal and a union shill, but a good point is a good point regardless if it comes from the left, right, or center). If the right to work is about freedom to not join a union, why are police and firefighters exempt?
 
right to work states have less unemployment and higher wages.
 
right to work states have less unemployment and higher wages.

actually the RTW states rank at the rock bottom of the states for per capita income with the exception of VA which is loaded with government workers and private firms that provide goods and services directly to the Fed gov. the 10 poorest states in the US are all RTW states.

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States

the RTW states are far less populated than the unionized states in the north and west and it's been that way since the industrial revolution as people flocked to the big cities to get out of agriculture, etc. and because those same states never embraced the industrial revolution manufacturing of capital goods in the US has remained n the northern states. which means they have not felt much of the effects of the "free trade agreements" that have sent millions of US manufactured jobs offshore.

population of all u.s. states smallest to largest

and the cities most effected by the housing market collapse.

1. Merced, California, 69.4 per cent

Peak: $343,740 (2005), now: $105,110

2. Stockton, California, 63.8 per cent

Peak: $409,773 (2006), now: $148,231

3. Modesto, California, 63.6 per cent

Peak: $364,591 (2006), now: $132,849

4. Las Vegas, Nevada, 60.7 per cent

Peak: $306,086 (2006), now: $120,334

5. Fort Myers, Florida, 60.3 per cent

Peak: $304,561 (2006), now: $120,990

6. Vallejo, California, 58.9 per cent

Peak: $472,819 (2006), now: $194,210

7. Port St Lucie, Florida, 57.9 per cent

Peak: $253,925 (2006) now: $106,995

8. Bakersfield, California, 57.5 per cent

Peak: $274,500 (2006), now: $116,616

9. Salinas, California, 57.2 per cent

Peak: 686,488 (2005), now: $293,775

10. Melbourne, Florida, 56.7 per cent

Peak: $232,732 (2005), now: $100,805
 
Ed Schultz brought up a good point (Yes, I know he's a liberal and a union shill, but a good point is a good point regardless if it comes from the left, right, or center). If the right to work is about freedom to not join a union, why are police and firefighters exempt?

because those of us that actually learned US (and world wage) history know that collective bargaining was a big part of the wage growth of US workers from the early 1900's to the 80's when wages stopped increasing along with productivity and started to stagnate. it was collective bargaining along with a very progressive tax code that built the middle class in the US. and what a surprise, when both of those went away the middle class in the US started to decline rapidly.

who would have thought?

with no real pressure from US politicians to raise the federal minimum wage it has lost most of it's purchasing power due to inflation. it only amounts to 30% of the median wage in the US and is at a 30 year low in terms of purchasing power and with over 50% of the total US workforce earning minimum wages. the declining labor union density in the US is putting even less upward pressure on wages.

wages in the US now increase annually at about 1.5% a year, far less than the increasing costs of goods and services.

stupid...stupid...Americans...listening to politicians on tv vs economists and known world economic and wage history. going backwards to go forwards...yea that's the ticket, right to the bottom of the OECD.
 
IML Gear Cream!
because those of us that actually learned US (and world wage) history know that collective bargaining was a big part of the wage growth of US workers from the early 1900's to the 80's when wages stopped increasing...

You're over thinking it. If you took out the costs of unions from the profits of the companies, you'll find that the companies still turn a hefty profit. It's as simple as that.

"Then why is the auto industry doing so fiscally bad?"

The answer is mismanagement and the general down turn in the economy. It's why some companies were hurt more than others even though they all have unions. What hurt them the most was how much exposure they had to loans. They were bailed out for the same reasons the banks were. Or maybe the problem with the banks were unions?

It's easy to blame the unions when your mismanagement and the economy tanked your company. Everyone needs a scapegoat.

But I guess the corporate execs are right, employment costs caused the problems. Which explains why all the execs took huge pay cuts...
 
The answer is mismanagement and the general down turn in the economy. It's why some companies were hurt more than others even though they all have unions. What hurt them the most was how much exposure they had to loans. They were bailed out for the same reasons the banks were. Or maybe the problem with the banks were unions?

It's easy to blame the unions when your mismanagement and the economy tanked your company. Everyone needs a scapegoat.

the US is the only country in the world where the government i.e. elected officials have actively worked to decrease the amount of labor union density. the greater the workforce that is not covered by collective bargaining the less upward wage pressure there is on wages especially since the federal minimum wage has not moved and is not indexed for inflation.

the low wage service sector employs the greatest number of US workers at 50% of the total workforce and they pay the least, essentially setting the wage ceiling.

the US economy will never get better now or in the future with wages falling for the majority of workers while the costs of goods and services constantly increase. the US race to the bottom of the OECD continues and the people cheer it on...what a sad state of affairs this country is in.


Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share (PRS85006173) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
 
actually the RTW states rank at the rock bottom of the states for per capita income with the exception of VA which is loaded with government workers and private firms that provide goods and services directly to the Fed gov. the 10 poorest states in the US are all RTW states.

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States

the RTW states are far less populated than the unionized states in the north and west and it's been that way since the industrial revolution as people flocked to the big cities to get out of agriculture, etc. and because those same states never embraced the industrial revolution manufacturing of capital goods in the US has remained n the northern states. which means they have not felt much of the effects of the "free trade agreements" that have sent millions of US manufactured jobs offshore.

Yep but of course we only care about RTW's effects as a function of time. A single point tells you nothing(for those who haven't passed 7th grade yet). Same thing with population, RTW states are the ones gaining population because that's where new manufacturing jobs are.

RTW states are seeing better numbers in personal income change.
From the national AFL-CIO
http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/Copy+of+Income+Growth+Data+(3).xls

National Institute for Labor Relations
Differences Between Right to Work and Non-Right to Work States - Perspectives - Inside INdiana Business with Gerry Dick


They also are seeing better job growth
PolitiFact Georgia | Numbers back up Gingrich job growth claim

and lower unemployment rates
PolitiFact | Bill O'Reilly says unemployment is lower in 'right-to-work' states

Also the RTW states are increasing in population faster I believe. I know the south has seen the largest population increase.
US census shows West and South gaining the most population and clout — MercoPress
 
Yep but of course we only care about RTW's effects as a function of time. A single point tells you nothing(for those who haven't passed 7th grade yet). Same thing with population, RTW states are the ones gaining population because that's where new manufacturing jobs are.

looking at the effects over a period of time certainly did not help your feeble argument.

Years State adopted RTW and State Rank for per capita income in 2011 and GDP Rank.

1943 - Florida - 26 (#4 in GDP)
1947 - Arizona - 41 (#18 in GDP)
1947 - Arkansas - 45 (#34 in GDP)
1947 - Georgia - 39 (#11 in GDP)
1947 - Iowa - 23 (#30 in GDP)
1947 - Nebraska - 19 (#37 in GDP)
1947 - North Carolina - 37 (#10 in GDP)
1947 - North Dakota - 7 (#50 in GDP)
1947 - South Dakota - 12 (#47 in GDP)
1947 - Tennessee - 35 (#21 in GDP)
1947 - Texas - 25 (#2 in GDP)
1947 - Virginia - 8 (#9 in GDP)
1950 - Nevada - 34 (#32 in GDP)
1952 - Alabama - 42 (#25 in GDP)
1952 - Mississippi - 50 (#36 in GDP)
1952 - South Carolina - 48 (#27 in GDP)
1952 - Utah - 46 (#33 in GDP)
1954 - Kansas - 24 (#31 in GDP)
1955 - Wyoming - 6 (#48 in GDP)
1963 - Louisiana - 28 (#24 in GDP)

1985 - Idaho - 49 (#43 in GDP)
2001 - Oklahoma - 32 (#29 in GDP)
2012 - Indiana - 40 (#16)
2012 - Michigan - 36 (#13)

* how many of the RTW states rank in the upper 50 percentile for per capita income? 6 after 50 years...super

those are some great numbers there...trust me you don't want to get into education and healthcare rankings because it's not good either.

as I have stated time and time again and posted wage data from the 2010 SSA data. 70% of the total US workforce is low paid once adjusted for inflation. the fact that the RTW states are increasing their low wages up to the levels of some of the high union states solves absolutely nothing.
 
looking at the effects over a period of time certainly did not help your feeble argument.

Years State adopted RTW and State Rank for per capita income in 2011 and GDP Rank.

1943 - Florida - 26 (#4 in GDP)
1947 - Arizona - 41 (#18 in GDP)
1947 - Arkansas - 45 (#34 in GDP)
1947 - Georgia - 39 (#11 in GDP)
1947 - Iowa - 23 (#30 in GDP)
1947 - Nebraska - 19 (#37 in GDP)
1947 - North Carolina - 37 (#10 in GDP)
1947 - North Dakota - 7 (#50 in GDP)
1947 - South Dakota - 12 (#47 in GDP)
1947 - Tennessee - 35 (#21 in GDP)
1947 - Texas - 25 (#2 in GDP)
1947 - Virginia - 8 (#9 in GDP)
1950 - Nevada - 34 (#32 in GDP)
1952 - Alabama - 42 (#25 in GDP)
1952 - Mississippi - 50 (#36 in GDP)
1952 - South Carolina - 48 (#27 in GDP)
1952 - Utah - 46 (#33 in GDP)
1954 - Kansas - 24 (#31 in GDP)
1955 - Wyoming - 6 (#48 in GDP)
1963 - Louisiana - 28 (#24 in GDP)

1985 - Idaho - 49 (#43 in GDP)
2001 - Oklahoma - 32 (#29 in GDP)
2012 - Indiana - 40 (#16)
2012 - Michigan - 36 (#13)

* how many of the RTW states rank in the upper 50 percentile for per capita income? 6 after 50 years...super

those are some great numbers there...trust me you don't want to get into education and healthcare rankings because it's not good either.

as I have stated time and time again and posted wage data from the 2010 SSA data. 70% of the total US workforce is low paid once adjusted for inflation. the fact that the RTW states are increasing their low wages up to the levels of some of the high union states solves absolutely nothing.

I'm on your side of this argument, but those numbers are definitely not showing the whole picture. Many of those states went RTW in '47. A lot of them are agricultural states that have fallen behind when compared to manufacturing and white-collar states. Not to mention that many of those states have the lowest cost of living, so it would make sense that they would have the lowest wages.

In any case, just looking at the wages doesn't cover the equally important numbers relating to health and retirement benefits.
 
I'm on your side of this argument, but those numbers are definitely not showing the whole picture. Many of those states went RTW in '47. A lot of them are agricultural states that have fallen behind when compared to manufacturing and white-collar states. Not to mention that many of those states have the lowest cost of living, so it would make sense that they would have the lowest wages.

In any case, just looking at the wages doesn't cover the equally important numbers relating to health and retirement benefits.


Yep, if you look at adjusted cost of living, RTW states are doing better than non.
1. Percentage Growth in Non-Farm Private Sector Employees (1995-2005)
a. Right to Work States: 12.9%
b. Non-right to Work States: 6.0%

2. Average Poverty Rate-Adjusted for Cost of Living (2002-2004)
a. Right to Work States: 8.5%
b. Non-right to Work States: 10.1%

3. Percentage Growth in Patents Annually Granted (1995-2005)
a. Right to Work States: 33.0%
b. Non-right to Work States: 11.0%

4. Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income (1995-2005)
a. Right to Work States: 26.0%
b. Non-right to Work States: 19.0%

5. Percentage Growth in Number of People Covered by Employment Based Private Health Insurance (1995-2005):
a. Right to Work States: 8.5%
b. Non-right to Work States: 0.7%
 
The Chrysler Jefferson North assembly plant is shown in Detroit, Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012. Chrysler has reinstated more than a dozen Jefferson North assembly line workers who were filmed drinking and smoking pot during their breaks.

Chrysler has reinstated more than a dozen Jefferson North assembly line workers who were filmed drinking and smoking pot during their breaks.

Not challenging you, but WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE?

Left out?
 
I'm on your side of this argument, but those numbers are definitely not showing the whole picture. Many of those states went RTW in '47. A lot of them are agricultural states that have fallen behind when compared to manufacturing and white-collar states. Not to mention that many of those states have the lowest cost of living, so it would make sense that they would have the lowest wages.

In any case, just looking at the wages doesn't cover the equally important numbers relating to health and retirement benefits.

the lame ass excuse about ending collective bargaining because union members wanted to be members with out paying dues isn't even worth talking about.

RTW laws take what little power labor has and dismantles it. as if somehow going back to the labor practices of the late 1800's and early 1900's is any benefit to labor. it's going backwards in time and giving more back back to the corporations.

there's a reason why this is only occurring in the US and it alone...history tells us why we need unions as they have been the only recourse for employees. The decline of American wages, pensions and security is a direct result of the continued assault on unions and their protection of workers.

it's why the US has off-shored 6x the manufacturing jobs than the EU 15 have combined and why US workers have not been seeing gains in income even equal to the real inflation rate since the 80's.

LOL at those that totally disregard known global economic history for political ideology. you can only get away with this stuff in the US.

DOMS...in regards to pensions, etc. if you want to see how US workers stack up against the other country's in the OECD that actually protect their workers there is lots of info in the report below.

Pensions at a Glance 2011
RETIREMENT-INCOME SYSTEMS IN OECD AND G20 COUNTRIES
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docser...est&checksum=528E424688A326F7EA0B7C2791850481
 
The data on Right-to-Work states vs. non-RTW states is pretty clear.

Do Non-RTW states create more jobs? Apparently the data says yes - because wages are lower and employees have less control over many things.

Right to Work means lower wages and less favorable conditions for the worker.

I always believed in a balance and not one vs. the other, or black or white.

Union membership is very low in the US. I believe private sector union adults are 8% of the entire workforce.

Unfortuanately, I would not advice any young folks to enter a trade or profession that is dependent on unions for enter the working or middle class. They may have the rug pulled from underneath them by the time you qaulify for your union pension .

People talk about "wages."

What about the pensions? That is what will be wiped it. Is being wiped out.

Compete with the world by being Right to Work. This has been the business and government policy since the end of World War II.

It's a race to the bottom. Find the cheapest labor, whether it's in Asia, Latin America, or right here in the USA.
 
i have a close friend who's a union electrician...makes $24/hr when he works and $363 unemployment otherwise...he is always on unemployment yet the union is great lmfao...unions are the shittiest employment agencies...he still pays dues and works less than half the year total...they give just enough work to justify not moving on, but never enough to encourage more to join in...unions are a scam
 
Back
Top