netmouse: (Default)
netmouse ([personal profile] netmouse) wrote2008-01-11 12:26 pm

wow. hyperbole much?

Just got an email from the democratic party about the primary election. At the bottom they have this to say:


BEWARE OF "RIGHT TO WORK" PETITION
At your polling site you may be asked to sign a petition to put Right to Work legislation on the november ballot.
Right to Work means Right to Work for Less. This legislation would:
Reduce wages and benefits
Weaken labor unions
Destroy the middle class
Please do not sign these petitions. This is an attempt by Corporations and out-of-state millionaires to further weaken Michigan's economy.


(emphasis mine)

this article reports that, "According to the U.S. government, poverty rates are 16 percent higher in right-to-work states. Due to poverty rates, these states have the worst infant mortality rates in the nation. Personal bankruptcies are also higher in right-to-work states."

That's not destroying the middle class, that's hurting the lower classes. at best the lower middle class...

Anyway, I'm not supporting or opposing the "Right to work" movement (here's another article against it) but I'm tired of people trying to play with my fear. I'm not afraid, people. Not more than is reasonable anyway.

[identity profile] nicegeek.livejournal.com 2008-01-12 12:04 am (UTC)(link)
I wrote:
It's also particularly offensive when unions take a member's mandatory dues and donate them to political causes that the member might not agree with.

After a bit of research, I need to revise this statement. Federal law does allow union members to opt-out of the use of their money for political purposes. However, the default is to permit them...a ballot measure to change it to opt-in was recently defeated in California.

I'd be curious to know whether there's any social stigma attached to opting out this way.