wow. hyperbole much?

[netmouse]

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.

Comments

[grimfaire.livejournal.com]

Sorry but I'm a right to work kind of guy. Although I do agree with you about the fear mongering. grrrrr

The right to work states as of 2006 rank (medical care) an average of 31st among all the states. It does include the worst states but also includes many top 10 states. There doesn't appear to be any statistical correlation between right to work and medical care according to the United Health Organization.

Then according to the 2005 Census Burea percentage of people below the poverty line. The same plot points appear. Yes, the right to work states include the worst states but have a seemingly random distribution among all the states with many in each area. Top 10, Top 20, Middle, Bottom 20, Bottom 10.

Now you may get more in depth into the numbers and see some correlation between Right to Work states and lower standards of living (poverty, medical care, etc) but from my experience I'd put up with that somewhat to get rid of the other problems.

Read (for example) North Dakota's Right to Work Law: It says nothing about stopping people from bargaining together, assembling, unionizing, etc... it does stop unions from being able to deny employment to people who choose not to join a union and if they are hired from deducting money from those people.

So my gut tells me to vote for the bill but I'd have to read it to make sure.

[madkingludwig.livejournal.com]

It's an attempt to destroy unions. the "destroy the middle class" thing is only slightly disingenuous: the accusation stems from a belief, based on old data, that manufacturing jobs that economically place one in the middle class still exist. Those jobs were union jobs, but have been so depleted through "free trade" that they no longer have the cohesion necessary to bargain effectively. Therefore, had "Right to Work" laws been passed, say, 50 years ago, the sizable middle class that existed in the post-WWII era would have been destroyed at that time.
Now it is merely making sure that there will never be significant unions again.
And, yes, it is designed to depress wages and create a "more flexible labor market". Which does mean working twice the work for half the pay.

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

Patrrick makes a good point, Right to Work sends any union manufacturing workers that are left in the middle class down to the lower class.

I believe there are some left in MI and ON.

[madtechie2718.livejournal.com]

Is this a reasonable description of the debate?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

From the previous comments, it doesn't seem to tell the entire story.

The UK was almost destroyed as an economic entity in the 60s and 70s by the unbridled power of the unions - mostly I think we have a pretty decent balance today.

Being forced to join a union as acondition of employment is not something I could countenance.

[mjwise.livejournal.com]

The most experience I have with RTW issues is that my sister was forced to join the teachers' union at the jr./sr. school she teaches at in Indiana (not a RTW state). The dues are a not-insignificant sum (hundreds a year 6 or 7 years back, may be more now) and from what she told me, the leaders were pretty much the loudmouthed malcontents that frankly didn't care too much about teaching. Plus she is risking losing her job due to lack of popularity of art classes and budget cuts (she's the only jr/sr art teacher, for, oh, 30 miles at least) and the union has been basically no help at all. She's had to resort to personally campaigning the school board to save her job (and may yet be successful). So you could probably count her in the RTW column.

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested to know the following:

1) What is unemployment like between RTW and non-RTW states?
2) What is the welfare burden like between RTW and non-RTW states?
3) Where are the 1-to-1 statistical coordinations, if there are any?

--Howard "Not a member of a Union" Tayler