Right-to-work states out perform forced unionization.

[ksu_aviator]

KSU - I am happy that you did so well. I also have no doubt that there are some people in our system who can do just what you can do if they possess special talents, skills or abilities or find themselves on the plus side of a supply and demand situation. Having said that, the opposite is true for many many other people who find themselves in a job market that has them competing with lots of others for a very small amount of jobs. This is especially true in job areas where lots of workers have the same skills or can be trained to do a job that lots can do. Those persons, have virtually no negotiating room of any kind.

So...are you saying that people with no discernible talent should be paid wages higher than they are worth? Why? What possible good could come of that?

In addition, there are those among us who are concerned with more than just ourselves. As a teacher for 33 years, I was also concerned about the ability of my profession - the totality of it - and the quality of those in it and those who were considering entering it. I wanted to keep standards high and teaching quality high. As such, wages, hours and working conditions are important to me for all in my profession. So this is a matter far beyond my own personal ability to take care of myself in my own personal work situation.

How does a union bring that about? The pilot that crashed the Q400 in Buffalo just over a year ago was a union employee that failed every test he took (at least once, sometimes twice)....in part because the union contract gave him added opportunities that he didn't deserve.

 

[PeteEU]

A Cato study finds that right-to-work states have outperformed forced union states in nearly every measurable economic factor. Mean wages have increased at a greater rate. Population growth is much higher. Right-to-work states can account for an increased GDP of at least 100 billion.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-9.pdf

Its the CATO institute.. hardly unbiased.

 

[haymarket]

So...are you saying that people with no discernible talent should be paid wages higher than they are worth? Why? What possible good could come of that?



How does a union bring that about? The pilot that crashed the Q400 in Buffalo just over a year ago was a union employee that failed every test he took (at least once, sometimes twice)....in part because the union contract gave him added opportunities that he didn't deserve.

1- they obviously DO INDEED have talents. The most notable being the ability to work and help make money for their employer. That makes them valuable.

2- The pilot - Chesley Sullenberger - who successfully landed his plane in the water off New York was a union member. Do you want to trade these back and forth? Proving what exactly?

As a teacher, our union worked tirelessly to improve education for kids and raise standards for the profession. It was union work.

 

[ksu_aviator]

1- they obviously DO INDEED have talents. The most notable being the ability to work and help make money for their employer. That makes them valuable.

Well, in a free market, they will earn what they are worth.

2- The pilot - Chesley Sullenberger - who successfully landed his plane in the water off New York was a union member. Do you want to trade these back and forth? Proving what exactly?

That's not the same thing. Sullenberger wasn't promoted for his talent. He was promoted for his seniority number. Just because he happened to be talented and happened to be in the aircraft that lost both engines doesn't mean that it was the union that was able to put him, or anyone else, in that seat. The fact is, there are numerous incompetent pilots in every airline and they are protected by the union when they should be selling houses in Nebraska.

As a teacher, our union worked tirelessly to improve education for kids and raise standards for the profession. It was union work.

I can't argue with you about your union. But I would bet that there is a seniority system and an appeals system that allows bad employees to maintain their positions regardless of their incompetence.

 

[MaggieD]

Oh but it most certainly does. And the fact that you opt NOT to see it is telling.

You advocate a system where the worker has no collective rights in a union and is subject to the dictatorial whims of an employer. You advocate a system where a worker has no collective union rights and could be fired or have their salary or benefits reduced at an time for any reason or for no reason at all. I have little doubt that a worker in those conditions would at least attempt to please his master the same way a slave would try to smile, sing and dance to avoid the whip and lash.

That type of motivation is powerful.

I know it will come as a shock to you, Haymarket, but only 11% of American workers are unionized. The rest of us are mere pitiful slaves of a system that will use us up and throw us away. Why, it's any wonder we even get up in the morning. You are so out of touch with the real world, it's frightening. But then you taught for 33 years...

 

[TurtleDude]

lol what? this has nothing to do with the point.

its par for the course but its common union emotobabble

 

[TurtleDude]

You assume that the employer behaves like a dictator and that the employee has no power to negotiate.

its required assumption for the union propaganda that attitude that without a union a worker has no chance. its equivalent to the dems telling the "downtrodden" that the rich will screw them over without powerful dems helping the poor.

 

[TurtleDude]

And part of that issue is the right of a parasitic free rider to collect the salary and benefits that unionized workers in those states pay for as members while they merely appropriate the spoils for their own.

I have a degree in Labor relations as well as law. this is a standard claim from the Union propaganda book.

 

[nonpareil]

Well, in a free market, they will earn what they are worth.

Describe a "free market".

That's not the same thing. Sullenberger wasn't promoted for his talent. He was promoted for his seniority number. Just because he happened to be talented and happened to be in the aircraft that lost both engines doesn't mean that it was the union that was able to put him, or anyone else, in that seat. The fact is, there are numerous incompetent pilots in every airline and they are protected by the union when they should be selling houses in Nebraska.

And there numerous exploitative employers who take advantage of their workers. Every system have failures.

 

[TurtleDude]

Describe a "free market".




And there numerous exploitative employers who take advantage of their workers. Every system have failures.

many lefties define 'take advantage' as making a profit

that term has no use in this discussion

 

[ksu_aviator]

Describe a "free market".

LOL...good one.

And there numerous exploitative employers who take advantage of their workers. Every system have failures.

They also don't get good employees or good production.

 

[nonpareil]

LOL...good one.

No answer?

They also don't get good employees or good production.

Show this.

 

[nonpareil]

many lefties define 'take advantage' as making a profit

that term has no use in this discussion

Deflection and spin.

 

[TurtleDude]

Deflection and spin.

truth and light

 

[cpwill]

from cpwill

the only one using coercion in this scenario is usually the union.

What do you mean by 'coercion'?

there are many venues that have been utilized; but the two that are most obvious is violence against replacement workers, and the dependence upon government coercion (negotiations take too long? no worries, the National Labor Relations Board will swing in and give the unions their demands).

Sorry, but that is not clear at all in your scenario. You make no allowance nor do you consider the economic situation of the company.

the economic situation of the company is generally irrelevant to what a competitive wage is.

Workers generally want to be participants in the prosperity of the company since they certainly share in the pain at the opposite times. Perhaps in your scenario, the employees merely want to share in significant profits since their labor, their productivity, their hard work, all helped generate it.

employees want as much as they can get, and employers want as much as they can get.

Even if the employer is able to replace striking employees with scabs, it does NOT mean he is paying fair and competitive wages

if he is able to do so, then by definition he IS paying fair and competitive wages; because otherwise those new workers would not take the jobs.

It could well mean that he is taking advantage of a very large labor pool and taking advantage of the destitution and desperation of out of work people looking only at short term gain in their miserable economic situations.

ah. so he is purchasing a service (labor) for less because it has become worth less? well..... yeah? If a different IT company offered to cut his costs in half for switching to them; would it be "unfair" of the boss to make the shift, given that that would entail letting the old IT support company go?

What is the THIS in your statement?

the loss of jobs and pay by unionized workers

If you are referring to the actual jobs, the union I belonged to for over 33 years made it a top priority to preserve the jobs of its members

i'm sure it was a top priority. right beneath the No 1 priority, which was to increase the wealth and power of the union.

There were even times the union actually proposed absorbing cuts across the board if it meant saving the jobs of those designated by management to lose their jobs in a cost cutting effort.

sadly that doesn't seem to be what's happening in Wisconsin's public labor unions.

...If the state doesn't pass a budget and refinance $165 million in debt by Tuesday, Mr. Walker will have to send out 1,500 layoff-at-risk notices to state employees. Ultimately, 5,000 state workers and an equal number of local employees could lose their jobs.

"I very much want to avoid laying people off," Mr. Walker says. But his experience as county executive taught him that "not everyone feels that way. During budget crises I would push for a couple of weeks where workers would only put in 35 hours so we didn't have to cut jobs, but union leaders would say no. It's reactionary." He says there's a gulf between the interests of union leaders and those of their members. "When they say it's about worker rights, it's really about big union bosses running their own political dynasties." That's why the parts of his plan that most stick in the craw of union leaders are the ones that would limit their power.

For one, the proposal would require that public-employee unions be recertified annually by a majority vote of all their members, not merely by a majority of those who cast ballots. The bill would also end the government's practice of automatically deducting union dues from employee paychecks. "If workers have freedom of choice on their own dues money and a real voice in their union," the governor says, "they may get better representation."...

Aside from your theory, can you give me some specific examples of this happening in real life?[/QUOTE]

 

[haymarket]

I have a degree in Labor relations as well as law. this is a standard claim from the Union propaganda book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH46oIA6I2c

Which by itself proves nothing.

 

[TurtleDude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH46oIA6I2c

Which by itself proves nothing.

It means far more than a public school teaching career. Why not address the post above yours that pretty much takes your argument apart?

 

[haymarket]

It means far more than a public school teaching career. Why not address the post above yours that pretty much takes your argument apart?

It means nothing. Your occupation means nothing by itself to prove you are right when you state your opinion on a political issue. You have to back up your opinion with facts, data and evidence. You r degree or courses you took in college are none of those things.

That is the way debate works.

 

[haymarket]

from cpwill

on coercion

there are many venues that have been utilized; but the two that are most obvious is violence against replacement workers, and the dependence upon government coercion (negotiations take too long? no worries, the National Labor Relations Board will swing in and give the unions their demands).

I missed the portion of your post where you documented any actual coercion. The NLRB is not coercion. It is a government service designed to help both workers and employers. It is revealing that you see a valuable service of government on behalf of the people as something akin with beating somebody up.

This will help give you a better understanding of the NLRB and the valuable services they perform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB


cpwill stating that the economic health of a company is irrelevant in bargaining for wages

the economic situation of the company is generally irrelevant to what a competitive wage is.

You obviously have no real experience in negotiations. The economic situation of the employer is ALWAYS and important part of any negotiations. And it is the EMPLOYER who often puts that very issue front and center on the bargaining table.


I made this point about scabs

Even if the employer is able to replace striking employees with scabs, it does NOT mean he is paying fair and competitive wages

the response
i

f he is able to do so, then by definition he IS paying fair and competitive wages; because otherwise those new workers would not take the jobs.

What definition? There are depressed economic areas where conditions are so bad and the prevailing climate so much dog-eat-dog that the dogs under the table fighting for scraps would indeed climb on up and eat a dish of just half portions because it is more than they now have. That is not fair by any definition. It is a greed employer taking advantage of a very bad labor climate. that was explained to you before

It could well mean that he is taking advantage of a very large labor pool and taking advantage of the destitution and desperation of out of work people looking only at short term gain in their miserable economic situations.

and the response was

ah. so he is purchasing a service (labor) for less because it has become worth less? well..... yeah?

He is buying cheap labor that HE HIMSELF made cheap.

on the subject of unions costing jobs, I made this point

If you are referring to the actual jobs, the union I belonged to for over 33 years made it a top priority to preserve the jobs of its members

the response

i'm sure it was a top priority. right beneath the No 1 priority, which was to increase the wealth and power of the union.

Wealth of the union? Surely you joke. The union has precious little and wealth is a ridiculous word to use describing any of it. My union had 10,000 members and was housed in a small building that had previously serviced a musicians union with less than 1,000 members. There were about a dozen full time employees there to service 10,000 members. All the money taken in as dues went to service the members. There was no "wealth".

As for power. Any power the union had was used to benefit its members and obtain for them a good contract in the area of wages, hours and working conditions as the law says is their right and duty.


I made the point that unions willingly participate in cuts

There were even times the union actually proposed absorbing cuts across the board if it meant saving the jobs of those designated by management to lose their jobs in a cost cutting effort.

the response

sadly that doesn't seem to be what's happening in Wisconsin's public labor unions.

I do not know where you have been for the last ten days or why you know so little about the actual facts, but the union leaders have repeatedly and publicly said they would agree to economic concessions. That is exactly what is happening in Wisconsin on the union side. You need to keep up with the facts on the ground, not on ideology from right wing think tanks.

please check this to see a long list of union concession in America

http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...ave_already_negotiated_dozens_of_concessions/

not only have Wisconsin public employee unions repeatedly offered to make current concessions in this current situation, they already took $100 million just three months ago in concessions: for Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/11/us-wisconsin-budget-unions-idUSTRE71A7FP20110211

State employee unions made $100 million in concessions in December to ease the budgetary strain, said Bryan Kennedy, president of the state chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. But Walker's response has been "to eviscerate our most basic rights" and "end labor peace in Wisconsin."

 

[randel]

from cpwill

on coercion




I missed the portion of your post where you documented any actual coercion. The NLRB is not coercion. It is a government service designed to help both workers and employers. It is revealing that you see a valuable service of government on behalf of the people as something akin with beating somebody up.

This will help give you a better understanding of the NLRB and the valuable services they perform

National Labor Relations Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


cpwill stating that the economic health of a company is irrelevant in bargaining for wages




You obviously have no real experience in negotiations. The economic situation of the employer is ALWAYS and important part of any negotiations. And it is the EMPLOYER who often puts that very issue front and center on the bargaining table.


I made this point about scabs



the response
i

What definition? There are depressed economic areas where conditions are so bad and the prevailing climate so much dog-eat-dog that the dogs under the table fighting for scraps would indeed climb on up and eat a dish of just half portions because it is more than they now have. That is not fair by any definition. It is a greed employer taking advantage of a very bad labor climate. that was explained to you before



and the response was



He is buying cheap labor that HE HIMSELF made cheap.

on the subject of unions costing jobs, I made this point



the response




Wealth of the union? Surely you joke. The union has precious little and wealth is a ridiculous word to use describing any of it. My union had 10,000 members and was housed in a small building that had previously serviced a musicians union with less than 1,000 members. There were about a dozen full time employees there to service 10,000 members. All the money taken in as dues went to service the members. There was no "wealth".

As for power. Any power the union had was used to benefit its members and obtain for them a good contract in the area of wages, hours and working conditions as the law says is their right and duty.


I made the point that unions willingly participate in cuts



the response



I do not know where you have been for the last ten days or why you know so little about the actual facts, but the union leaders have repeatedly and publicly said they would agree to economic concessions. That is exactly what is happening in Wisconsin on the union side. You need to keep up with the facts on the ground, not on ideology from right wing think tanks.

i respect the hell out of cpwill, but he lacks real world experience when it comes to unions.

 

[haymarket]

i respect the hell out of cpwill, but he lacks real world experience when it comes to unions.

Randel - the sad thing is that the so called 'information' many anti-unionists have about unions is something right out of a combination of bad movies, comic book stereotypes and right wing think tank propaganda. In a world where ideology and beliefs systems have come to be more important than actual history and facts, this is dangerous and a serious threat to our democratic republic and the people in our nation. We depend on an informed public to give us a good government which can then properly represent us. Sadly, the "informed" part of that equation is being replaced by a quasi-religious belief system founded only in what they want to believe because they want to believe it.

Any of the scores of threads here on Wisconsin provide ample evidence of this.

 

[randel]

Randel - the sad thing is that the so called 'information' many anti-unionists have about unions is something right out of a combination of bad movies, comic book stereotypes and right wing think tank propaganda. In a world where ideology and beliefs systems have come to be more important than actual history and facts, this is dangerous and a serious threat to our democratic republic and the people in our nation. We depend on an informed public to give us a good government which can then properly represent us. Sadly, the "informed" part of that equation is being replaced by a quasi-religious belief system founded only in what they want to believe because they want to believe it.

Any of the scores of threads here on Wisconsin provide ample evidence of this.

no argument here, alot of garbage out there concerning unions.

 

[haymarket]

no argument here, alot of garbage out there concerning unions.

NPR Sunday Morning edition today had a very good feature on this very topic.

Union Battles: A 'National Campaign' Against Labor? : NPR

Here was a key part of the story

Laura Dresser is a labor economist with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy.

"You know, I think the best, rigorous research on the question of living standards in right-to-work verses non-right-to-work states shows a 3 percent wage loss for living in a right-to-work state — a wage penalty for being in a place that doesn't have unions," Dresser says.

As for bringing in new jobs, Dresser notes that there have been some big employers choosing to locate in right-to-work states for their cheaper labor costs — foreign car makers, for example, have opened plants in cities like Tupelo, Miss., and Tuscaloosa, Ala., but not in Flint, Mich., and Toledo, Ohio.

But Dresser says most businesses look at more than just labor costs.

"The broadest and strongest evidence suggests that employers are looking for good workers — that takes good schools. They're looking for good infrastructure — that takes money for roads and rails. They're looking for cities where they can have suppliers and relationships with other businesses, and all of those things tend to happen in non-right-to-work states."

In addition, the most significant job growth over the past decade has been in states with high immigration. Dresser says that includes both right-to-work states and strong union states, such as New York and California.

So much for the advantage in right to work states. Or should I say - right to work for cheap states.

Info about the economist quoted in the report

Staff Details- Laura Dresser

Laura Dresser (BA, Rice University; MSW, PhD, University of Michigan) is Associate Director of COWS. A labor economist and expert on low-wage work and workforce development systems, she has both written about ways to build stronger labor market systems and worked extensively with labor, business, and community leaders in building them. Laura has written widely on race and gender inequality and labor market reform. She is most recently co-editor of The Gloves-Off Economy: Workplace Standards at the Bottom of America's Labor Market.

The woman knows what she is talking about.

 

[TurtleDude]

no argument here, alot of garbage out there concerning unions.

lots of garbage coming from unions-that's for sure

 

[randel]

lots of garbage coming from unions-that's for sure

how is the view from that ivory tower?