Michigans right to work law

[Hlleonard]

I know some of you fellas opinion on this already I think but do you believe this will farther weaken the middle class ( which I personally see as step backwards) and will do farther damage to the economy... Whether or not a family needs middle class wages to provide for his family in a reasonable way isn't the question I'm asking... I believe moving financial resources away from the middle and into either of the other two,lower or upper class, will cause our economy to slide farther.

[DJD]

I know some of you fellas opinion on this already I think but do you believe this will farther weaken the middle class ( which I personally see as step backwards) and will do farther damage to the economy... Whether or not a family needs middle class wages to provide for his family in a reasonable way isn't the question I'm asking... I believe moving financial resources away from the middle and into either of the other two,lower or upper class, will cause our economy to slide farther.

What happened?

[Hlleonard]

What happened?

--
That was a rather silly post without a link to the story, I haven't read this entire story, heard it earlier on a news cast.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8B91AJ20121211

[GeoFisher]

I know some of you fellas opinion on this already I think but do you believe this will farther weaken the middle class ( which I personally see as step backwards) and will do farther damage to the economy... Whether or not a family needs middle class wages to provide for his family in a reasonable way isn't the question I'm asking... I believe moving financial resources away from the middle and into either of the other two,lower or upper class, will cause our economy to slide farther.

Of the top 10 economies in United States, broken down by state, only one is not a right to work state. Those states grew by 1.7% last year.

Of the bottom 10 economies in the United States, broken down by state, only 1 is a right t work state. Those states grew by .1% last year.

This cross section of 20 states is nearly 50% of the country........So I'd say RIGHT to WORK states have a better chance of generate economic wealth. This economic wealth is shared by everyone.

Right to work states have seen factory growth, where union states have seen factories either bailed out by Obama, or SHUTTERED by economic collapse.

I'm not posting links, but you can find this stuff all over the web.......just depends on who/what you believe.

Later,

Geo

[Hlleonard]

Of the top 10 economies in United States, broken down by state, only one is not a right to work state. Those states grew by 1.7% last year.

Of the bottom 10 economies in the United States, broken down by state, only 1 is a right t work state. Those states grew by .1% last year.

This cross section of 20 states is nearly 50% of the country........So I'd say RIGHT to WORK states have a better chance of generate economic wealth. This economic wealth is shared by everyone.

Right to work states have seen factory growth, where union states have seen factories either bailed out by Obama, or SHUTTERED by economic collapse.

I'm not posting links, but you can find this stuff all over the web.......just depends on who/what you believe.

Later,

Geo

--
I'm not exactly sure what it means for a state to grow economically but I suspect Mr. Fisher is correct... I would think jobs would grow more rapidly in a right to work state but to say that is better for the people who live and work there might not be exactly correct as I do believe the growth in job numbers will be piggy backed with lower wages, why else would employers and republicans push for this legislation unless it is a way to improve the bottom line.... There are a lot of web pages that support whatever opinion a person might have so posting links is kinda fruitless, I will post a quote from one of them that I believe to be the truth and I do believe the lower we see wages in the middle class drop the worse our economy will get.



“Right to work” means a dive to the pay scale’s bottom. The long-term impact doesn’t make a state more economically competitive. Instead, it’s a huge cost-shift, making moderate and low income workers pay more while receiving lower wages as a state’s highest income earners receive the benefit.
The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167). Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549). Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

[GeoFisher]

--
I'm not exactly sure what it means for a state to grow economically but I suspect Mr. Fisher is correct... I would think jobs would grow more rapidly in a right to work state but to say that is better for the people who live and work there might not be exactly correct as I do believe the growth in job numbers will be piggy backed with lower wages, why else would employers and republicans push for this legislation unless it is a way to improve the bottom line.... There are a lot of web pages that support whatever opinion a person might have so posting links is kinda fruitless, I will post a quote from one of them that I believe to be the truth and I do believe the lower we see wages in the middle class drop the worse our economy will get.



“Right to work” means a dive to the pay scale’s bottom. The long-term impact doesn’t make a state more economically competitive. Instead, it’s a huge cost-shift, making moderate and low income workers pay more while receiving lower wages as a state’s highest income earners receive the benefit.
The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167). Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549). Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

The Data I saw on RTW factory jobs is quite a bit different than your 5,333 difference.......That number I've seen on quite a bit of progressive websites, and I've seen that as a poster child for the arguments by the AFL/CIO.....

BUT Census data from RTW states versus non RTW states proves differently.

Again, believe what you want, but I personally think that it should be ILLEGAL everywhere to force someone to join a collective to be employed. Maybe employed by the only opportunity in a particular area.

Think of joe factory worker in middle america. Suppose the only factory going is Widgets Incorporated, and the ONLY WAY to get a job there is to be in the union. If I live in middle america and I have a family and I NEED a job, then I might join the union JUST to get a check. That my friend, is the single highest level of coersion that I can think of........

RTW doesn't mean the union no longer exists..........IT MEANS that the union cannot force someone to join the collective if they don't want to.

You know, the words fascist and communist and socialist get thrown around quite a bit in internet sites. I think unions embody those words.....unions eliminate a persons opportunity to think and act for themselves. Maybe they were needed at one time, but I don't think they are in today's world.

Maybe I'm wrong, and every factory out there will become a sweat shop and death trap. I highly doubt it, since non union shops are thriving all over the country......

Later,

Geo

[Hlleonard]

The Data I saw on RTW factory jobs is quite a bit different than your 5,333 difference.......That number I've seen on quite a bit of progressive websites, and I've seen that as a poster child for the arguments by the AFL/CIO.....

BUT Census data from RTW states versus non RTW states proves differently.

Again, believe what you want, but I personally think that it should be ILLEGAL everywhere to force someone to join a collective to be employed. Maybe employed by the only opportunity in a particular area.

Think of joe factory worker in middle america. Suppose the only factory going is Widgets Incorporated, and the ONLY WAY to get a job there is to be in the union. If I live in middle america and I have a family and I NEED a job, then I might join the union JUST to get a check. That my friend, is the single highest level of coersion that I can think of........

RTW doesn't mean the union no longer exists..........IT MEANS that the union cannot force someone to join the collective if they don't want to.

You know, the words fascist and communist and socialist get thrown around quite a bit in internet sites. I think unions embody those words.....unions eliminate a persons opportunity to think and act for themselves. Maybe they were needed at one time, but I don't think they are in today's world.

Maybe I'm wrong, and every factory out there will become a sweat shop and death trap. I highly doubt it, since non union shops are thriving all over the country......

Later,

Geo

--
The only concern I have in all this is the weakening paycheck,there are a good many folks that work everyday and have to depend on such programs as food stamps to care for their families, if that trend continues, I don't see how we have the slightest chance of cutting the deficit unless we just quit caring about the welfare of our citizens.

[Devils Horse]

Right to work pretty much says it all. Unions can force people to join if they want a job. No union membership/dues/etc...no job. That is wrong, and should be eliminated. Simple to me.

There was a time when unions served a valuable purpose in America, they stopped companies from taking advantage of people. With information so easily available, and the media always watching that is not the case anymore.

In many cases union collective bargaining borders on absurd. Hostess comes to mind. Among other financial difficulties, crazy union collective bargaining agreements sunk the company. 16,000 union members out of a job and Twinkies going for serious money on ebay. Crazy man.

Not so long ago government workers were on the low side of the pay scale, but they got great benefits and stability. Unions helped that change. Now government employees average 100k a year AND have great benefits and stability.

Hell, maybe Mr. Obama will hire all us regular people and just let the rich pay for everything.

[DJD]

In general terms I'm for anything that weakens Unions. Being made to join a group or be penalized (fired, beat up) is wrong. Who in their right mind thinks this is ok?? Sounds like a cult or Nazi Germany. Ok maybe not that bad but in my book it's wrong. They are worried that if people have a choice they will choose not to join? What it's not ok to shy away from a union?? A man cannot make a choice? What???? Maybe Unions are not the way for everyone?? Could it be??

Of course the unions and Dems are going to fight back because its a source of revenue for the dem party but as usual it's twisted to blame the GOP and their rich donors. Amazing how the dem party survives without any major donors huh??? Must be awesome to only receive monetary support from all their voters and no one else. You know folks on welfare, gubment assistant, illegals, hood rats and the poor poor low paid college student have tons of money to give!! No money comes from rich people because they are evil!!!!
So yeah I'm happy to read of any union losing its grip.

[jcb]

Right to work pretty much says it all. Unions can force people to join if they want a job. No union membership/dues/etc...no job. That is wrong, and should be eliminated. Simple to me.

There was a time when unions served a valuable purpose in America, they stopped companies from taking advantage of people. With information so easily available, and the media always watching that is not the case anymore.

In many cases union collective bargaining borders on absurd. Hostess comes to mind. Among other financial difficulties, crazy union collective bargaining agreements sunk the company. 16,000 union members out of a job and Twinkies going for serious money on ebay. Crazy man.

Not so long ago government workers were on the low side of the pay scale, but they got great benefits and stability. Unions helped that change. Now government employees average 100k a year AND have great benefits and stability.

Hell, maybe Mr. Obama will hire all us regular people and just let the rich pay for everything.

George Will had a column recently that hit the nail on the head regarding the grave unions dug for themselves. Paraphrasing, he said that GM is now a pension and health care provider, trying to sell enough cars to pay for their obligations.

[Hlleonard]

Do any of you fellas believe our economy needs the middle class and do you believe weaker unions help or hurt the middle class... Do you believe weaker unions help with the creation of lower paying jobs, do you believe lower paying jobs cause more or less people to need government assistance such as food stamps... Do you believe lower paying jobs causes the tax base to be larger or smaller... It looks to me like the less folks are earning, the more assistance they need, the less they are earning, the less they are paying in taxes... We absolutely don't need unions, we need more folks in the middle class who pay a bigger percentage of each dollar they earn in taxes as opposed to either the wealthy or the under class and it looks like to me the unions have don't that for a good many years and with the weakening of the unions over the last years we have seen a weakening of the middle class.... For the ones of you who believe all we need is the rich and the poor, you won't like this country when that happens... The so called ' american dream' will be only a memory when we no longer have a middle class.

[DJD]

I don't believe any wants just poor or just rich. I think there is so much corruption in the gubment, corporations, media and unions that we all are in trouble. A start to me would be for the gubment to stop giving away billions, make it desirable for companies to relocate here and take care of this country instead of themselves.
Why not raise the poor by making being on welfare less comfortable? What I mean is its not just unions that are (IMO) a problem. It's the fact that just a month ago your leader attacked rich people and pandered to the poor and gubment assistance folks and promised change from his change for votes. So now what?? Is he gonna raise taxes on us middle class? He said he wouldn't. What if he does? What's that gonna do to the barely middle class or lower middle class? What if healthcare errr I mean insurance errrr I mean Obama reform costs more than he stated? Who pays that?? Think that will help or hurt middle class?