Scott Walker's crusade continues

[DinoDoc]

FWIW: Northwestern University economist Thomas Holmes, now at University of Minnesota, compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.

Unions vs. the Right to Work

Data Source

[MrFun]

As MTG said, non-union workers are not forced into paying to a union. Those non-union workers can find a job elsewhere.

AND, as MTG has said, all this is really about depriving unions political representation and participation.

[MrFun]

And if a member doesn't want to contribute to those things it is EXTREMELY EASY for him to opt out. The reason most members continue to fund such things is because they see a benefit from it. The constant attacks on union rights and worker rights is why so little of it ends up going to Republicans.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, I'm having difficulty figuring out the details here.

What seems key here is where the money is going. If unions were taking a cut from worker's paychecks and sending money to Focus of the Family, I think MrFun would be changing his tune. As long as the money supports policies that they like, Dinner, MrFun, gribbler, MtG, and the rest see absolutely nothing wrong with taking it from people. Anybody trying to interfere in this extortion is a Republican troll.

Well, I don't care who the union's money goes to. Advocacy is one function of unions. Workers can also decertify unions if enough of them are bothered by something the union does. Or they can go elsewhere.

[MrFun]

A lot of employees work for corporations who lobby for laws that those employees oppose.

So Felch, are you as outraged about employees having to be "forced" to work for companies that lobby for laws that many workers may oppose?

[Dinner]

Entirely pertinent to the quoted post though for the purposes of proving Oerdin a liar: Supreme Court Says Unions Can't Bill Non-Members For Political Spending

You're the liar. The opt out rules have been around for almost 50 years. Here's some facts for anyone interested in them (I know it won't be DinoDoc):

http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/unions-union-dues

[DinoDoc]

So Felch, are you as outraged about employees having to be "forced" to work for companies that lobby for laws that many workers may oppose?

[T]he workers don't own the capital, the investors do[.] The workers don't (or shouldn't) earn some magical property right in the firm's capital just by being hired.

[MichaeltheGreat]

FWIW: Northwestern University economist Thomas Holmes, now at University of Minnesota, compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.

And if you had a libertarian paradise where all wage and hour laws were revoked, I'm sure you'd see a bigger increase in growth rates, Let's take it a step further, revoke all wage and hour laws, workplace safety laws, environmental regulations, anti-discrimination laws (let freedom ring! ) and child labor laws, and let's also repeal all taxes on business. Then we could have full employment and out-Bangladesh Bangladesh.

[regexcellent]

Getting rid of wage and hour laws is a very good idea

We can start with Obamacare

[DinoDoc]

We can start with Obamacare

Companies don't care about that. They'll just move everyone to part time in order to pay less money and avoid the increased costs: Walmart Bails On Obamacare-Sticks Taxpayers With Employee Healthcare Costs

[Felch]

The reason the unions still have money to spend on political causes is because so many members agree with the political contributions and don't opt out.

I suspect it's a bit more complicated than that. For starters, Democrats only get about 60% of the union member votes. So there's clearly more political diversity in labor unions than you've been led to believe.

Here are a few things I found while researching this. All are from blatantly right wing sources, but the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

According to Thinking Right less than one percent of CA union workers opt out of the political payments. I haven't verified this, but if it is true, it's one more piece in the puzzle explaining why unions fight so hard to maintain the status quo.

An anecdote in the OC Register shows how the opting out process isn't as simple as it sounds.

Teachers like Vickie who try to "opt out" of the CTA using current law find that it is cumbersome and legally challenging. Not only must paperwork be filed within a very short annual timeframe to seek a rebate, but in order to opt out of paying political dues, members are being informed they must leave the union entirely (though they continue to pay representation dues).

It's possible that this is a local union that is taking bad legal advice, but it also seems clear that it's not as easy to opt out as you claim.

Finally, Teachers Union Exposed says:

When teachers were given the chance to opt out of paying for the political causes of education unions, they did — in droves. The number of teachers participating in Utah plunged from 68 percent to 6.8 percent, and the number of represented teachers contributing in Washington plummeted from 82 percent to 6 percent.

This article is clearly wrong, since what they describe is an opt in mechanic rather than an opt out. But if the numbers are true, they are a clear example of union members not wanting their money spent on politics.

I know not to take every source at face value. But you'd be a lot more convincing if you didn't come across as an echo of MSNBC in every single thread. It's important to remember that unions are a good thing for a lot of people, and have made a real contribution to making this country what it is. People want to be in unions, for the protection and services that they provide. But that doesn't mean that everything unions do is good. I sincerely believe that people are best off making their political decisions without any sort of coercion in the workplace. It's why I support an opt in mechanic for political contributions. Workers who feel that they are well represented by the union are free to organize for political effect. Those who want to participate in the non-political aspects shouldn't be pressured into anything they don't want to take part in.

[DinoDoc]

I think this pic says that in addition to RTW legislation Michigan needs education reform:

[Felch]

A lot of employees work for corporations who lobby for laws that those employees oppose.

So Felch, are you as outraged about employees having to be "forced" to work for companies that lobby for laws that many workers may oppose?

Companies aren't allowed to take money from worker's paychecks for political purposes. So that's a different issue entirely.

[Dinner]

FWIW: Northwestern University economist Thomas Holmes, now at University of Minnesota, compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.

Unions vs. the Right to Work

Data Source

Yep, right to work states do grow faster but the problem is their base is so tiny that even with the higher growth rates they're still falling further behind the established states. This is because Base times Growth rate equals the increase in industrial output and the base is so low in states like Alabama that states like Ohio are still INCREASING their lead on Alabama even though Alabama his a slightly higher growth rate. Total employment in states like Ohio is not only higher but it is going up far more than in RTW states like Alabama not to mention the value of total industrial output continues to increase in real terms over the industrial output in Alabama and other right to work for less states.

That's just math, son.

[DinoDoc]

That's just math, son.

Oerdin if you are going to try and poke holes in the data at least try and understand that he compared the growth of counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws. So please try not to shame yourself further by trying to get me to fall for your apples and oranges idiocy. FTR, if you are going to use Ohio as your test case Indiana would be a better basis of comparison than Alabama.