Skip to main content

"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining...We demand this fraud be stopped." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Right to work" is, along with "Death Tax" and "Clear Skies Act," among the disco hits of Republican Orwellian language. As the fact that it was around for Martin Luther King to address it suggests, it is one of the longest-disputed such false slogans and frauds. That we are still fighting it shows both the degree to which Republican officeholders and the corporations that fight so hard to elect them want this legislation on the books from coast to coast and the tenacity with which working people have fought back.

It’s not enough for today’s Republicans that the richest 1% of the population takes in 24% of the nation’s income. Not enough for them that 20% of the population holds 85% of the wealth. Not enough for them that:

median weekly wages, when adjusted for inflation, fell slightly for both high school and college graduates from 2000 to 2009, according to a recent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank.

No, not content with all of that, they’re mounting a massive assault on what we have left. In a classic divide and conquer strategy, most of the most overt assaults are on unions—get non-union workers to think that the economy is in trouble because the teacher down the street has a pension rather than because the wealthy have more than their share and don’t pay their share. But ultimately, it’s not about corporations and Republicans vs. unions. It’s about corporations and Republicans vs. working people—if you’ll notice, everyone outside the top 10% or so has been losing ground, not just union members. (Not mostly union members, in fact, which is probably why they get targeted first.) And attempting to pass RtW laws in several states is part of that assault.

“Right to work” is an astonishingly misleading term, even in company with “death tax.” Its proponents would have you believe that without RtW laws in place, you can be forced to join a union in order to get a job…in a unionized workplace, a point they tend to gloss over. I mean, really, it would be nice if job=job in a unionized workplace, but that’s not remotely the case. In reality (PDF), though, you can never be forced to join a union—you can only be required to pay dues directly related to work the union does representing you.

In fact, RtW laws actually represent the government interfering in what employers can do, by preventing employers and unions from agreeing to “union security” clauses. A union security clause says that if the union represents you, you have to pay your share of the costs they incur. So what banning that type of agreement means is that if someone gets a job in a unionized workplace, the union has to represent them, but they have no responsibility to the union. They get the wages and benefits negotiated, however improved those may be (union members earn, on average, 28% more than non-members), and don’t contribute to the costs of negotiating. If they’re fired illegally, the union represents them for free, no matter how much staff time and resources go into defending them. And if they feel like the union didn’t do well enough representing them for free, they can sue.

You can see where that goes. People enter as freeloaders, happy to have improved wages and benefits and help when they have a problem with the boss, and happy to let someone else pay for it. But that freeloading weakens the union, and in the end, working conditions and pay are driven down for everyone: RtW states have an average wage $5,500 lower than other states.

The Republicans pushing RtW would have you believe that it draws employers into states and raises employment levels—and to bend over backwards in an attempt to be fair, lower wages in those states could be simply a regional effect. But the figures don’t bear that out. Lonnie Stevans, a professor in the Hofstra University department of information technology and quantitative methods, studied the effects of RtW laws on economic growth (after controlling for things like education levels and type of employment).

Stevans found that a state’s right-to-work law:
  • Has no impact on economic growth
  • Has no influence on employment
  • Has no influence on business capital formation (the ratio of firm ‘births’ to the number of firms)
  • Is correlated with a decrease in wages

Stevan’s analysis of right-to-work states also yielded the following observations:

  • The average real state GDP growth rate of right-to-work states is not significantly different than non-right-to-work states
  • The average per capita income in right-to-work states is lower than in non-right-to-work states

Stevans concluded his analysis with the following observation:

“…From a state’s economic standpoint, being right-to-work yields little or no gain in employment and real economic growth.”

Additionally, consider the following measures. Of the top 10 states by median household income, only one is RtW. Of the bottom 10, seven are. RtW states also have higher rates of workplace death (PDF) and infant mortality, lower spending on education, and poorer educational results.

And, following last November's Republican wave, RtW may be coming to your state. In New Hampshire, where the state senate went from 14 Democrats and 10 Republicans to 19 Republicans and five Democrats, while the state House went from 216D-174R to 102D-298R, RtW has passed out of committee and is headed to a vote of the full House this week.

In Missouri, Republicans increased their majorities in both houses of the state legislature and are moving ahead with RtW; Gov. Jay Nixon is opposed. In Maine, where both houses flipped to Republican control, it has been submitted. Minnesota: newly Republican legislature, RtW was in committee this weekend. And so on.

If these bills pass, maybe someday the people pushing them now will be looking back with the same regret as this man:

Edward Steimel, who spearheaded passage of Louisiana's "right to work" law in the 1970s, now says that "the pendulum has swung too far" and construction workers in the state are underpaid.

-snip-

"A look at the construction craftsmen's wage rates in Louisiana for the year 2000 compared to wage rates in Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois show a bleak story for Louisiana workers," Steimel said. "It also explains why so many workers are leaving their families here in search of higher pay elsewhere."

But by then, how many working families will have struggled and been broken by the ever-more-hostile economy and work environment?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I was thinking about this (32+ / 0-)

    I'm being interviewed for two jobs this week-- one is "permanent" and the other "temporary" and I'm realizing I need to realign my expectations and just stop considering any job to be, in any way, permanent.  

    "Goodnight world. Goodnight wife. I love you both. In, you know, different ways." --Neil Gaiman

    juliewaters.com

    by Julie Waters on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:05:09 PM PST

    •  Working out in the JCC gym last week (16+ / 0-)

      I looked at the text streaming on Faux News - "National Outrage over Public Unions Spontaneous and Growing." or something like that.  Kinda reminded me of the spontaneous demonstrations orgainized in Red Square by that earlier Party indoctrination rag.

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:07:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Public unions... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Justanothernyer, Wham Bam

        ...and private unions are entirely different things. Private unions negotiate with a private company: the rest of us are not involved. If they succeed, the company and union prosper. If not, they fail.

        Public unions negotiate with the public in general. Public employees being paid more mean private employees being paid less due to paying higher taxes.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:15:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (33+ / 0-)

          Public unions negotiate with an employer, just as private unions do.  Public employees being paid more can mean a wide variety of things.  In some cases it means actually having better employees who do a better job with a stronger commitment to it.

          Just because a union negotiates in support of public employees does not mean it operates against the public's best interest.

          "Goodnight world. Goodnight wife. I love you both. In, you know, different ways." --Neil Gaiman

          juliewaters.com

          by Julie Waters on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:21:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you, Julie (19+ / 0-)

            As usual, it's always assumed public employees make a lot more than private employees. It's not always the case.

            •  It's not the case at all (18+ / 0-)

              It depends on the job and the situation.  Some do quite well, but it's easy to make things look worse than they are by quoting top-level salaries.

              "Goodnight world. Goodnight wife. I love you both. In, you know, different ways." --Neil Gaiman

              juliewaters.com

              by Julie Waters on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:30:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's frequently not the case... (25+ / 0-)

              ...as several studies have shown. There are big differences depending on educational level. Those with the least education tend to do somewhat better as public employees than as private employees. Those with more education tend to do worse.

              Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:35:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree, public sector worker's... (12+ / 0-)

                ...pay and benefits are based upon the averaging of wages earned in the private sector; public sector unions (police, firefighters, teachers, et al.) have become the new enemies in American politics. It is strange to find individuals willing to blame Veterans Affairs nurses bringing in $36K/year that they need a pay cut because their meager take-home pay is destroying the livelihood of all other Americans.

                The reality of the situation is that (as stated by John Schmitt’s CEPR: The Wage Penality for State and Local Government Employees and the 1 November 2010 Office of Personal Management Report) public sector wages and benefits are, on average, 4% less than their private sector counterparts. Currently, the numbers used to perpetuate the lie that public sector workers are overpaid stems from the fact that the “analysts” willfully neglect to inform the public that their private sector numbers are based on a larger pool of workers with more minimum wage jobs and less benefit options – since benefit options are not offered to anyone working less than 40 hours per week.

                Moreover, the reality is that states are not taxing enough rather then spending too much. Forty-nine states (even ‘right-to-work’ states) have projected shortfalls – North Dakota was spared due to the oil boom. If public sector unions are to blame for budget shortfalls then anti-union states, like Texas (which has the second largest budget shortfall behind California), should not have the issues it currently has. Under the logic being put forth by the nation’s leaders, right to work states should be better off than their counterparts.

                •  Texas deficit is from years of undertaxing (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Copp, poemworld, Paddy999

                  Texas has both low taxes and right to work laws, so as you say, we should be a poster child for the success of these policies, instead of facing the second worst deficit in the country.

                  We have no state income tax. Education is mainly funded by property taxes which are redistributed under a complicated formula known a "Robin Hood" which leaves all school district equally underfunded.  In order to lower property taxes and raise more revenue, legislators voted for a new business tax. However it hasn't generated as much income as was predicted, so for years a structural deficit has been accumulating.

                  The reason for Texas massive deficit is due to the fact that our taxes are too low, not from the modest pensions that teachers, policemen, and firefighters get.  

                  Good thing we've still got politics in Texas -- finest form of free entertainment ever invented.- Molly Ivins

                  by loblolly on Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 05:49:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The only time where it is the case (8+ / 0-)

              is in areas where the local government is hiring the most skilled workers, as in a rural area.

              Then, the most educated and skilled workers are doing government IT, teaching, policing, lawyering, etc. They may have a higher median wage but it still is lower usually than they would make in a more urban area.

              Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

              by elfling on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:52:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The problem is Hiking Taxes on Poor/Middle Class.. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sparhawk, kck, Matt Z

              ...to pay for service union wage hikes.

              Why can't the service unions collectively call on a wealth tax to fulfill obligations made to them?

              The Dems are in trouble to the extent that they ask the private sector working and middle-class, which has seen stagnant wages for the last decade, to "suck it up" by shouldering a higher tax burden.

              And regrettably, some Dem governors are doing just that.

              Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

              by PatriciaVa on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:58:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  True and though not really the issue (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alizard

              ...it's an effective way to rile he middle class who is paying the lion;s share of the taxes.

              The Democrats need to do 2 things - link tax hikes for the highest earners with collective bargaining agreements and be specific about expectations for labor, public and private. We need to define expectations for wages, unemployment, health care and pensions and strive for national standard.

              Even if the super rich start to pay their fair share, what t it and what's it for? Getting these answers will defuse the ageless issues used by the parties that impede getting closure.

          •  Re (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PatriciaVa, VClib, Justanothernyer
            Just because a union negotiates in support of public employees does not mean it operates against the public's best interest.

            If I get a certain level of police service paying police $70k/year, and they negotiate a $10k raise and provide the same service afterward, the public in general has just lost out on the deal.

            This dynamic always creates a tension between public employee unions and taxpayers who often must pay their salaries out of regressive sales and property taxes.

            I am not arguing that public employees are or or not overcompensated, just illuminating the issues public employees face when negotiating with their employers (all the rest of us).

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:26:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (23+ / 0-)

              If you pay police poorly and give them crappy health insurance and they negotiate a better deal, you get better police officers, and a lot of those police officers are heavily invested in their own communities.  They shop locally, support local businesses and pay local taxes.  That's a lot more than I can say for some private employers.

              "Goodnight world. Goodnight wife. I love you both. In, you know, different ways." --Neil Gaiman

              juliewaters.com

              by Julie Waters on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:33:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So in your opinion (15+ / 0-)

              public workers should never have pay raises because the "public" loses out?  

              That's just crap.  

              The "public" should also have an interest in keeping their streets safe by employing police with proper training (costs money) and experience (don't want them to go to another jurisdiction who pays more) and equipment (also costs money).  

              And by the way, public employees pay taxes too. All the same taxes that everyone else pays.  

              Not all public employees are paid out of your state's general fund either, and not always out of sales or property taxes.  

              You just want something for nothing.  

              •  Re (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PatriciaVa, Justanothernyer
                public workers should never have pay raises because the "public" loses out?  

                I didn't say they "should never have raises". However, the public losing out is certainly true, assuming they get the same level of service after the raise as before the raise. The public is just paying more for the same service. How is that not a loss?

                The "public" should also have an interest in keeping their streets safe by employing police with proper training (costs money) and experience (don't want them to go to another jurisdiction who pays more) and equipment (also costs money).  

                Why do you think I do not agree with this? There is certainly a market tension between quality of police service and how much you pay. That's why we can't pay police officers $9/hour: we'd get awful service out of it!

                And by the way, public employees pay taxes too. All the same taxes that everyone else pays.  

                They don't pay taxes. A police officer that is paid $80k/year, then pays $1k in taxes still has cost the town $79k. They are a net loss. However, a private sector employee that works at a local factory that contributes $1k in taxes actually made a positive net tax contribution.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:41:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your anti-worker (17+ / 0-)

                  right wing bullshit gets old. Police officers are a net loss? They don't pay taxes?

                  Well paid workers contribute more to the economy no matter the source of their income.

                  If the cops worked for a private security firm, would that make you happy? Would they be real taxpayers then?

                  Libertarians are clueless, I swear. The concepts of society and the common good completely escape you, don't they?

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:49:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Justanothernyer

                    ...still appear to misunderstand me (deliberately?).

                    Police officers are a net loss? They don't pay taxes?

                    Police officers provide a service that is necessary. However, it doesn't drive society forward at all. It's like auto insurance, health care, defense spending, all things that are "necessary" that are just costs you'd rather not pay if you didn't have to.

                    Well paid workers contribute more to the economy no matter the source of their income.

                    False. Your "contribution to the economy" is what you produce, nothing else. What you are paid is what the economy contributes to you.

                    Foxconn workers over in China contribute a lot to the American economy by making things of value for us, for example.

                    If the cops worked for a private security firm, would that make you happy? Would they be real taxpayers then?

                    No. It doesn't matter if they are employed by the public, or on a "contract" basis like they were in medieval times. In all cases it's the same kind of loss: you're paying for police protection when you'd rather be buying iPods. Just like health insurance, defense, etc. All of these things are things you want to minimize the cost of and minimize their percentage consumption of your economy.

                    Public or private, it is just a resource sink at the end of the day. A necessary one, perhaps, but still one you'd rather not pay.

                    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                    by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:58:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But a good police force DOES contribute (7+ / 0-)

                      That's why we have them.

                      The police are who you call when you have a missing person, when you're in trouble, when you need assistance. The police do disaster planning. The police provide traffic control for special events.

                      This all independent of their role in deterring crime and capturing bad guys.

                      I live in a relatively small town kind of atmosphere, and we're lucky to have a sensible and really good guy as sheriff. Local businesses in general seem to like the department quite a bit. Heck, the medical marijuana growers were getting together to work out a way to give money to support a deputy that was going to be cut.

                      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

                      by elfling on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:02:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  So are doctors a drag on the economy? (12+ / 0-)

                      They don't produce anything, except hopefully a healthy patient. Nurses too.  

                      Are teachers a drag on the economy?  At all levels or only some?

                      What about fish & game wardens?  Do you support poachers?

                      What about brand inspectors? Do you support cattle rustling and horse thieving?  

                      You might want to peddle this Ayn Rand crap elsewhere.  I don't think you're going to gain the supporters you hope for here.  

                      And I'm not really interested in any of your answers to the above questions, but feel free to continue to embarrass yourself.

                      •  RE (0+ / 0-)
                        So are doctors a drag on the economy? (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                            JanL

                        They don't produce anything, except hopefully a healthy patient. Nurses too.  

                        Why yes, that's exactly true. The less doctors and nurses we need as a percentage of our economy, the better off we all are. It is exactly as you have described it. Less of a need for doctors means we are more healthy and thus more wealthy, same as less of a need for police means less crime, a net win.

                        (The situation is a little more complex because some doctors do basic research that is net contributive, but the general point stands).

                        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                        by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:20:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Death Panels (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PhilW, Matt Z, Dopeman, roadbear, Puddytat

                          Boy it's a good thing the death panels (that don't exist) won't be manned by someone like you, passing judgment on everyone on the basis of their net contributive value.  

                          What a cold world you live in.  That the rest of us should suffer in order to keep the wealthy even wealthier is no way to live.  

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)
                            Boy it's a good thing the death panels (that don't exist) won't be manned by someone like you, passing judgment on everyone on the basis of their net contributive value.  

                            You can continue to pay for non-value-add activity if you so choose. I will not.

                            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                            by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 06:19:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  What would make me Happy... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sparhawk

                    If you insist on the public service union employees benefiting from taxpayer largess, fine.

                    But why do so many of you insist that the working and middle-class continue to pay a higher tax burden?  As Senator Obama said during the campaign, they have seen STAGNANT wages through 2008.  Over the last two years, wages have actually decreased in real terms.

                    And yet, we have "geniuses" like Governor Quinn in IL who increased the tax burden on the working and middle-class by 66% to come through for the service unions.  He actually had service union employees go to the state capitol and yell, "Raise my Taxes, Raise my Taxes".

                    The upshot?

                    In 2008, President Obama won IL by 24% points.

                    In 2010, after Governor Quinn had vowed to raise taxes by 50%, he won by 0.5% point.

                    Does anyone seriously believe that increasing the tax burden on the working and middle-class will helps the Dems in the long-run?

                    So, you want to make me happy?

                    Either refrain from increasing the tax burden on the working or middle-class, or

                    Call for a national wealth tax that would target households with net worth over 50M.

                    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

                    by PatriciaVa on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:13:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  So you really do want something for nothing (16+ / 0-)

                  Public workers DO PAY TAXES.  No matter how much pretending you want to do on that issue, you are flat out wrong.  

                  Come talk to us after you or a family member gets assaulted and the police come and save the day by arresting and putting the guy away.  Come talk to us after you call 911 and the police and firefighters ride in like the cavalry to save your home from utter destruction due to an overturned candle or misplaced cigarette butt.  

                  Come talk to us after you ride on highways in the dead of night during terrible storms and you come home in one piece because your state highway workers are out there clearing trees and maintaining the road in all sorts of conditions to keep the public safe.  

                  Come talk to us after your child is educated in public schools and becomes a successful and productive member of society- because according to you, it surely wasn't helped by her teachers who are public employees.  

                  Come talk to us when you aren't ripped off at the gas station by being sold less than a gallon of gas because of public workers enforcing weights and measures regulations.  

                  Come talk to us when you are warned in advance of hurricanes, tornadoes and bad storms- thanks to the work of public workers who make it possible to gather that data and give you time to save your home and yourself.

                  Come talk to us when you don't get sick and die of poisoning or illness due to bad water or food thanks to the work of public workers who protect the health of us all.    

                  And anyone who thinks a cop pays only 1.25% of their income in taxes is clearly in denial about the whole situation.  

                  •  This is so good (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mamabigdog, CMYK

                    I'm thinking of reposting this on my FB, if that's OK.

                    liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                    by RockyMtnLib on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:20:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, there are much better ones out there (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Puddytat

                      than this one.  I wish I could direct you to one of my favorites which was posted here at DKos, but I don't know how to find it anymore.  It basically walked a person through an entire day of how government helps people in your daily life activities.  

                      And I'm sure there are far better examples out there too.  But do as you wish...

                      •  I'm familiar with that (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mamabigdog, Dirtandiron, roadbear

                        If it's the one about Joe Republican waking up, eating his bacon and eggs, etc.

                        I posted it on my FB page yesterday only to have RW friend try to tell me that the narrative could work for a RW or LWer, that a RWer, Teddy Roosevelt, instituted laws about food safety, and that "this post is made possible by right-wing wackos who insist on freedom of speech as protected by the Constitution".

                        liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                        by RockyMtnLib on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:57:22 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  TR was hardly a "right winger" (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Dirtandiron, Puddytat

                          just because he was a Republican.  Things have changed since then regarding party affiliation!  One could make the valid point that Democrat Woodrow Wilson was far more of a "right winger" than TR ever was.

                          That's the same sort of BS that claims Lincoln as a "right winger" for the same reason, knowing full well that the teahadists of the 19th century actually seceded before ever considering voting for a Republican.

                          I'm sure you've tried to explain such nuances to your RW friend.... :)

                          I like lemurs -6.50, -4.82

                          by roadbear on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 05:32:57 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That's exactly (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            roadbear

                            the point I made to my RW friend, that he splintered off and was the nominee for the Bull Moose party against William Howard Taft, which in the end gave the White House to Woodrow Wilson. And that Taft was, AFAIK an actual RWer, as well as his son, Robert Taft.

                            And this guy at one time taught history as a grad student at a university in his area.

                            liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                            by RockyMtnLib on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 05:51:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Great job here, mama! n/t (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mamabigdog, roadbear

                    You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both. ~ Louis Brandeis

                    by 3goldens on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:53:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Children are a net loss too. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JanL, Dirtandiron, Puddytat, loblolly

                  Those freeloaders contribute nothing to the economy or the tax base, and just suck our resources dry with things like SCHIP and public schools.

                  If only we could put them to work somehow... then we could tax them...

                  •  Shhhhhhh (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poemworld

                    Or this Ayn Rand reading guy who is calculating everyones net worth to society is going to suggest that our children go out and get jobs.  I can hear it already:  Child Labor Laws - bah humbug.

                    There already is class warfare in this country. Unfortunately, the rich are winning. Sue, West Allis, Wis.

                    by Puddytat on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 09:59:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Property taxs? Sales taxes? (0+ / 0-)

                  Federal taxes - which filter back to the states? Really? More than a thousand bucks than paid out in your scenario, I'm sure......

                  Kinda being a little stubborn against reality. huh....

                •  Private police forces (0+ / 0-)

                  Policing to current standards with purely private police forces would be more costly to society than is policing with public police forces. Experience shows that certain activities are organized more efficiently and effectively by the state than by private parties. Among those activities are policing, firefighting, and medical care.

              •  Typical Libertarian (7+ / 0-)
                You just want something for nothing.
                 
                They do want something for nothing.  Their money is THEIRS and they own it and they're not going to "give" it to anyone else.  It's a variation on the Republican "I've got mine--screw you!"  These folks LOVE money above all else--it makes them feel safe and secure and the more they can accumulate the better.  Giving it to others makes them feel insecure because now they have "less" than before.  There is never enough money for them either.  What a hell of a way to live.

                You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both. ~ Louis Brandeis

                by 3goldens on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:50:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  So you prefer (23+ / 0-)

              your civil servants to be so bad that no "private" company would hire them?  That's what you're saying when you oppose the decent salaries and benefits that would attract high quality employees.

              As a retired public servant (RN), I can tell you that public service jobs aren't great.  We work hard, get reminded at every turn that we're public servants (taking lots of abuse), are used as excuses, punching bags and pawns by political forces, often work at lower salaries than our private counterparts - particularly in the professional and technical areas, and never ever see a bonus or perk.

              We put up with those who, like you, think we're living high on the hog on the taxpayers dime.  We work hard for every penny we earn, are expected to come to work even if 3 feet of snow falls in gale force winds, and our jobs definitely aren't secure.  I could have made a lot more in the private sector, but preferred working for those less fortunate (i.e. those without health insurance).  

              We've spent 20 years "giving back" on our contracts.  Our benefits are now much less than they were and are deteriorating.  Management is complaining that they have to hire people they wouldn't consider because there are no other applicants.  

              Sure, trash us, pay us less, make the jobs suck so much nobody decent applies and you'll get what you (won't) pay for - quality employees who have the education, talent, skills, and work ethics to get the job done.

              There already is class warfare in this country. Unfortunately, the rich are winning. Sue, West Allis, Wis.

              by Puddytat on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:50:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank You For Your Service n/t (6+ / 0-)

                "Salvation for a race, nation or class must come from within. Freedom is never granted; it is won. Justice is never given; it is exacted." A. Phillip Randolph

                by Savage on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:03:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you for your appreciation (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Savage, Matt Z

                  I'm retired now with an adequate pension and, despite the Reich Wing narrative of midwestern retirees fleeing to Arizona and Florida, still live in my native Wisconsin along with most of my fellow retirees.

                  Unfortunately, our contract giveaways have included pension giveaways.  Those currently working will have much less that I have when they retire.  This adds to the difficulty in attracting the most qualified people.  Even when our salaries fell below the private sector, the eventual pension benefits seemed to "make up for" the difference even though it would be years before anyone would see it.

                  For the past 10 years they've been forced to hire the dregs - people who would never be hired by any but the most desparate employer.  The service to the public has likewise deteriorated.

                  There already is class warfare in this country. Unfortunately, the rich are winning. Sue, West Allis, Wis.

                  by Puddytat on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 10:07:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Nothing I've written (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Justanothernyer

                Has any implication for whether I think you are underpaid or overpaid or do a good job or don't do a good job. I'm not sure why you post this. I'm merely describing an economic relationship between public and private workers.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:08:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And you are wrong, so wrong. . . . (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens, JanL, Matt Z, Dopeman, Puddytat

                  Most pharma research, for example is government financed.

                  Fear is a habit. I am not afraid.-- Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

                  by sturunner on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:20:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please provide link (0+ / 0-)

                    as this is, to my knowledge untrue,

                    •  Did you ever hear of the NIH? n/t (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JanL, Dirtandiron, Dopeman, sturunner, loblolly

                      You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both. ~ Louis Brandeis

                      by 3goldens on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:55:09 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Exactly. Thx. nt (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        3goldens, JanL

                        Fear is a habit. I am not afraid.-- Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

                        by sturunner on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:56:50 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Sure. But the nowhere have (0+ / 0-)

                        I seen data suggesting that the NIH accounts for most pharma research.  If you have data for that point, I would appreciate a link.

                        Otherwise, I'd appreciate a retraction.

                        •  The NIH conducts the majority (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Dopeman, sturunner, loblolly

                          of the BASIC research on new drugs--and then turns the information over to the pharmaceutical companies for testing on humans and the final product.  Much of the cost of drug development once in the hands of Big Pharma is NOT research costs because NIH has already done the basic work for them.  It's the cost of marketing those drugs and also how long/how much Big Pharma wants to spend on testing before they decide a product is worth it or not to market.   Apparently, the drug companies have been falling off on R & D over the past several years and so the government is opening this fall a new facility that will be part of the NIH and that will bring more than $700 million in research projects together under one roof.  This is a quote from an article carried on 1/23/11 in the Denver Post and is actually a copy of an original article that appeared in the NY Times:

                          Officials hope the prospect of finding new drugs will lure Congress into increasing the center's financing well beyond $1 billion.

                          Additionally, in the brief search I did I could not find anywhere the cost of research grants made to various universities by the Federal government to develop new treatment methods and modalities.  I've seen the list of gifts and grants to one major university, and I can assure you that outside of NIH that there is, in addition, a LOAD of research funded by the government to public-funded universities and clinics.

                          This  document prepared by the CBO in 2006 (which makes it a bit dated) verifies that government funds the BASIC cost of drug development and research and Big Pharma picks it up from there.

                          You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both. ~ Louis Brandeis

                          by 3goldens on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 06:18:31 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Looks like the point I was making (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  draghnfly

                  just sailed right over your head.

                  You believe the Reich Wing BS about public employees being lazy, overpaid, and worthless.  That we virtually suck the value out of our communities and provide nothing in return.

                  Our services add value to a community.  That's the point you don't want to comprehend.  We don't get paid for nothing.  And we're held to a much higher standard than any private employee.  On top of that, we have to deal with people like you who demonize us.

                  Propagandize all you want.  It worked for Reagan turning the image of poor people into some imaginary black woman collecting numerous checks while driving a shiny new Cadillac.  He and his shills kept repeating the narrative until people believed it was true.  It wasn't and isn't, but poor people are still paying the price with the loss of our social safety net.

                  There already is class warfare in this country. Unfortunately, the rich are winning. Sue, West Allis, Wis.

                  by Puddytat on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 10:14:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  On the contrary (12+ / 0-)

              In our county, we pay lower than the surrounding counties.

              This can create a lot of turnover: we train a deputy at a cost of $50k, and then one or two years later he takes a job at the neighboring county for $10k more.

              Then we have to hire and train a new one.

              Net cost to the taxpayer is increased, and we tend to get a lower quality service too.

              One thing a union negotiation can create is other, non-financial benefits. Flexible working hours and control over schedules, for example. This can allow a public entity to pay less and still keep their higher quality workers.

              Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

              by elfling on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:55:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  With more people making more money (14+ / 0-)

          Spending grows and the economy grows and we all benefit.  

          You are parroting the Republican line that somehow there is only a finite amount of wealth and what is taken by the government is not available for private or business consumption.  This is economic illiteracy.  The economy totals government spending + business spending + consumer spending.  Whenever spending goes up, regardless of the source, we all benefit.

          Do you really think teachers and social workers and policemen are raking in the dough?  

          "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

          by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:24:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PatriciaVa, Justanothernyer
            Spending grows and the economy grows and we all benefit.  

            Let's just pay all police officers a million dollars a year out of the salaries of $9/hour Wal-mart workers then. We'll all be prosperous for sure!

            You are parroting the Republican line that somehow there is only a finite amount of wealth and what is taken by the government is not available for private or business consumption.

            This isn't a "Republican line", it's just simple economics. If basic economics isn't welcome around here...

            The economy totals government spending + business spending + consumer spending.  Whenever spending goes up, regardless of the source, we all benefit.

            Well then I hope that you have never advocated cutting military spending then, since it contributes to G and thus makes us all more prosperous, right?

            Of course it doesn't. It makes no sense at all. Spending on things that don't actually produce anything is a total dead loss.

            Do you really think teachers and social workers and policemen are raking in the dough?  

            In some cases yes, in some cases no. It is irrelevant to my point in any case.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:32:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Teachers and social workers and cops (11+ / 0-)

              don't produce anything? Just because they aren't producing some product that some greedy, rich prick can get richER from doesn't mean they are a "total dead loss".

              Barack Obama is the best Republican president since Bill Clinton.

              by Dopeman on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:48:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  he thinks you don't "produce" anything (6+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens, JanL, Matt Z, roadbear, sturunner, CMYK

                unless it's an actual "thing".

              •  They don't (0+ / 0-)

                Cops stop stuff that was generated by useful endeavors to not be stolen or broken. But they didn't make anything themselves.

                Social workers, same deal. They help people solve complex problems, but they're just like police. They don't make anything, just stop stuff from being broken or stolen. If less people were mentally ill, you'd need less social workers and could lay some of them off, a net win for society.

                This commentary doesn't discount the very valuable work these people do, it's just a description of the economic relationships in play here.

                Teachers do produce something in an "investment" sense. You pay now so you have a better economy later (you pay money now so people will better know how to produce goods and services for you later, a net win for you).

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:12:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't think this is a useful distinction (0+ / 0-)

                  You seem to consider goods that protect against crime (ie. an alarm system) as productive work but services that protect against crime (ie. policing) as dead drag on the economy.  This is not reasonable.

                  I think it makes more sense to say that we're better off if we get maximum benefits with minimum consumption of everything.  For example, reducing food wastage is the equivalent of increasing food production productivity.  

                  This, of course, does not change the fact that the public is best off getting the utility maximizing level of policing while getting the best policing possible for the dollar spent whereas the police are best off with more policing than the utility maximizing level and less linkage between pay and quality (since quality obviously takes more work and reduces job security since bad performers will be booted.)

              •  Let's get rid of bad Teachers (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hmi

                A 28-year old Stanford grad that came from Teach for America adds FAR more value than the typical 40-year old teacher.

                Yet, when it's time for layoffs, the union insists on laying off the 28-year old.

                If the teachers union wants to generate some goodwill, the first thing it needs to do is allow layoffs based on performance.

                Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

                by PatriciaVa on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:16:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I will try to be polite (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens, peregrine kate

                  You have that 28 year old come to my classroom for one day and my students would eat that person ALIVE.  If that person managed to survive, somehow, they would wish they were dead.

                  Last week a student teacher (not mine) quit after 3 days.

                  I have 5 classes of 34 inner-city students each day.  That is 170 students for those who cannot do math.

                  I have learned a lot in my almost 20 years of teaching.  Most teachers with my experience are worth much more than any new teacher.  

                  Your lack of respect shows how undereducated most Americans are.  Next time someone you love has to have surgery, ask for someone who took a 6 week course instead of the doctor who has been working for years.  
                   

            •  Now you sound like (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Navy Vet Terp, JanL, PhilW, Dirtandiron, CMYK
              Let's just pay all police officers a million dollars a year out of the salaries of $9/hour Wal-mart workers then.

              a right wing troll--I've heard that very line from plenty of them.

              Coincidence? I think not...

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:51:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  you can't just declare (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens, Ulysses795

              something basic economics as if it is.  What the GP was quoting was basic economics, and you rebutted him with a strawman argument about cutting the military.

              But you argument is that because they are paid by the government and the government is paid by taxes they should not be able to negotiate for better wages.

              Which is a really strange stance for a "libertarian" to take.  Essentially you're arguing for the communist model of determining the wage levels of public employees.

            •  Simple minded economics (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens, JanL, ebohlman, Matt Z, Dirtandiron

              Without social order economic activity is impossible.

              Coregonus clupeaformis/ adikameg/ the caribou of the sea

              by Whitefish on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:12:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I've read everything through to here (0+ / 0-)

              You, Sir/Madam, are an IDIOT!

        •  Unions negotiate for things other than (11+ / 0-)

          wages.

          They negotiate for professional development, for health care, for workplace safety. Our district's teachers negotiate for lower class sizes than the state would allow. Etc.

          Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

          by elfling on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:50:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh God not this again (7+ / 0-)

          liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

          by RockyMtnLib on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:50:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This kind of zero-sum (11+ / 0-)

          thinking is short-sighted. If I'm a contractor in Smallville, and I pay a few more bucks in taxes to support decent contracts for cops, firefighters, and teachers, what have I done? I've allowed Smallville to attract and retain high quality public employees. My town is safer, with better schools. My home is worth more. Even better, all these public sector union members can afford to pay me to remodel their kitchens. The super-rich want the rest of us to squabble over the crumbs from their table. Let's not play that game!

        •  So... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, Matt Z, NYCteach, CMYK

          We should pay all public employees less so as to reduce our tax burden...

          Not that this contradicts everything we say about the importance of education:

          "We should put the best and brightest teacher in every class because children are our most precious resource... but we should pay them less because that will show how much we value education and attract the best and brightest!"

          Not that this contradicts what we say about people who keep us safe, you know, our heros:

          "We honor the service of our police and firefighters who risk their lives to protect ours... but we should pay them less because it will keep our taxes lower."

          Way to win the future!

          If teaching is so easy, see if you can last longer than the five years in the classroom 50% of those who enter the profession never make it to.

          by michael in chicago on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:15:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Outsourcing, Foreign Workers, Imports (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, Dirtandiron, Dopeman

          Wake up to reality. Outsourcing, Foreign workers and imports and the chief definer of take home wages.
          Republican lies about government workers hide the greed of their backers, the greed that demands local workers must compete with foreign workers earning less than a dollar an hour.
          This is nothing more than a blatant attack upon all unionism, about allowing the ruthless exploitation of workers and their families, about the middle class being strangled out of existence by corporations to line the pockets of psychopathic short term thinking corporate executives.
          This is not about worker versus worker, about blaming other workers costing too much while you don't get paid enough.
          Your foolishness, is no different from complaining that the check out girls at supermarkets are paid too much, if they were paid less 'Your' groceries would be cheaper (they can go hungry), it is pretty slimy to demand other families suffer so that you can be better off.
          The price you pay is the maximum price they can force on the market and get away with, your salary is the minimum they can pay and get away with, fair and reasonable has nothing to do with corporate greed, it is all about profit and the US mass media always celebrates most, those that pay the least (screw the workers the best)  and charge the most (screw the customer the bests), the winners.

      •  fakers (0+ / 0-)

        Yet more divide and conquer from the wingnuts...

      •  They play faux at your JCC? (0+ / 0-)

        Somehow I don't think that would go over at the JCC I go to.

        I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

        by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 08:03:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are on your own! (6+ / 0-)

      If their bottom line says you need to go, they'll cut you without a second thought.  The bottom line you need to pay attention to is your own.   You really are a free agent more than you are anyone's employee.

      What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

      by dkmich on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:56:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do agree with this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dkmich

        Even really good employers can be brutal about this.  I don't think this is necessarily wrong, but the creation of the impression that you have a job for life if you want it and do it well followed by pulling the rug out from under you is not kind.

        "Goodnight world. Goodnight wife. I love you both. In, you know, different ways." --Neil Gaiman

        juliewaters.com

        by Julie Waters on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 05:59:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  People in Germany have guarantees (0+ / 0-)

          of life time employment.   We have a life time of serving at the employers' will.   We need to be in the streets as much if not more than Egypt and Tunisia.   Our government is every bit as corrupt.

          What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

          by dkmich on Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:08:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well, what can we do? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CMYK

    We can't force these laws out of existence.

    People panic too much on this site.

    by thematt523 on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:06:59 PM PST

  •  Excellent... (21+ / 0-)

    ..."among the disco hits of Republican Orwellian language."

    No kidding.

    "They" bellyache about us engaging in class war, that is, the 80% who own just 15% of the nation's wealth. In fact, we're just fighting back, and not nearly as hard as our union forebears did, something non-Orwellians refer to by its proper name: self-defense. Thanks for this smackdown of RtW propaganda.  

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:07:08 PM PST

  •  Labor unions, whatever their problems, (20+ / 0-)

    are, outside of government,  the sole reservoirs of civil power to stand against corporate power.

    As corporations more and more infiltrate and co-opt the government, then labor unions become the solve reservoir of civil power -- period --  against corporate power.

    I do not expect to see another FDR, or even an LBJ in my lifetime, who could walk in the corridors of power, and yet take the common people's part.  That leaves only the unions.

    Small wonder they are under attack.  Given the vulnerability of industrial unions to offshoring, small wonder that unions representing teachers and other public employees are being now viciously attacked.

    The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

    by magnetics on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:09:14 PM PST

  •  Its starting in Wisconsin (22+ / 0-)

    with Governor Walkers plans to virtually eliminate collective bargaining rights for all public employees (home care and nursing home employees along with state teachers would not be allowed to have unions at all).  

    He wants to turn this state into a Right To Work (for much less) State.  He's interested in eliminating taxes for business under the banner of "Wisconsin is Open for Business".  

    Snazy messages, though, are effective with low information voters and the general public who get their news from the Reich Wingers.  When the truth is known, they're often horrified about what these measures actually do.

    This is the day the FCC and Congress were warned to rue when we talked about media consolidation and the Fairness Doctrine.  It enables right wing messages for right wing causes to be the only things within earshot of citizens.

    A lie is halfway around the world while the truth is putting on it's shoes and trying to squeeze out of a blocked doorway.

    There already is class warfare in this country. Unfortunately, the rich are winning. Sue, West Allis, Wis.

    by Puddytat on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:09:35 PM PST

  •  Is there a difference? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, JanL, mamabigdog
    You can never be forced to join a union—you can only be required to pay dues directly related to work the union does representing you.

    If you lose your disc or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution. That will be all.

    by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:11:10 PM PST

    •  Additionally... (0+ / 0-)

      ...you are "protected" by the union, but also are forced into their pay scales. A stellar employee might not want to be paid on union pay scales that may emphasize length of service versus performance. That employee might have the opinion of "I'll take my chances".

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:21:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. (8+ / 0-)

      In Oregon, state workers who choose not to join the union are considered "Fair Share" members.  They pay the same dues each month, but annually receive a small refund of the portion of dues that do not go directly towards negotiation, member representation in the field, etc.  Usually that refund is pretty small, as the vast majority of dues are spent on things that benefit the entire membership, including Fair Share member.  

      If a Fair Share member gets in trouble, we will represent them all the way through the process if they ask us to do so.  They are entitled to our services even if they refuse to become full members.  

    •  Yes, There IS a Difference (5+ / 0-)

      Unions are required by law to represent the entire represented workforce regardless of union membership.  When I grieve and arbitrate an unjust discipline on behalf of a non-member (I am not in a RtW state, but do not have union security language), my co-workers and I are forced to foot the bill out of our own pockets.  The lost time, arbitration and arbitrator fees, lawyers, the list goes on.  One simple fix to reforming labor law is to simply give unions the right to say "You're On Your Own" to those who do not wish to be members.

      "Salvation for a race, nation or class must come from within. Freedom is never granted; it is won. Justice is never given; it is exacted." A. Phillip Randolph

      by Savage on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:30:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course there's a difference! (6+ / 0-)

      The union negotiates and performs other services on your behalf, you help defray the costs of this service. It's like Catholic schools who accept non-Catholic students. No one expects the school to waive tuition just because the kids aren't Catholic!  If you don't want to pay tuition, don't go to Catholic school. Likewise, if you don't want to pay for union representation, don't work in a union shop. Here in Rhode Island, unions haven't yet completely disappeared. Those who are in them are glad, and those who are not are envious.

  •  As a retired Federal employee... (19+ / 0-)

    and I retired as a GS6, working 40 years to get 79% of my base pay (of a little over $40,000). I have to work part time just to make ends meet, and just got a $700 increase in my homeowner's insurance (after an $800 increase last year!). I am living on a thread right now and if anything else goes wrong, I'm out on my arse, unable to afford even rent in this area. My federal "union" kept our benefits despite all of the attempts to destroy them. But I am still paying the exact same amount for my health insurance that I paid when I was working full time (at $10,000 a year less income), cannot collect more than $70 of my SS benefits that I paid in the Navy because I collect a government pension, and my federal taxes went up on Jan. 1st. Yeah, GOP, you're doing a great job "helping" the working class grow into the lower class. I wonder how soon I'll be eligible for food stamps?

  •  Elections have consequences (6+ / 0-)

    Maybe our rank and file will think twice before ever allowing our majorities to evaporate in the blink of an eye in an all-or-nothing instant gratification mindset of ridiculousness. I'm still wondering, what exactly was the plan of those who thought it was a good idea to surrender our majorities to the TeaKlanners?

  •  The proper terminology is... (13+ / 0-)

    ...right to get paid less.

  •  inequality in America is worse than in Egypt (6+ / 0-)

    Tunisia or Yemen .........

  •  One More Thing... (7+ / 0-)

    Simply being in a non-RtW state does NOT automatically ensure union security language.  It has to be negotiated between the union and the company.  My Collective Bargaining Agreement does not include this language (I'm in PA), and we have 40+ free-riders that enjoy all the protections that their co-workers pay for... including no lay-off language, which seems to be a little important these days.

    "Salvation for a race, nation or class must come from within. Freedom is never granted; it is won. Justice is never given; it is exacted." A. Phillip Randolph

    by Savage on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:35:25 PM PST

  •  "The average per capita income in right-to-work st (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, Justanothernyer
    "The average per capita income in right-to-work states is lower than in non-right-to-work states"

    Comparison needs to be across comparable job types to be meaningful.

    I.e., comparing a bunch of programmers at Microsoft (Washington) to a bunch of dock workers in Charleston S.C. isn't especially enlightening.

    Regardless, thanks for that explanation - I never knew what "right to work" really meant, other than "I can be canned at any time for any reason". lols

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:35:45 PM PST

  •  Boeing recently decided to open (9+ / 0-)

    a second 787 assembly line in "Right-to-Work" South Carolina as opposed to unionized Washington State. So this "Right-to-Work" nonsense not only damages organized labor in the states in which its being implemented, but it also weakens organized labor in other states. The opening of that SC plant made the Machinists union here in Washington shut up in pretty short order.

    Alls I know is, they should paint "Assembled in Everett, WA" or "Assembled in Charleston, SC" on the planes when they're done being built.

    I'm staying the hell away from the SC ones, if I can help it.

    •  Boeing machinist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric0125
      The opening of that SC plant made the Machinists union here in Washington shut up in pretty short order.

      I thought it was because they so busy fixing all the mistakes on the 787 made by others, plus flying down to SC to help train and get the line up and running.

      •  That also. (0+ / 0-)

        The 787 has been a clinic on How Not to Build an Airplane. And as for the machinists training the South Carolinians, how's that for cruel irony? Nothing like training your eventual replacements to sap the soul.

        Boeing used to turn a profit by producing top-shelf aircraft in-house that were the prize of airlines worldwide, and were the envy of competitors. Their grand experiment of 787 outsourcing was a colossal failure.

  •  The right to work for less. (10+ / 0-)

    Less pay and benefits.

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 03:58:14 PM PST

  •  "...why so many workers are leaving..." (6+ / 0-)

    And the vacuum those workers leave behind can be filled by undocumented workers, a disposable class of labor totally at the mercy of their employers. Republicans will further demonize them in order to ensure all are rotated out often enough to keep the labor force unstable and vulnerable. We are winning...the race to the bottom...with RTW.

  •  RTW National office union made (4+ / 0-)

    Several years ago the IBEW reported that the National right to work office in DC tried to get non-union contractors to wire their office.  Three contractors later an IBEW work crew got it right.

  •  "fooled by false slogans" (10+ / 0-)

    could replace "In God We Trust" on our money.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:05:24 PM PST

  •  "The money paid to public employees is a net loss (11+ / 0-)

    to the community" ! ?

    There is someone posting comments here who keeps insisting on this point. This is a truly insane position to take. Without public employees of all kinds doing their jobs and being rewarded fairly for their work, the loss to the community is incalculable, unless of course one wants to initiate some "Lord of the Flies" social experiments in which their is no government and no social order except that worked out on a daily basis through the force of individuals working out their own place in a hierarchy of force. The chaos that would result would be a clear "net loss" to the community.

    Coregonus clupeaformis/ adikameg/ the caribou of the sea

    by Whitefish on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:09:38 PM PST

    •  Yes, it completely ignores (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, Whitefish, Dirtandiron

      the exchange that takes place.

    •  The assumption behind that assertion (6+ / 0-)

      is that there's no such thing, economically, as a public good (there's also the hidden assumption that an economy represents the whole, rather than just part, of a society).

      A longstanding, and still valid, argument against this is that American businesses weren't in any hurry to shift their operations to Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. The fact is that a free-for-all environment simply isn't good for business, and regardless of their public rhetoric, business owners would rather deal with the Feds than with the Mob (those who think they could negotiate a better deal with the latter tend to wind up dead).

      If you Google "headache brain tumor", you will come away convinced that your headache is actually cancer—Seth Mnookin

      by ebohlman on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:59:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There were some diaries re: Wisconsin (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, JanL, Dirtandiron, sturunner, CMYK

    yesterday - I wish I had time to do an update on the news from here.

    The  NYT had a well circulated piece.

    Now we hear that Gov. Walker has hired a private Ohio security firm, in addition to readying the National Guard.

    Essentially, he is talking about not just a paycut for this year in terms of paying more for pension and healthcare, he is also talking about stripping collective bargaining for pay, pension, and healthcare from the rights of unions.  Also in the so called budget-fix, unions will no longer be able to collect dues via paycheck deduction.  Poof!  Bye bye.

    We've got busloads of people going to Madison on Tuesday and Wednesday.  Our local reps phones have been ringing off the hook.  But our legislature is Republican controlled, so we have to work on those "reasonable" Republicans not willing to do Walker's bidding automatically.

    •  Ohio teacher here :( (5+ / 0-)

      My pension will be eviscerated because of our new gov., also intent upon ending collective bargaining.  I have worked, with honor and joy, in a big urban district for the past 19 years.  I have never been over-paid in my working life as a teacher and considered it part of the "bargain" that I would be paid less to do more.  I believe I have done so.
      How it helps the local economy to have this many people dangling on the edge of being able to make their bills - people who work hard, dangerous jobs like police, firefighters, corrections officers - well, it's beyond my scope of understanding.  I do know there is a tremendous wave of hatred for public employees only because of our recent ice storms, when several people commented how nice it was for me to have the days off instead of having to go to work.  Ahem - I will be making up those days at the end of the year.
      I think Kasich believes he is in line for a VP pick in 2012 or 2016, so this is a feather in his political cap.  However, each and every local legislator must know that all of us who are out of work, or about to be out of work, or about to be dramatically impoverished in our retirements will vote, call, stuff envelopes, and turn up at their town halls to ask one simple question:  where are the jobs?

      Think what you are doing today. -Fred Rogers

      by JanL on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 05:03:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  its a logical extension (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, JanL, Dirtandiron

        a movement, an ideology, a population that not only doesn't believe in the public sector and actively vilifies it,
        vilify public sector workers next.

        if you can't kill the concept, go for the messengers.  

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 05:42:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  the "wisconsin" tag will help... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens

      people  find  the diaries you mention.

      don't forget, you can now write incredibly short diaries with one link, just to update a story. no rules against that. and by using good tags (madison; wisconsin; _ walker; ohio), all sorts of people can easily find that update.

  •  The Right to Work means (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoMoreLies, JanL, sturunner

    the Right to Fire for no cause.  Reduction in force at will.

    NO guarantees, fire at will, no security.

  •  You're competing w/China, NOT KY or MS (0+ / 0-)

    And India and Brazil and Vietnam. Bitching about RtW isn't going to create jobs when we can't compete with the low wages of those countries.

  •  Why does no one talk about worker uncertainty? (9+ / 0-)

    We have the GOP running around crying about regulations causing uncertainty for businesses but no one is willing to talk about the complete lack of security for American workers.

    Whereas private sector employers were formerly expected to provide health care and pensions, they now provide neither. Now the government is looking to roll back unemployment benefits, social security, and medicare.

    Yet instead of questioning how we got here and talking about the effects of this complete lack of security on workers and the broader economy, we are supposed to turn our attention to public workers and get enraged about how they've been able hold onto some of the benefits that used to be expected in the private sector as well.

    "Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

    by WellstoneDem on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 04:31:41 PM PST

    •  Businesses don't hire "workers" (6+ / 0-)

      they acquire "human resources". Businesses by-and-large, and their paid-for congressional representatives by extension, view their employees as cogs in their money-printing machines, not as people.

      I agree with you. All the emphasis nowadays is on the business side of things; nary a thought is given to workers or customers. Even the unemployment rate, which is fundamentally a labor statistic and a labor problem, is offered capital-side remedies (tax breaks for corporations, subsidies, etc.) in lieu of policies that would directly help workers, like repealing free-trade agreements and imposing import tariffs... things that would force businesses to hire Americans.

    •  in a system obsessed with capitalism, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanL, Dirtandiron, sturunner

      capital is all that matters. talking about labor uncertainty is like talking about uncertainty in wheat yield. capitalists talk about how yield will impact price, not how it makes the wheat feel. they aren't interested in the health of this country or its people - they simply care about capital.

      through that lens, labor uncertainty is a fantastic thing. if you have no clue where you'll get your next meal, you'll do any job for any price. you won't quibble about workplace safety or benefits. you'll ignore discrimination and wage theft. in short, you will do more for less.

      and that's a fantastic thing to a capitalist. they pay less for the line-item in their budget titled "labor", and they have at their disposal more product to sell. whether they drop the price to sell more or maintain the price and make more profit per widget doesn't really matter. the point is higher profit.

      that's why the american political system cares about business uncertainty and not labor uncertainty. if businesses don't know what the economy (or relevant regulations) will look like in two months, they'll buy supplies whose price might drop (labor, for instance), or hold off buying supplies whose price might jump (employee insurance). on the other hand, if you don't know what the economy will look like in two months, you'll hold onto your current shitty job, not ask for a raise that might piss off your boss, and deal quietly with benefit cuts. and if your employer can get a cut in payroll taxes while keeping you in that shitty job, all the better.

  •  The Right to Have Unions (7+ / 0-)

    I guess my story is typical.  My dad was a mid-lever manager, working for a large US railroad.  We were comfortable Calvinist, and there was continued banter that was anti-union.  Indeed, the terrible union workers were running the railroad into ruin. Certainly, times were tough.  My dad was very pleased that he was not fired during the Depression (like in 1938, when I was born.)  However he was asked to take severe pay cuts, and to work one day each week (he worked a 6-day week) with no pay, to help the company survive.  Even so, he remained a loyal employee, saving his cash to buy Company stock, stock that tanked to worthlessness after he retired.
    However, the Unions were active, and there were work stoppages. Eventually, the strikes were eventually settled (usually with arbitration from the Feds), and the trains chugged along.  Shortly after the new Union wages were posted, my dad and others in the management chain were also given wage increases.  It became all too apparent that the drivers for higher management wages were the Union workers, and without those citizens, my dad's salary would have been just frozen.  I remain convinced that my family, clearly not Union, depended for its financial survival on the US Labor movement.
        We need to understand that the wages in the RTW states are the lowest. We need understand that the middle class prosperity, when it existed, was based on the Union movement.  

    •  we need to understand that unions have... (0+ / 0-)

      marginalized themselves.

      most of us who've been through union shops can tell stories of organizations that ignore their dues-paying members and allow employers to walk all over them in negotiations. And higher up, they've done nothing successful to keep the nlrb or dol doing their jobs.

      US Labor - as an institutional entity - is partially responsible for the dissolution of the movement that used to follow and lead it.

      •  funny, that's exactly the kind of story (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        melfunction

        one hears from management...
        unions don't give you any benefits, you make the money, they just suck your blood.
        personally, I feel it's more like blaming the victim rather then pointing out that there are powerful forces working to destroy the american labor movement, often behind the scenes.

      •  Everything is corruptible (0+ / 0-)

        Everything, but everything is corruptible including the White House, the Supreme Court, foreign leaders, businesses and unions.  It is because naive Americans want everything to run itself and take no interest in their country or unions. Also American leaders are all too willing to offer foreign leaders a deal they can't refuse and they know Americans just don't care that much.

  •  I must admit... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shanikka, jmcgrew, 2020adam

    this is one area where I've parted ways with my liberal brethren.  I support unions. I believe unions have had a larger positive impact on our lives than just about anything. I believe workers, not employers or the government, should be able to determine when and how to form a union.  But because I believe workers should have a right not to join a union, I am often labeled "anti-union".  I believe if there is value to a union, workers will support it.  This gives the union the strongest possible incentive to advocate for its members.

    OK, there it is. Have at me.

    •  hard to know how well that'd work. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron

      it sounds to me like a fantastic idea. but it's entirely possible employers would simply be freer to destroy unions by excessively "informing" employees about their choices.

      but unions should have to compete for their workers' money. otherwise they just take the dues and ignore trapped workers.

    •  most liberals I know (0+ / 0-)

      The liberals I know are pro-union.

      I used to discuss the conditions in factories before labor unions with an uncle of mine who was a tough athletic little guy.  He spoke once how the boss did not want him to go to the bathroom.  He took the small machine he was working with (I don't know what it was) and threw it at the guy.  

      Those who don't like unions must like being constipated, working 16 hour days, 6 days a week etc.  I have a nephew who works 10 or 12 hour days because jobs are hard to find.  I have a friend who used to work at GM but went to work at EDS when GM bought them out.  He was not in a union and knew he was not liked and worked 15 hour days.  Of course everyone knew how hard he worked and if they laid him off all employees that knew him would have felt that the company was very unjust, so they did not lay him off.

  •  In case somebody decides to Label (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, CMYK

    Hofstra a "Party School" shouldn't the US Department of Labor be able to produce a similar analysis given all the data they collect.

    I'm the terror that blogs in the Night,. and the daytime too.

    by JML9999 on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 05:04:09 PM PST

  •  And The Role of Pathetic Ass Union "leaders" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    2020adam

    who, like the DLC clintons and obamas, keep selling us out?

    - THE PROBLEM of public apathy is no longer just the NFL, Lost American Surviving Dancing Idol, and mini-vans stuffed with velveeta, soda pop & potato-e chips

    - that was the problem when Raygun was elected in 1981

    - THE PROBLEM of public apathy is fucking sell out political 'leaders', or, stunningly incompetent 'leaders', or, those who are mix of both - at the state and national level.

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 05:04:37 PM PST

    •  always strange to read about the... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      seabos84

      political role of unions, having spent two years in a union shop.

      it's unbelievable how lazy and sad the institutional advocates for american labor are. it was the strangest thing, learning i had paid all those dues, but couldn't engage in the kind of costly actions that accomplish anything (like... um... strikes?)

  •  Lonnie Stevans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron

    Of course, this article would possibly get a more sympathetic hearing if it cited someone besides this Hofstra University professor who has just been indicted for stealing from the union treasury. Solidarity forever.

  •  This is all so scary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, Dirtandiron, sturunner

    Texas is a dystopia for workers. It makes me so sad. We are a downtrodden bunch. We feel hopeless. Unions don't really exist here at all in the private sector.

    It should be called "Right to Fire" because that's what it is; absolute power.

    If it is being considered in your state, fight your guts out to stop it. Fight tooth and nail. Scratch your way to victory over it. It's desperate.

    "Calls for economic democracy may be painted as anti-business, but that's a bit like painting George Washington as anti-government." - Marjorie Kelly

    by Goodkind on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 05:37:16 PM PST

  •  Is there a "Labor Movement" group? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, Dirtandiron, sturunner

    If there isn't, someone should make one. I haven't been able to find one. This issue should be front and center as the #1 issue for the left in America. As goes the labor movement, so goes politics.

    "Calls for economic democracy may be painted as anti-business, but that's a bit like painting George Washington as anti-government." - Marjorie Kelly

    by Goodkind on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 05:39:29 PM PST

    •  You're right--we DO need (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sturunner, Goodkind

      a group that will work on Labor issues.  This is war on workers and the unions brought to us by Republican/Tea Party elites.  We need to organize and fight them.  I hope others will see this and help get a group started.  We could be valuable support to those on the front lines of this in getting the word out about how to fight against this movement across the U.S.

      You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both. ~ Louis Brandeis

      by 3goldens on Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 07:20:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Which is the same thing! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sturunner

    "you can only be required to pay dues directly related to work the union does representing you"

  •  I just skimmed through the first few comments (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, 3goldens, xylon, sturunner

    And I find myself even more disheartened. The "right to work" anti-union ethos rears its ugly head even here in this liberal/progressive community. Why do we seek to bring "them" down rather than lift "us" up.

    Disclosure: I'm a state government employee in a right to work state. I'm not represented by a union. My husband, now retired on disability, worked 32 years for the city and was a union member and shop steward. Anyone who believes union negotiations net their members untold wealth and fabulous benefits must believe in unicorns as well. Any small gain in benefits was offset by a loss in pay and vice versa. Employers don't make concessions without a fight. Without a union there's no one to fight.

  •  You guys are pathetic... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, melfunction, Goodkind

    We have an intelligent, thoughtful diary on the issues around Right-to-Work laws and half the Kossacks here are off to the races with entirely unrelated bashing of public sector unions.

    Pathetic.

  •  I wouldn't believe that there are so many freedom (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Goodkind

    haters here at DKOS, amazing.
     Of course Unions are better for the workers and their families lives than non-union, so why is their an argument? Because some backward ass southerners listen to the employers of our nation?
     The same people trying to make more and bring this country back to the sweat-shops and foreign nations that pay their workers pennies per day?
     What good motive for ignorance is there? Slave mentality, "pay me less and please no benefits, mas-ta"?

     As an NC Trucker for over 20 years, I heard this same argument over the CB Radio time and time again. As an Trucker for over 35 years I heard it throughout the nation, mostly in the south. The union truckers repudiated them to no avail.
     Now, most of them are on their ass now, hauling loads that don't pay enough for their electric bill much lest their mortgage.
     Former Pres. GWB knocked them out of the box by opening up the Mexican border to Mexican truckers into the US. So instead of independent US truckers bringing loads from the border, Mexican truckers would. To make it profitable for them, they had the new rights to bring back American goods, mostly cotton back to Mexico.
    These same ignorant southern CB Radio big mouths, never understood how they were selling out their own business. Everything coming across the border, had to be moved by American workers all across the board. Truckers, Lumpers, Luggers. and all that went with that, from coffee-shops to fuel stops not now, no more.
     Us white and black Americans can sometime be the most stupidest people on the face of the earth.

     Maybe we deserve what we get.

    The Bible describes us. Read it some time.

  •  The glue of society... (0+ / 0-)

    The vast majority of public employees are community oriented. In general they want society to work well. (Whether it is teaching children, treating the sick or ???) A large percentage of public employees are veterans who simply want to serve their communities, state and nation.

    As a life long union member I think everyone deserves dignity in the workplace. Benefits and a real pension plan. As a retired employee I spend the vast majority of my pension in my local community buying goods and services. As a nurse I make a very good income in my second career.

    Public employees are better educated ON average than the private sector. Our jobs have uniques KSA's that do not translate to the private sector.

    I have yet to see any RTW state accomplish these goals as effectively or efficiently as the union friendly states.

    The private sector cannot function without the framework provided by government and laws.

    MN employees are lucky. We have Gov Dayton to veto the crazy.

  •  Even Ayn Rand opposed RtW laws (0+ / 0-)

    from a libertarian perspective, of course, but still....

  •  A question on statistics (0+ / 0-)

    The author stated that union workers made $5500 more than nonunion workers. Is that statistic before union dues are subtracted or after? I hope it is figured after the dues are subtracted, otherwise it's at least a small bit misleading.

  •  I live in So OH. Each Sunday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    draghnfly

    my wife shops for groceries and often purchases a local newspaper. I dont read newspapers, especially the local one. You see, Im a flaming commie socialist maoist type who gets his news from the twatter toobz.

    This Sunday's headline: City to Pay Out $93 million

    The thrust of the fp article- that city workers, you know, those lazy overpaid dullards who do nothing and treat the public with distain, have saved up thousands of hours of sick and vacation time that will be paid out upon their retirement. Yes, the city pays sick time upon retirement.

    The entire article is nothing more than a hit piece against unionized city employees. Readers are left incredulous over such outrageous retirement incomes during our worst economic situation since the the great depression.

    What the public often forgets is that these employees are doing nothing wrong. They are taking advantage of the BENEFITS offered to them. I have no stats, but the public sector workers I know, myself included as an employee of a public university, are paid salaries below those of private sector workers. Public sector workers, generally speaking, have better benefits, to make up for poor pay.

    So how dare gvmt employees be allowed to retire comfortably, with a sizeable financial nestegg, to then live well, and even, gasp, have the possibility of passing on an inheritance to their children, who could then improve their own standard of living.

    No. That is not allowed. Only the wealthy are to be able to retire comfortably and pass on inheritance.

    This diary is well timed, based on our local papers attempt to hate on regular folk. T and R'd.

  •  Simple solution ... oops! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Copp

    There's a simple solution to all of this: amend the Taft-Hartley Act to remove Section 14(b), the provision that creates a gaping hole in U.S. labor law that allows individual states to outlaw clauses in collective bargaining agreements requiring the payment of dues (or that portion of dues used only for non-political representational purposes).

    Oops ... no can do ... it was never on the table ... and hell, we couldn't even muster the strength (courage?) Free Choice through.

    I call it a "gaping hole" because federal law normally preempts (via the Supremacy Clause) all state activity in any area touching upon the subject matter of the federal statute, yet in the Taft-Hartley Act Congress (over Truman's veto) carved out  an exception for "right-to-work" laws.

  •  The American worker did not sell out America (0+ / 0-)

    I was at the New Hampshire RtW hearing, or as we call it, Right To Work For Less...Labor Commissioner George Capadis, a Republican, tetsified that in his 6 years of meeting with Business Owners all over New Hampshire, he has never been asked even once about RtW, no business owner has ever brought it up as a drag on our economy, and he suggested that he and Governor Lynch see RtW legislation as annual attempt by out of state groups to try and mess with NH's labor management relations. It is seen as an unnecessary and intrusive step.It was voted out of committee as Ought To Pass. These are the times we live in, in Teahadi New Hampshire.

  •  I was at the Hearing in New Hampshire (0+ / 0-)

    I was at the New Hampshire RtW hearing, or as we call it, Right To Work For Less...Labor Commissioner George Capadis, a Republican, tetsified that in his 6 years of meeting with Business Owners all over New Hampshire, he has never been asked even once about RtW, no business owner has ever brought it up as a drag on our economy, and he suggested that he and Governor Lynch see RtW legislation as annual attempt by out of state groups to try and mess with NH's labor management relations. It is seen as an unnecessary and intrusive step.It was voted out of committee as Ought To Pass. These are the times we live in, in Teahadi New Hampshire.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site