The central battleground in the war against workers today is the Indiana Statehouse. Anti-worker lawmakers are frantic to pass a bill that would weaken unions and shrink Indiana's middle class. The legislative fight over the measure could make the Super Bowl look like a stroll in the park.
Indiana's Republican leadership is desperate to pass a so-called "right to work" bill before Feb. 5, when Super Bowl XLVI kicks off at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis. They want to avoid any negative attention around the game. In the meantime, supporters of this awful bill will say and do anything to get it passed.
These politicians have no shame. They have:
The real reason for the bill has nothing to do with rights and nothing to do with work. It doesn't even have anything to do with improving Indiana's business climate - already ranked sixth best in the country. The purpose of right-to-work for less is to please corporate donors who want to lower labor costs. What right-to-work for less does is limit unions' financial resources and therefore their ability to negotiate for higher wages and benefits.
One of the more bizarre claims is that businesses would be more likely to relocate to Indiana if right-to-work for less were to become law. Now ask yourself: when was the last time you heard about a factory shutting down and moving to Oklahoma or South Carolina because they're right-to-work states? What you do hear are stories of plants moving to Mexico and China. Gordon Lafer makes this point in his excellent study published by the Economic Policy Institute.
Lafer writes, "in 2012, companies looking for cheap labor are overwhelmingly looking to China or Mexico, not South Carolina. To the extent that enacting RTW legislation ever served as an effective economic development strategy--and the evidence is weak on this point--globalization has rendered RTW irrelevant.
Right-to-work proponents claim another study proves that it doesn't lower compensation. As Notre Dame professor Marty Wolfson pointed out, the study only compared executive compensation.
Here's what rigorous, academic studies show about right-to-work laws: They lower annual wages by $1,500 a year.
It's a sad day in our democracy when elected officials work to impoverish their own constituents.
Follow James P. Hoffa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TeamsterPower
If you don't want to pay union dues, then take a non-union job.
Right?
That said, fortunately unions seem to be catching on to the fact that the environment has changed, and therefore their modus operandi must change. The real problem, and the real aim, shouldn't be seen as one local versus one shop's management, or one union versus one industry's management, but advocating for labor as a whole -- both union and non-union.
Boeing. This summer. Okay, not shut down, but expand the factory in the right to work state instead of the union one. The result, the NLRB decided that the company was not allowed to. The follow up, companies will move to Mexico, just like you predicted. So where would you like to put the blame?
Amazing isn't it how when the GOP tries these legislative scams in traditionally red states they turn purple almost overnight & it backfires on the state elected officials who perpetrated it? See 2 states west in Wisconsin, now turning from pruple to solid blue.
As far as Wisconsin - it went from special interests to the People....by vote.
The worst aspect of right to work it insulates employers from being sued for wrongful termination of a job, there is no such thing in a right to work state. It's more commonly known as employment at will. It was instituted under attack by businesses as wrongful termination as "frivilous" lawsuits.
Today, Indiana, November, California.
What this shows is Essentially that the GOP TPers, The "Kochtopus", Members of ALEC and Members of the (UN) Chamber of Commerce, DO NOT Care about the average Voter/Working Persons wants and needs but rather wants to force everyone to "Kow Tow" to them. Mr. Lafer's article was very informative also.
Viva OWS!
What is the total net gain or loss when factoring in regional cost of living adjustments?
EPI is funded by public unions! Not suprised. As always follow the money.
http://www.epi.org/about/
"Research" is cheap these days, I can pay any PhD $30k and they'll publish whatever I want.
The company public or private did not give you the benefits you receive they were negotiated by your voice the union. No union means no voice at the bargaining table, which means your company could unilaterally change your wages, your work rules, your health care and any benefits you receive. Be careful what you ask for you may get it.
Not some non-elected, self appointed special interest public union boss.
And quit comparing real unions to public unions - you disgrace the blood, sweat, and tears given by real unions which are captured in our Federal labor laws.
Public union bosses could care less about workers - that is why public workers leave them when given the Freedom to do so.
So his mind is pretty much made up which side he represents, which leaves educating everyone else about RTW and what the "Kochtopus" really means left to US and the other "99er's".
Viva OWS
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/opinion/sbt-the-deception-behind-righttowork-push-20120103,0,321621.story