OT: Indiana becomes a Right To Work state

"Indiana's Republican governor Mitch Daniels signed the legislation into law immediately after it was given final approval in the state Senate, making Indiana the first state to adopt such a measure since Oklahoma did so a decade ago."

Indiana is now a Right To Work (or "Right To Scab" depending on your point of view) state.

formatting link
Those in opposition promise demonstrations this week-end during the Indianapolis Super Bowl. There are rumors that the "Occupy" protesters are also planning to make their presence known.

For those of us staying at home, NY Mayor Bloomberg's group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, will have a 30-second spot ($3.5 million) on TV during the game.*

There may be more excitement off the field than on.

---------

  • Advance information says the ad will focus on private sales at gun shows where background checks do not take place. These sales, however, are completely lawful which sorta confounds the group's interest in "illegal" guns.
Reply to
HeyBub
Loading thread data ...

Fixed it. There's a reason that wages, benefits, and standards of living are all lower in right-to-work states.

Reply to
Hell Toupee

Yeah most of them are in the South and have always been lower wage areas. I am actually interested to see what happens in Indiana since it still one of the top 5 or so manufacturing states and one that has a traditionally unionized work force.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

That explains why so many people are moving to those states and out of the rust belt. The people would rather have a job, a home, and a lower cost of living than stand on picket lines.

Reply to
BobR

There are many reports on both sides of the issue. Here's on opposite your view:

"When the 2000 mean weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary employees in the 50 states, as published on pp. 30-35 of the 2001 edition of the Bureau of National Affairs' Union Membership and Earnings Data Book, are adjusted for differences in living costs, the real earnings of employees in Right to Work states are shown to be higher."

formatting link
But what will be interesting is to compare Indiana's numbers compared to its neighbors a year from now. If there's no overall change in standard of living, unemployment, new business start-ups, state payrolls, etc., then RTW legislation will be shown to have no significant macro effect. If, however, these characteristics go south, then the legislation can be deemed a failure.

Personally, I think it's an experiment worth having.

Reply to
HeyBub

You might want to look at this:

formatting link
's Carpe Diem, written by Mark J. Perry.

Reply to
Dean Hoffman

A year from now?? Hardly enough time to see any kind of trend.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

2010 census data on growing poverty

formatting link

Reply to
Duesenberg

Iowa has had a right to work law for 60 years. Can that state be used for comparision with the same neighbours? Or are indiania's neighbours (Michigan Ohio Illinois) different than Iowa's neighbours of Minnesota Wisconsin Illinois and Mizzou

Reply to
Duesenberg

Well, Illinois is about as "different" as you can get!

Reply to
krw

Indiana itself is different. Although known for farming (and basketball) it has long been one of the top 8 or so manufacturing states, probably #1 on a per capita or as share of the econonmy basis (Iowa was around

23). It also has long been heavily unionized with such a large number of auto-related companies involved over the years. Those two things make it a rather interesting test case for RtW.
Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Well, yeah, now that I think on it...

Let's let the experiment run for twenty years and see what happens.

As for the effect on state employee unions, not much. There are a bit less than 29,000 people employed by the state of Indiana. The unions collect dues from only 1,490 of those (down from 16,408 in 2005).

formatting link

Reply to
HeyBub

"HeyBub" wrote in news:muSdnZpcaaNOFbfSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Way back when I used to be an ardent unionizing supporter. However, since moving to the US in 1969, I have seen (albeit from afar) much that is wrong in both the union movement (featherbedding is a good heading for some of the wrong things) as well in management, both public and private. For instance, I find it just plain wrong when a pension is based on total earnings, including overtime (for the last X years), and when union work rules make overtime a privilege for the senior worker, with the right of refusal. This leads to artificially increased pensions, and "old" workers teetering on their feet from sleep deprivation. On the other hand, when a lowly paid cashier or other hardworking lady is pregnant, she may run into one or another of the complications of pregnancy that prevent her from doing her job completely (frequent need for bathroom breaks is one of these). She can then just be fired because the pregnancy (the reason for the problem) is not a "disability", and therefore her inability to do the work "properly" is reason for firing.

There needs to be more reasonable negotiation between workers and management so ALL will be ahead. Apparently, that can be done in Germany, where the mighty unions have acquired seats on boards of directors and negotiated rules and wages to advance all. (Don't ask me for details now, please!).

In short, there is too much intransigence and adversary strategy/tactics in American worker-management relations.

Reply to
Han

Hell Toupee wrote in news:jgcejo$bbp$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

so,you're AGAINST people having the CHOICE to be in a union or not?

Right-to-work does not mean unions are banned. It just means that workers cannot be FORCED to join a union,or forced to pay for union representation they don't want or need.

if people think the unions are good for them,they will join. Apparently,most people believe that unions will NOT be good for them,since they are not joining unions unless forced to join. Except for government unions,union membership has dropped drastically.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

It will take more than a year to reverse the long term damage that has been done by RTW.

Reply to
BobR

Which is why the unions have fought so hard against RTW and for the end of secret voting on unions. They want a card system that will allow them to force the workers to sign and then force the union of them.

Very well said! The unions had a very important part in our history but they have drastically overplayed their role and now they are seeing everyone, including the workers, turn against them.

Reply to
BobR

I worked a long time in Indiana. Worked for one employer who made immense efforts to remain union-free by staying on top of wage and benefit scales. It was a good company to work for. I had a friend, long ago, who worked in a union co., also Indiana....he was out on strike for a LONG time, can't remember the time now but do remember that we figured that the $.10/hour they were striking for would take 35 years to recover the wages lost on strike!

I worked through a reorganization (welcome, to me) that pushed quite a few older (dead wood) employees into retirement....folks who hadn't had a new idea since the day they were hired. I had sympathy for them at the time, as the fear was palpable. OTOH, I have always been loyal to my employer, as I figure unless they are crooks that it benefits all of us to work hard and remain current. At co. #2, my dept was going to absorb an HR position when the HR employee retired; my two co-workers quit rather than take on the extra work without a raise. The two were replaced by ONE new INEXPERIENCED person whom I trained. We made the new HR function FLY and I got one heck of a good raise.

I tend to be rather "liberal" (in today's definition) but rather like the idea of RTW, as it keeps both parties on their toes. If employer is screwing me over, I'll join the union. Auto workers (and others) have screwed themselves. I've also worked in HR enough to see all the ways that people f--- themselves and coworkers whilst f------ their employer.

Reply to
Norminn

In article , Norminn wrote: .

American Airlines is just the newest poster child for union idiocy. All of the other airlines had gone through bankruptcy, had shed the old union contract and were making money. AA hadn't and as such was losing money. AA had gone to the unions on a number of occassions and asked for concessions similar to what had taken place at other airlines. Unions refused and AA filed bankruptcy. So, instead of talking with AA and having a voice in how the downsizing was managed, the unions said no and yesterday AA announced 15K layoffs.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

What damage?

Reply to
HeyBub

Careful, that comes awfully close to making sense.

Reply to
dgk

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.