http://nilrr.org/2012/11/07/since-r...-growth-has-occurred-in-right-to-work-states/ I guess Barack Obama isn't so bad after all. Ironically, the bulk of the increase occurred in the 22 states that have had Right to Work laws on the books since June 2009. Their aggregate household employment grew by 1.86 million, or 3.4%. (Since Indiana did not adopt its Right to Work law until this February, the 19,000 jobs it added are not included.) Because Right to Work laws protect employees from being fired for refusal to pay union dues or fees, Big Labor bosses hate them. And the union hierarchy’s massive, forced dues-fueled campaign support is the single most important reason the President was reelected. Lets keep him. My state is doing wonderfully. Thank You Barack. +1.86m jobs. For all you people who don't understand...this is mostly states in the center of the country, and south and north...you know...the evil republicans.
You know I used to have a real problem with right to work laws, but if the union is offering a good service, then it won't matter if dues are mandatory. Boeing moved a plant to South Carolina, and because we have a good union, that South Carolina plant is going to end up IAM at some point. I mean all the workers in South Carolina have to do is vote the IAM in, and they would get massive pay increases, and benefit increases tomorrow. it is just a matter of time before they realize this!
The NILRR? An anti-union group? Yeah, I trust them to have conducted a well-balanced study. Note the other headlines on their site: "AFL-CIO Czar...." "Obama, Union Bosses Shed Crocodile Tears...." "Obama believes he can take Ohio voters for fools..." Could we get any less credible?
Big energy isn't bad because they produce energy, and employ people. Big energy is bad because they engage in system rigging, like when they get the US taxpayer to subsidize their security in the Straight of Hormuze.
You can do the results yourself. Go state by state data from the BLS and calculate the numbers with those that are right-to-work.
In those states if they don't work they don't survive, because they don't give their residents full federal benefits and keep it for the state. We saw that with Obama care, the republican states want to deny the increased medicaid for their working poor. Also those jobs are low pay jobs, not worth working at but they have no other choice because welfare is slim pickings there.
I'm sure. I'm also sure they're leaving out the actual causation. They're trying to pretend it's because of the "right to work" laws. But as pimptight noted, most of those states also happen to be benefiting from the oil boom. It's a crap linkage. They present no evidence of a causal link between the union laws and employment. Another interesting thing to look at would be which states *lost* the most jobs during the recession. Since unionized workforces tend to avoid layoffs except as a last resort, it seems plausible that the right-to-work states *lost* most of the jobs during the recession, and now all they're doing is adding some of them back.
Not true, during the bottom of the recession, Oklahoma/Texas and many other red states retained their low unemployment rates.
Here are the current state unemployment rates, with the Right-to-work states in bold: http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm They dominate the top of the list (4 of the top 5, 6 of the top 10), but you'll notice those are either small states or oil-producing states. They also cluster heavily at the bottom of the list, making up half of the bottom 10, including the very worst one, Nevada. 10 of the 22 -- including most of the more-populous states -- have unemployment rates above the national average. If they've added 3/4 of all jobs and their unemployment rates are *still* this high, it suggests their unemployment rates were *very* high at the height of the recession.
