right to work [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

View Full Version : right to work

Soonrboy

1/27/2006, 04:10 PM

OUAndy1807

1/27/2006, 04:12 PM

That's a good question. I'm usually anti-union (especially when workers are forced to join), but would love to see some unbiased info on what really happened after right to work passed.

royalfan5

1/27/2006, 04:13 PM

Oklahoma is just now getting right to work laws? IMO anybody that is opposed to right to work laws, is a card carrying communist.

KaiserSooner

1/27/2006, 04:13 PM

Anybody expecting right to work to have an immediate impact after its passage are only fooling themselves.

If it's to have a positive impact at all it'll be in the long term.

KaiserSooner

1/27/2006, 04:14 PM

Oklahoma is just now getting right to work laws? IMO anybody that is opposed to right to work laws, is a card carrying communist.

No. we've had it for about 4 yrs.

In Through The Out Door

1/27/2006, 04:20 PM

Right to work also goes hand in had with other smart economic development ideas. So, while right to work may help Oklahoma some, you still have to contend with state incomes takes and such that other right to work state businesses don't have to contend with.

Skysooner

1/27/2006, 04:25 PM

I actually have to take a left to get to work.

Widescreen

1/27/2006, 04:42 PM

I was a big proponent of right-to-work. Without it, I was convinced that businesses were staying away from Oklahoma. I'm curious too to know what impact it has had in terms of business development.

OklahomaTuba

1/27/2006, 04:51 PM

Oklahomas been hit so hard economically by outside factors that any data for or against R2W will be skewed to the negative side IMO.

As a whole nation, we better do something to ensure we are competing globally or we won't have to worry about saving those manufacturing jobs in 10 years, cause there won't be any left!

BoomerJack

1/27/2006, 05:34 PM

I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand the whole dealio with "right-to-work" issue. Is it helping Oklahoma now that we have it? Has it made a difference?

I just remember the heated debates about it, but nothing recently about effective/ineffective it has been.

The following was taken from wikipedia. Hope it helps a little.

"Arguments for and against right-to-work laws
Proponents of right-to-work laws point to the Constitional right to freedom of association, as well as the common-law principle of private ownership of property. They argue that workers should be free both to join unions and to refrain from joining unions and, for this reason often refer to non-right-to-work states as "forced-union" states. They argue further that union leaders are more likely to abuse their power, both for union matters and for external political purposes, if they are permitted to require membership dues from all employees whether they want union membership or not.

Proponents also point to the advantage of a more efficient labor market, with more competitive businesses and better economic growth as a result. (See Economic Information below.)

Opponents of right-to-work laws argue that the ability of non-union employees to benefit from collective bargaining without paying dues creates a free rider problem, allowing employees to leave (or not join) a union while still ostensibly benefiting from the actions of that union, thus making union activities less sustainable. (Levels of unionization are typically much lower in right-to-work states.) For these reasons, they often refer to non-right-to-work states as "free collective bargaining" states. Opponents also argue that the laws prevent free contracts between unions and business owners, making it harder for unions to organize and less attractive for people to join a union. They call these laws "work-for-less" or "right-to-shirk" laws.

Opponents further argue that because unions are weakened by these laws, wages are lowered and worker safety and health is endangered. They cite statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor showing, for example, that in 2003 the rate of workplace fatalities per 100,000 workers was highest in right-to-work states. 19 of the top 25 states for worker fatality rates were right-to-work states, while 3 of the bottom 25 states were right-to-work states. A study in 2001 showed that workers in right-to-work states earned an average of 6.5% less than their counterparts in states without the law. [1]

[edit]
Economic Information
According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 1993-2003 the percentage change in non-farm private sector employees was 17.7% growth overall. The increase in Right to Work States was 24.1%, while the increase in "union shop" States was 14.2%.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce, from 1993-2003 the percentage change in real personal income was 29% growth overall. The change in Right to Work States was 37% growth, while the change in "union shop" States was 26% growth.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1982-2001 the percentage change in manufacturing establishments was 1.5% loss overall. The change in Right to Work States was 7% growth, while the change in "union shop" States was a 4.9% loss.

Also according to the Census Bureau, from 1993-2003 the percentage growth of people covered by private health insurance was 8.5% growth. The change in Right to Work States was 13.6% growth, while the change in "union-shop" States was 5.9% growth.

According to both the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau, from 1991-2001 the percentage change in real value added per production worker was 11.1% growth overall. The change in Right to Work States was 17.1% growth, while the change in "union-shop" states was 8.4% growth.

Such statistics can be misleading, however, because they do not take into account all the possible reasons for the differences. For example, the departure of high-paying industrial work from "union-shop" states to right-to-work states would decrease real wages, etc. in the "union-shop" states, and consequently increase them in right-to-work states. Such disparities are not necessarily due to the ineffectiveness of unions, but may be due to ownership attempts to leave or otherwise generally avoid "union-shop" states in favor of right-to-work states, in which they can pay lower wages. More importantly, even if ownership maintains the same pay scale, ownership can avoid what it may consider "restrictive" union work rules and institute its own work rules in lieu thereof."

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/27/2006, 06:13 PM

So, right to work is right of freedom from mandatory unions, pretty much.

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 06:24 PM

Opponents of right-to-work laws argue that the ability of non-union employees to benefit from collective bargaining without paying dues creates a free rider problem, allowing employees to leave (or not join) a union while still ostensibly benefiting from the actions of that union, thus making union activities less sustainable.

This is what I never understood. Why do the provisions of a union contract apply to non-union workers?

yermom

1/27/2006, 06:35 PM

This is what I never understood. Why do the provisions of a union contract apply to non-union workers?

are they going to pay the non-union workers less, or have them work in different conditions that the union guys at the same place?

Okieflyer

1/27/2006, 06:37 PM

yermom

1/27/2006, 06:40 PM

how does a union get that sort of control? i mean why would a business agree to only have union guys work there?

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 06:44 PM

are they going to pay the non-union workers less, or have them work in different conditions that the union guys at the same place?

Pay them less, give them less vacation--whatever they can get away with. If the union contract is a better deal then everybody will join on their own. Grocery stores get away with charging people more who don't have a preferred customer card. It's up to you to decide if it's worth filling out the application to save some money.

(Or you can just tell Homeland to shove it and go to Albertson's where they don't have that nonsense.)

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 06:47 PM

how does a union get that sort of control? i mean why would a business agree to only have union guys work there?

For the same reason it agrees to pay them so much--they threaten to go on strike otherwise. The initial membership of a union has to be large enough to make that a real threat. If two guys out of 1000 try to start a union on their own it's not going to work.

yermom

1/27/2006, 06:53 PM

so then where do the laws come in?

seems like game theory should work it out

BudSooner

1/27/2006, 08:12 PM

The initial membership of a union has to be large enough to make that a real threat

A rep with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union told me that in order to organize a union in most stores requires at least 44%.
Not sure if that holds true for other labor unions, but that group along with the Aerospace Workers union just flat suck now....look no further than Spirit Aerosystems here in Tulsa.
They just bent over and grabbed their ankles when it came time for a new bargaining(too tired to spell check)agreement.

Example as a former meat cutter for two tulsa stores, i made at a non union shop $6.50hr.
Union shop in Tulsa(Homeland)$10.50hr.
Non Union shop in OKC 11.00hr Union Shop in OKC 13.70hr.

Me personally, unions can go **** themselves.

Killerbees

1/27/2006, 08:27 PM

Well I really havent looked into unions too much. I see their need but there has to be some balance.. Forcing people to pay union dues is wrong though so I guess I am more of a right-to-work kind of person.

jrsooner

1/27/2006, 08:37 PM

Well I really havent looked into unions too much.My mom's family lives in Detroit, and I can usually get into a "spirited" debate with some of them. They are usually 50/50 when it comes to unions. My one uncle's family blew a gasket when they learned my dream company was to be able to supply any company with manpower that a union was striking against until they could hire enough non-union employees. :)

I personally made a commitment to find a career where I wouldn't be forced to join an union. From what I've seen/heard from my uncles, they usually run up the wages, get more time off, lower the quality of work, and then the companies charge higher prices to pay for their union "new benefits". Charge too much, and people won't buy your stuff, and you get fired, which is usually against union rules. :)

TheHumanAlphabet

1/28/2006, 06:07 AM

I was a big proponent of right-to-work. Without it, I was convinced that businesses were staying away from Oklahoma. I'm curious too to know what impact it has had in terms of business development.

While I agree with you, I think the archaic tax laws, high business fees and a corrupt legislature/government do more to keep Oklahoma from being a business center than artificially high wages of non-right-to-work states. That being said, it sure can't help to pay a more prevailing wage than the union inflated and artificially high "prevailing wage" they had to previously pay.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/28/2006, 09:08 AM

With the closures of so many GM facilities, the unions are standing with their mouths agape. Part of the problem for US automakers is the jacked-up cost of labor.(due to threat of strikes)