You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
The underhanded move in Michigan must not stand.
If we didn't have Union based newspapaers we would have reporting that actually told the truth rather than cutting and pasting from Union and DFL flyers.
And, guess what? The post office and the government might actually become productive without all the union stewards and rules.
What they're talking about is choice. I thought liberals like choice. Or is that just the choice to kill unborn babies?
Unions did some great work in the beginning but they also attributed to manufacturing jobs leaving the US.
What a nonfactual article! Unions can still negotiate, and none of those benefits are disturbed. Obama says things that are inflamatory, and for affect.
There is nothing underhanded about the Michigan law. It was the union's move with Prop 2 that brought Right to Work to the foreground of the discussion in Michigan. Also, President Obama is factually wrong in the statement quoted in the article, this bill does nothing to limit or prevent collective bargaining, it simply provides a choice if a person wants to be a part of the process or not. If someone wants to be in a union, go ahead, I have no problem with it, I simply have a problem when you force someone else to also. Why is it that unions cannot survive when dues are not mandatory? Why in WI after public workers were given a choice, membership dropped about 50%? If a union cannot survive voluntarily, it probably shouldn't in the first place.
"United Auto Workers, historically one of the most powerful unions in the country" - they also brought GM and Chrysler to the knees to the point a bankruptcy would have crippled the region and the federal government had to step in. No worries, Obama was there to write a check for which we all pay.
Right to work simply allows individuals to choose to join the union or not...how can you be against that freedom? BTW, the main reason this is necessary is because of the unions claiming that 85-90% of all dues go to contract negotiations...which means every worker who choses to not join the union must pay 85-90% of all dues AND lose their right to vote in union elections. I'm sorry but there is no way that 85-90% of union dues go to only negotiations...the number should be closer to 15-20%; think about all the time/money that is spent sending flyers to vote for a political party...the campaign commercials...the time and effort spent by union officials deciding how to spend that money on campaigns/flyers/political speech. The unions brought this upon themselves...if they had a realistic number (like 15-20% of dues) going towards negotiation then the right to work laws would not be necessary. Workers should not be forced to pay for and be apart of an organization they disagree with to have a job (especially a government job, which by definition is a monopoly).
If the unions are so vital, they should have nothing to worry about when people are given the choice. Jim Hofa said Right To Work enables freeloading. Why isn't he concerned about all of the entitlement freeloading going on?
What you "must have a strong union workforce" folks forget is if unions keep demanding more and more the more corporations will simply move overseas. They don't need the U.S. (or "us"). It is a GLOBAL market. If the U.S. has a resurgence of union membership and drive up prices we will only see more companies LEAVING.
The race to the bottom is in full swing. Of the 10 states with the highest poverty rates 8 of them are right to work states.
"Wages and personal income are both lower in right-to-work states, yet proprietors' income is higher. As a result, while right-to-work states may maintain a somewhat better business environment relative to non-right-to-work states, these benefits do not necessarily translate into increased economic verve for the right-to-work states as a whole -- there appears to be little 'trickle-down' to the largely non-unionized workforce in these states. [Review of Law & Economics, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2009]"
"Numerous studies have found that wages for both union and non-union workers are lower in states with right-to-work laws. Others have found that workplace safety suffers in right-to-work states, where workers are less likely to secure job safety enhancements beyond federal and state regulations. [McClatchy Newspapers, 2/16/12]"
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks