Indiana Is A Right To Work State Now

[Value Buy]

As many of you know, I am from Indiana.
This has been a massive discussion issue here in Union town, Northwest Indiana.
Very hot topic with everyone either far left or far right on the issue, with very Little middle ground.
I do not know if it will make much of a difference one way or the other.
With Indiana being the 23rd state to authorize it, we have not exactly set "groundbreaking legislation ".
I do believe it might force Union political action pacs to be of less influence in the long run.
I believe the verdict is still out on previous states who have passed this right to work law, on whether it helps the citizens economically.
There was some talk unions would approach the NFL players to publicly refute this law, and even go as far as refuse to play in Indianapolis this weekend.
How would that have played on the national political landscape if that had occurred?

[formerroomate99]

Feb 1, 2012 15:42:53 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Just adds unnecessary costs, which are passed along to the taxpayer and consumers.

I didn't say it was efficient or low cost.

This all stems from your original statement that a union's main purpose was to limit jobs and increase unemployment. That is not true. Their purpose is to advance the economic and social status of the workers.

Yes, but if you increase the cost of doing business too much, the company will go under and everyone will be unemployed. This applies to greedy unions that make silly rules as much as it applies to fatcat CEO's with golden parachutes. Both can be parasites that suck the company dry.

[formerroomate99]

Feb 1, 2012 19:58:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Lots of bullshit numbers and speculation- check back in a year and see how much of a difference this bill makes- I am betting none.

It may take more than a year to see any results. We are in the middle of a recession, after all. But I am curious to see what happens in 5 -10 years.

[Deleted]

The discussion about unions is, for the most part, moot. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011 only 6.9 per cent of private sector workers were unionized.

I suppose some people won’t feel that we are living in a true, unfettered capitalist system, until workers are taking home as much as their Chinese counterparts. It’s a race to the bottom.

In 2011, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union--was 11.8 percent, essentially unchanged from 11.9 percent in 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8 million, also showed
little movement over the year. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were 17.7 million union workers.

Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (37.0 percent) more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers(6.9 percent).

www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

[jkapp]

Feb 2, 2012 9:02:11 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Since many benefits are paid through union welfare funds and since non-union employees often benefit from union collective bargaining, it is understandable that the union doesn't want to give others a "free ride." Otherwise, no one would pay for what they could have for free and the union would die.

Interesting...change the argument from union dues to taxes and for some reason the argument is opposite.

[jkapp]

Feb 2, 2012 11:02:40 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

I think we've already run this experiment and the result has been falling wages and destroyed pension for the average worker.

What's the difference between a lower wage and a higher wage with a large deduction of union dues?

[formerroomate99]

Feb 2, 2012 11:28:33 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Quite a bit. The union dues force salaries up quite a bit more than the dues themselves. No one would be whining about overpaid union members if the increase only equaled the extra couple a hundred dollars that the dues are. The union equalizes power between worker and employer.

Having a great skillset has the same effect. I havne't had a union job since high school and I'm also competing against a slew of H1B visas, but I'm able to support a family of 4 on my salary and have headhunters contacting me regularly.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 2, 2012 10:35:32 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

As many of you know, I am from Indiana.
This has been a massive discussion issue here in Union town, Northwest Indiana.
Very hot topic with everyone either far left or far right on the issue, with very Little middle ground.
I do not know if it will make much of a difference one way or the other.
With Indiana being the 23rd state to authorize it, we have not exactly set "groundbreaking legislation ".
I do believe it might force Union political action pacs to be of less influence in the long run.
I believe the verdict is still out on previous states who have passed this right to work law, on whether it helps the citizens economically.
There was some talk unions would approach the NFL players to publicly refute this law, and even go as far as refuse to play in Indianapolis this weekend.
How would that have played on the national political landscape if that had occurred?

Indiana has a lot of existing infrastructure. If Indiana could make itself competitive, the next Hyundai, Honda plant could be right where you are located-- or where my rentals are located in South Bend.

Granted, a lot of this is missed opportunity-- too little, too late. But it COULD matter, and I HOPE it does! I would love to see my rents go up and/or my property values increase as Indiana becomes a great place to start a business, to find work, and to live.

[formerroomate99]

Feb 2, 2012 13:29:58 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Dandy for you, but that doesn't help the mass of American workers. Even average people have to feed their families, and "geniuses" like you, pay when the dumb-dumbs are forced first, into lower paying jobs, then out of jobs entirely, then onto welfare. Life in the middle and lower rungs of American society are becoming more precarious each year.

Actually, my good fortune has more to do with the fact that I'm competing against a generation of slackers than my intelligence. Beleive me, you don't have to be a genius to do my job.

[ugonow]

They are desperate to snare some of their neighboring states industry, but I doubt it will really make much of a dent.Chrysler adds another 1800 jobs in Il----www.freep.com/article/20120202/BUSINESS0103/120202032/Belvidere-Assembly-Plant-Chrysler-jobs?odyssey=nav|head

[handyman2]

In the current climate the right to work states have an advantage over the union only states. As the economy improves and manufacturers decide to expand their first choice will be to expand in right to work states. Unions do serve a purpose but to many times the union demands create to much economic pressure on the profitability of the company.
The company can afford to provide the same pay scale and benefits and still stay competitive by eliminating the union costs which can be high.

[EVT1]

Feb 2, 2012 21:33:33 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

In the current climate the right to work states have an advantage over the union only states. As the economy improves and manufacturers decide to expand their first choice will be to expand in right to work states. Unions do serve a purpose but to many times the union demands create to much economic pressure on the profitability of the company.
The company can afford to provide the same pay scale and benefits and still stay competitive by eliminating the union costs which can be high.

I don't buy that at all. I don't think it really matters for most companies when they decide to expand somewhere-and if it does it is way down the line- not a deciding factor.

[dumdeedoe]

www.forbes.com/2009/05/27/auto-manufacturing-detroit-business-unions.html

Kinda explains it.. If you can't compete in labor costs you will lose in the long run.(think us vs china)
2+2=4 no matter how much spin either side puts on it..

Good paying uneducated jobs in America is about done...Get your kids in school or save them a room or a couch...

[handyman2]

Well EVT1 Why do you think VW built their plant in Tenn or Boeing built the new plant in SC or Toyota in Arkansas or UPS distribution center in Memphis etc etc. It was not to get a lower pay scale because they all have a good scale and benefit package.

[Value Buy]

Feb 2, 2012 17:11:02 GMT -5 ugonow said:

They are desperate to snare some of their neighboring states industry, but I doubt it will really make much of a dent.Chrysler adds another 1800 jobs in Il----www.freep.com/article/20120202/BUSINESS0103/120202032/Belvidere-Assembly-Plant-Chrysler-jobs?odyssey=nav|head

Not hard to do, when all you are doing is replacing the third shift in a factory that you laid off years ago.
Still, very good news to hear.

[Value Buy]

evt1 in post one states:

Enojoy your lower wages and benefits . Must be a red state.

Then later, posts:

Feb 2, 2012 22:11:50 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Feb 2, 2012 21:33:33 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

In the current climate the right to work states have an advantage over the union only states. As the economy improves and manufacturers decide to expand their first choice will be to expand in right to work states. Unions do serve a purpose but to many times the union demands create to much economic pressure on the profitability of the company.
The company can afford to provide the same pay scale and benefits and still stay competitive by eliminating the union costs which can be high.

I don't buy that at all. I don't think it really matters for most companies when they decide to expand somewhere-and if it does it is way down the line- not a deciding factor.

which is it lower wages are the factor, or they are not?
Am I missing your message?

[EVT1]

Feb 2, 2012 23:24:00 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Well EVT1 Why do you think VW built their plant in Tenn or Boeing built the new plant in SC or Toyota in Arkansas or UPS distribution center in Memphis etc etc. It was not to get a lower pay scale because they all have a good scale and benefit package.

Generally the states compete with tax breaks or other pot sweeteners- UPS in Memphis? I would assume distribution has a lot to do with it as Fedex is hubbed there. Too many factors- why instead don't you show me an article where a company has stated it picked a state because of right to work laws. Right to work states have unions too.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 3, 2012 2:17:07 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Wait till you see what the housing and neighborhoods look like too. How many new slums and firetraps as people double, triple and quadruple up to pay rents. How many "midnight moves" as impoverished tenants vanish in the night leaving unpaid bills and no practical way to collect them.

Um, that doesn't sound like the right to work states. That sounds like Detroit.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 3, 2012 9:47:41 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

That is happening right now in NYC and it is wrecking many working class areas.

I wasn't aware NYC was "right to work"? In fact, the big problem in NYC is rent control.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 2, 2012 22:49:15 GMT -5 dumdeedoe said:

www.forbes.com/2009/05/27/auto-manufacturing-detroit-business-unions.html

Kinda explains it.. If you can't compete in labor costs you will lose in the long run.(think us vs china)
2+2=4 no matter how much spin either side puts on it..

Good paying uneducated jobs in America is about done...Get your kids in school or save them a room or a couch...

Correct. And why Americans are stuck on this idea that there should be a 'living wage' paid for unskilled work is beyond me.

The fact that unskilled labor sucks, and pays very little-- is kind of a clue.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 2, 2012 11:26:37 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

The big difference between taxes and union dues is that taxes are not voluntary. Making union dues voluntary is an easy way to destroy the union, sort of like "tragedy of the commons" in high gear.

www-personal.umich.edu/~rdeyoung/tragedy.html

This is a complete misapplication of the tragedy of the commons. The story there is that when "we" own something, nobody owns it. When no one owns it, there's no incentive to take care of it.

When shepherds had a 'common grazing' area the incentive was to make sure YOUR sheep got all they could, and screw the rest. And since you didn't own it, and couldn't cultivate it, or fence it off, or set aside a space for restoration-- it became a free-for-all and in the end the common grazing area was destroyed.

How that relates to the idea that you cannot be FORCED to pay union dues is that it doesn't.

It does, however, paint a pretty good picture of socialism and why it doesn't work.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 2, 2012 11:28:33 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Quite a bit. The union dues force salaries up quite a bit more than the dues themselves. No one would be whining about overpaid union members if the increase only equaled the extra couple a hundred dollars that the dues are. The union equalizes power between worker and employer.

Of course the real problem is that unions don't represent the union rank and file members.

It's a money laundering scheme. The government makes it possible for the union to extract dues from workers, and then the union makes political contributions to those in government that maintain the laws that allow unions to force workers to pay union dues.

This isn't about "union busting" as much as it is keeping the unions honest, and keeping the unions offering a good deal to workers. And if unions want to make political contributions the rank and file disagree with, then workers can opt out-- keeping the union accountable.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 3, 2012 10:11:45 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

It's a money laundering scheme. The government makes it possible for the union to extract dues from workers, and then the union makes political contributions to those in government that maintain the laws that allow unions to force workers to pay union dues.

Exactly! IMHO the teachers and correctional officers unions are running our state.

This is why they're TERRIFIED of what Scott Walker did in Wisconsin. The reason you're not hearing any news out of Wisconsin is that Walker's policies are wildly successful: Scott Walker's leadership WORKED!

The union didn't care about the rank and file. The union was prepared to sacrifice more than 6,000 teacher's jobs. Under Governor Scott Walker's plan-- budgets were balanced-- one school district went from a $1.5 million deficit to a $500,000 surplus-- and not a single teacher or state employee lost their job.

The unions and Democrats were not looking out for the workers. They were looking out for their own short-term political interests.

[rockon]

" We can't compete with the world and not expect to live with lower wages, can we? "

Thanks lonewolf this is a question that has an obvious answer. While some will claim that our productivity will make up the difference the reality is finally starting to sink in. We signed free trade agreements with a communist country, shipped not only our manufacturing but also our technology and automation to them as well. They now have the best of both worlds. Highly productive, low wage, low regulation, high tech factories that are creating overnight wealth for a country that is building its military force and aligning itself with the rouge countries that we will almost certainly have conflict with in time.
We are the laughing stock of the global world simply because we conduct business with no concern about the true or long term cost of our decisions.
The answer to your question is unfortunate but simple. Our wages and standard of living are on there way down and will decline until we are on a level playing field with our trade partners. In the not to distance future "right to work" will only be one of the very minor consequences.

[rockon]

"Once upon a time, a man said, "The capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them."
Who was this man?
Unfortunately capitalism (as it is described today) like almost anything can have some very troubling and complex problems when it is allowed to be altered and polluted by corruption and when it is manipulated by federal government in ways that completely change the principles that govern it.
Some of our founders were very aware of this threat and warned that government allowed to grow and control aspects that they should not would have dire consequences to the whole system and the sustainability of the union. At least one even suggested that revolt may be a necessity at intervals to control the government simply because the natural tendencies of people is to move towards acceptance of government support and assistance that would ultimately lead to dependence and negate the effects and benefits of capitalism. Sound or look familiar?

[zibazinski]

When I moved to Florida as a teacher, I had been teaching for 3 years and had just gotten my masters. I met a teacher who has been teaching for 13 years and also had her masters and she made 500 more dollars than I did, per year. A right to work state does have its disadvantages. Poor pay and no worker protection is right up there. Btw, you can't get rid of lousy teachers there, too, union or no union, so disabuse yourselves of that idea.

[formerroomate99]

I have to wonder how many pro union people are willing to put their money where their mouth is. People like to complain about how stuff is made elsewhere, but the stores wouldn't be selling it if people refused to buy it. There are 'Made in the USA' websites out there, but I have yet to see a 'Made in the USA' store, or even a store where the majority of the stuff is made here. I'd gladly pay a little more for stuff made here.

I have heard that some manufacturing is returning to our shores, due to the high fuel costs and other issues with outsourcing. I do hope this trend continues.

[rockon]

Yes I do see it happening and consider it very unfortunate that that we are selling our birth right for porridge (or our children's future for our high standard of living today) all because we have allowed our federal government to grow, control and be involved in areas that have created wide spread dependency while selling their influence to the highest bidder.
We can longer be considered a capitalist society we have definitely moved to something other then that regardless what one wants to call it.

[formerroomate99]

Exactly. One thing folks don't seem to realise is that back when everything was made here, middle class lifestyle was a 1200 sq ft ranch house that a couple scrimped and saved for years to get, one car, meals made from scratch, and going out to dinner once or twice a year. Today, that would be considered working poor. A good deal of the increase in our standard of living in the past 40 years is due to the fact that the vast majority of Americans are perfectly willing to see jobs go overseas so they can afford to buy more stuff.

[rockon]