Site Meter

I'm the chief cook and bottle-washer here.

  • http://www.marfdrat.net marfdrat

    Your central argument is couched completely from the perspective of the union or union member (and, granted, you said so), who is vested in the idea that unions are even necessary anymore. There are plenty of folks who would say “mandatory membership in a union deprives me of my right to negotiate with the employer on my own merits. I’d rather not support their wasteful use of my wages on their political schemes or their bloated salary and benefit packages.” Yes, two sides of the coin.

  • MulroyBay

    Interesting, but kind of a straw man argument, at least insofar as the characterization of these as “chief arguments” goes.

    The central argument against Right to Work laws is that they take away collective bargaining power from workers, resulting in lower pay and benefits. Stated another way, they enable companies to maximize profit by reducing cost. (Hence corporate support for them.)

    The wages in Right to Work States are about $1500 year less than at union states. The employment level is, however, higher in Right to Work states. Same coin, two sides.