![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Job fatalities average about 30% higher in these states than the rest of the country, and 15 of the 20 states with the highest rates for on the job fatalities were right-to-work.
Is there a source for this statement? If after seven days evidence to butress assertion is not introduced, portion will be removed as original research.
I find it interesting that in the argument against right-to-work the list the statistics for fatalities the way they do. Using the numbers the author provides, 22 out of fifty are in right-to-work states leaving 28 out of fifty in non right-to-work states. DarthAlbin
For example, the departure of high-paying industrial work from union states to right-to-work states would decrease real wages, etc. in union states. Such disparities are not due to the ineffectiveness of unions, but due to ownership attempts to leave and generally avoid union states in favor of right-to-work states, in which they can pay lower wages.
Any way to re-word this paragraph a bit? It does convey a viewpoint but attempts to pass it off as a generally accepted fact. Maybe there is another way to word it a little more impartially? -- Wootonius 09:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I have attempted to clean up this article to a better standard of quality, and have reviewed the comments above and have tried as best as I can to make portions of the article more NPOV where criticisms exists, but while allowing both sides to argue their positions. I also added the comment on Arkansas' right-to-work provision, which is actually in its Constitution and not a statute.
Sansvoix:
You removed the section that stated, proponents of right-to-work laws argue union leaders are more likely to abuse their power in the absence of right-to-work-laws. You said it “sounds like original research” and asked for facts to back this up. I want to make sure I understand… You’re not asking for facts to back up that their argument is a good one. You’re asking for facts to back up the idea that “proponents of right-to-work laws argue thusly”, correct? Lawyer2b 06:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Lawyer2b asked me to come over here, so I figured i'd add my two cents from briefly looking at the situation. Here's what I can tell you i've found can save some trouble
I can start an rfc if you'd like. karmafist 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
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.
I believe this sentance should be either removed, or modified to somehow remove implication that the statements-within-statements are facts. While this is clearly (suprising to me!) something that they argue, it is not a quote from the proponent side. I don't think it does the proponent side justice either, as it just reads like a pretty bogus argument. Some specific issues:
Anyhow, thanks for hearing me out, I think doing something about this will be more fair to both sides on the table, and make wikipedia a better reference site.-- sansvoix 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Removed this little tidbit that used to be here because it was so mind numbindly retarded it made me wish I lacked the ability to read.
___Are you kidding? You actually published something with this sentence in a public forum??? "so mind numbindly retarded it made me wish I lacked the ability to read." I don't think I can adequately explain how offended and disgusted I am by this sentence. Let's just go ahead and use some racial or gender slurs next. There is a whole civil rights lesson here but let's just agree to leave those citizens who are not able to defend themselves out of your sick vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve4067 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(Note that the author of this study does concede that his adjustments for cost of living were at best questionable citation needed: “Estimates from this… regression model [controlling for cost of living] are suspect given the lack of an established series for controlling for regional, interstate, or intra-state costs of living.” For a critique of this study please see external link "Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses" below.)
This should be in the "Arguments For" section. Lay out the arguments, studies and sources and let them speak for themselves. There is no reason to have a seemingly bilateral debate in an "Arguments Against" section. The only reason I can see for such a schizophrenic approach to editing an encyclopedia article is for the author to inject his or her biases even in a section of the article devoted to laying out arguments the author specifically disputes.
Can somebody please source this comment? It seems to violate NPOV. In RTW States: "There is less money for public services and the quality of life is lower for the majority. When you drive through right to work states you notice the roads, buildings and housing for the lowest earning part of the population is of lower quality." -- 206.21.166.95 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I included information on Guam's "right to work" law under the Criticism Section because of its provision that's been especially criticized by people on both sides of the political spectrum. You'll see how Guam's law differs from what's presented as the norm for right to work laws in this article. Guam's law does appear very different and one-sided. This law serves as an example of how unfair right to work laws can be if not properly and objectively constructed and worded. Jlujan69 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason that I have the link up on this site is to show another site that is against unions. I feel that it should be up on the site so that people can see their point of view. If you have it removed you should have all the pro union articles removed also since this is a right to work site. John R G 09:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been reading the entries about union shop, right-to-work law, etc. and I still have a doubt:
If, in a state without a right-to-work law, the workers in a workplace vote for joining an union, these means that these workplace automatically becomes an union-shop or only means that the union-shop can be negotiated (or not)between the union and the employer?
In other words - in states without right-to-work laws, all unionized workplaces are union-shops, or they can be union-shops or open-shops, dependig of the agreement established between the company and the union?
I think that the articles (at least, one of them) should explain these point (specially to foregneirs - like me - who have curiosity in knowing the american laboiur law).-- 81.84.199.100 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The answer to your question is complex and requires an extended article. Simply stated; If the majority of a class of employees votes to be represented by the union, then the union is certified as the bargaining agent for all persons in jobs in that class. Non-union employees are covered by the collective bargaining agreement, but are not required to join the union. Only Union members have voice or vote on the terms of the agreement. Unions protect themselves with either "primacy" (first hire) agreement clauses, or "exclusivity" (hiring hall) clauses. The first case requires the employer to hire qualified union members first. In the second case, the employer agrees to hire all employees through a union hiring hall. In right to work states, the union hiring hall must list both union and non-union workers who are qualified for the job.
Basically, what I am asking is if (in states without Right-to-work laws) the employer can refuse to accept these clauses in the agreement.-- 81.84.199.100 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be
original research:
If you wish to salvage this content, please provide a reliable source. Best, MoodyGroove 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
This article has an NPOV tag, but I haven't seen any action on it since April. It looks fairly NPOV to me... is there any reason why the NPOV tag needs to still be here? — PyTom ( talk) 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
With regard to:
The poorest county in the United States, Buffalo County, South Dakota, is in a right to work state.
The wealthiest community in the United States, Rancho Santa Fe, California, is in a state that does not have a right to work law.
This appears to be original research and the implied argument is a synthesis. It's also a logical fallacy. It's equivalent to saying, "John has cancer and he drinks milk. Jane does not have cancer and she does not drink milk."
It's not enough to provide the reference for the fact. You have to provide a reference that ties the fact to arguments against right to work legislation. Best, MoodyGroove ( talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
One of the reasons that it would be "nice" to have scholarly references in this article instead of political ones is that separation of cause and effect might become more evident.
Rich states can afford more socialism, union shops, etc. Poor states cnnnot afford these luxuries. There is nobody to fund them. If industry is threatened in poorer states, they move elsewhere. Yes, industry moves in rich states, too, but they are moving away from a skilled labor force which may give them pause. Poorer states may not have that abundance of skilled labor. Poorer states also tend to be rural. Farmers rarely exhude prosperity in dollar terms. You really can kill the golden goose in a poorer state. It may stay alive awhile in a richer state.
But right-to-work doesn't "cause" poverty, and union shop doesn't "cause" luxury.
Pretty much what MoodyGroove was saying above. Student7 ( talk) 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor keeps trying to insert the claim that a RTW organization has been criticized for calling itself grass roots when it was not. But 1) There is no indication that anyone other than the editor trying to insert it has called them that. 2) The organization harps on "grass-roots lobbying," quite different from claiming that it is financed from the grass roots. a quote is given which was an offhand remark. Even if it did support the claim, it would simply be an offhand remark and not something deliberately claimed by the organization. Why stretch the truth? Can't we just present the facts here? Why aren't the real facts good enough to support whatever POV the editor has? Why invent?
There have been attempts lately to correct the slant of right-to-work preventing "Right of Assembly." If there were a real issue here (which should be referenced by a court decision BTW) the courts have long since decided that this did not violate the "Right of Assembly." Of course, employees from work can assemble all they want. This is true throughout the US. While there are valid issues that need to be discussed here, this one is frivolous and a non issue. The real issue is whether this "rightfully" assembled body can "rightfully" speak for all employees. But this is true of any politically or economically assembled group, not just a union! Student7 ( talk) 10:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of assembly is an inalienable right. Arguments against right-to-work laws support the right of a group of individuals to make exclusive contracts with another group of individuals, just as a business may make with a supplier of raw materials. Inherently Right to Work law makes a category of such contracts illegal - those that require contributions to the group engaging in collective bargining. Since these contracts are necessary for a union to meaningfully assemble, removing the right to participate in these contracts effectively nullifies the ground on which freedom of assembly operates. Without tangible rights to engage in contracts and covenants collectively there is no freedom of assembly. In order for freedom of assembly to be meaningful it must include fundamental rights to engage in covenants and contracts both collectively and individually. The advancement of Right-to-work laws and the failure of the courts to recognize the severe limitation on freedom these laws impose on citizens is an unfortunate corrosion of human rights in the United States as well as elsewhere. 70.141.53.204 ( talk) 04:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.53.204 ( talk) 04:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am pro-Right to Work.
I adjusted the section "Arguments against" to put the stuff I thought was logical and nearly irrefutable at the top. I would like to comment (and get some comments) on the next paragraph, picking on the first sentence about Chambers of Commerce favoring. By itself (sentence intro could be improved) this tends to be a fallacy. Guild by association or something.
Having said that, it seems to me that the sentence cannot be removed. Some people oppose it because they accept the logical fallacy. That is fine for this article if it is footnoted. The sentence could be improved by saying "some people suspect that the involvement of the C-of-C means that they can't be trusted or what they are saying can't be trusted (or is it the other way around. The trouble with fallacies!). In other words, if Bill Gates and Wall Street made an argument, it should be judged on the merits of the argument, not on the basis of who made it. I think they are saying here, that since the C-of-C favored right-to-work, therefore, anything further they say is suspect. While I agree with that (! :), it is still a fallacious argument on its surface! :)
We probably run into this sort of thing all the time in various arguments where emotions run high. Nor am I always on God's side here. I may want to quote or cite a fallacious argument or two myself!!! My question is basically, how do you handle an argument that is fallacious that is really supported by adherents/opposition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.93.147 ( talk) 18:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the focus on the right-wing groups in this article weakens the "Arguments against" section. Perhaps the article should focus on the arguments that are germane to the topic at hand. Mingr1 ( talk) 14:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Added a few citations to right-to-work proponents arguments. Also, changed sentence to say "unions to be able to agree with employers" instead of "unions to be able to force employers" and added citation. Mingr1 ( talk) 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
08/25/2009
I moved some "arguments for" which were CRITICAL of pro-RTW law evidence to the end of the arguments against section, and revised the wording somewhat. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.194.164.46 (
talk)
03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This article should be classed as "Mid" on the Importance scale. First, it lacks globalization. Germany, for example, has a right-to-work law (as that term is used in the U.S.) recognized by the courts. In a number of countries, the constitution guarantees a "right to work" that not only attempts to guarantee the right to be employed but also acts as a significant restriction on union activity. Second, right-to-work laws in the United States are only a subset of federal labor law. Taft-Hartley should be rated "High"; RTW laws should be mid. Third, right-to-work laws are state-level laws not pre-empted by federal law. Just because 22 states have acted in an area where federal law does not pre-empt does not raise that issue to "High" Importance. Third, under the scale and given the state of the article's depth, breadth, citation status, and NPOV issues, the article can't be considered "major" but rather "general". - Tim1965 ( talk) 14:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've requested a citation on "For these reasons, they often refer to right-to-work states as "right-to-fire" states, and "non-right-to-work" states as "free collective bargaining" states."
If this were really true, why is it so difficult to find a citation for it. Instead, the editor claims it is " common knowledge" often a refuge for someone who is making the information up.
For starters, not everyone reading this is a US citizen, even if it were "common knowledge." Student7 ( talk) 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
'A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags". According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas gained 1,615,000 new jobs. The article cites several reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.'
Really? How about because Texas ranks first in the US for population growth and Ohio ranks last? Now, I could see an argument for people moving to Texas because of work opportunities (and possibly because of right to work), but just citing job numbers and not normalizing those job numbers to population is a horrible form of argumentation. This editorial sounds like an incredibly weak argument no matter where it was published, and doesn't an "editorial" = "opinion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.92.36 ( talk) 18:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
We could very well use the structuralist/marxist perspective too perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.100.8 ( talk) 06:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
One of the statistical problems is correlating anything to a binary event. It's almost meaningless. So if I say that unionized states all have longer longevities than right to work, I haven't really proved anything. Correlation is not causation.
As opposed to (say) raising the speed limit. I can correlate the maximum speed with a highway fatality rate, and, given enough differences in max rates, and enough jurisdictions, actually arrive at a "probability" that "increased speeds cause increased n deaths." Still not a fact, but a little more provable, depending on the probability statistic. And unlike the previous bunch of facts, I think they can actually test the reverse proposition: that increased fatalities cause higher speeds. I know, it sounds stupid, and is in this case. But not for right to work. For example, in a real statistical comparison, they might prove (or disprove) that high unemployment caused right-to-work laws. Quite the reverse from what it's proponents/opponents are saying. Can't do that easily/credibly to binary events though.
So adding that right to workers are ranked better looking, or have more money, or less money, or are taller, or whatever, than states with no right to work, is not terrifically helpful nor useful! :)
Maybe a before and after in the same state might be useful. Might. Always biased observations, of course. Student7 ( talk) 03:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this section is called Libertarian "capitalist"? Most libertarians I know (including myself) don't really have any desire to defend a capitalist system and instead choose to argue in favor of simply "free markets". Using the term "capitalist" almost makes it seem like Libertarians are beholden to the banking system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.206.43.5 ( talk) 16:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union."
The above Libertarian quote is being used to cite as an example, Libertarians opposing Right to work laws. But it says that one should have the right whether they choose to join or not. So then that is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.4.85 ( talk) 03:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
As someone who came to this article to find out what Right-to-work means, I found some aspects of the article particularly confusing and unclear. I think it's important to not lose sight of the fact that those of us who are not familiar with the issues surrounding these laws (which, from the talk page, I gather are controversial) might require a more back-to-basics approach, which means spelling out what may seem either trivial or common knowledge to those who are editing this article, as well as editing out bits for the sake of clarity.
Using the first paragraph/sentence as an example:
1. Why is "enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S." part of the initial introduction to the subject?
Is the number of US States currently enforcing these statutes, and where most of them are located, part of what "right-to-work" means? If not, then I suggest this information should be moved to a less obtrusive location than the middle of a paragraph-long introductory sentence.
1a. The same question applies to the mention of these laws being "allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act."
I would imagine, though I am, as stated, not knowledgeable on the subject, that any law is allowed to exist as a consequence of some other laws, acts, Constitutional provisions, precedents, etc., so singling out one specific aspect of the chain of legislation that leads to any specific law seems, at this initial stage of the article, to be confusing rather than enlightening.
2. What value does "which would require the workplace to be a closed shop" add to the paragraph/article?
I followed the link to the "closed shop" page, and as far as I can tell, it means exactly what was already explained (union-employer agreements that require all workers to be members of the union), and if that's the case, then it doesn't serve to clarify or add additional information, while creating unnecessary confusion. If that's not the case, then further editing is necessary.
I would suggest these bits be cut out, leaving the following as the introductory sentence:
"Right-to-work laws are statutes which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that make membership, payment of union dues, or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."
Is there any reason why this shouldn't be the sentence that initially introduces users to the subject?
If the bits that were cut out should remain in the initial paragraph, for whatever reason, then a second sentence could be added, like so:
These statutes are enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., and are allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act.
To this second sentence, I would add something along the lines of "which states that..." or "which prohibits..." or "which allows..." if I knew enough about the Taft-Hartley Act to summarize it in such a way.
I will be happy to go over the rest of the article and try to suggest ways to make it more useful to those who want to learn about the subject without having prior knowledge, if this sort of feedback is welcome.
Fuzzyshark (
talk)
09:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't Right-to-work law / Right-to-work laws be a better title? -- stewacide 02:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Which states have these laws at this time? - Bevo 23:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
MAJOR ISSUE The entire title and substance of this page needs to be changed. Right-to-work and unions have nothing to do with one another. Right-to-work is the opposite of employment-at-will. Open-shop is the opposite of closed-shop. Open and closed shop states are a completely separate issue from right-to-work and employment-at-will.
Right-to-work means that everybody in the state that meets employment requirements has a right to work. This also means that you cannot be fired without reason by your employer. Employment-at-will means neither of these is true. Some of the states listed on this page are flat out wrong on this issue. Indiana IS a right-to-work state. Arizona is NOT, it is employment-at-will.
That doesn't make any sense. Indiana is NOT a right-to-work state (we ARE, however, an at-will state); our dutiful representatives are working on contentious legislation to try and become a right-to-work state right now. [1] Also, to say that unions and right-to-work are completely separate seems incorrect, as unions get deeply involved in this issue, since their dues CAN be drastically affected. Wikipedia editors, expect this page to get hotter as that debate heats up in January '12. 50.90.172.227 ( talk) 04:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please clarify the economic information somewhat? As it stands now, the actual implications of the data are about as clear as mud. The following few sentences are in particular need of elucidation, cuz as they stand now their meanings are somewhat ambiguous:
"Also according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, while a larger "growth" was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall real personal income remained higher in the "union-shop" states."
"Also according to the U.S. Census Bureau, while a larger "growth" was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall the number of those privately insured remained higher in the "union-shop" states."
"Also according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, while a larger "growth" was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall production remained higher in the "union-shop" states."
As well, can someone add a note explaining defining terms like "real personal income", or a link to a page that already has them? I mean, I'm a physicist, I could tell you the orbital period of hydrogen's electron off of the top of my head, and I have no idea what the hell crap like that really implies. Is it adjusted for inflation? The price of consumer goods? What?
134.10.12.40 10:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Tel
I've added a section on income inequality in the south versus the northeast, which I think adds some useful information. But frankly, this whole section seems to me to suffer from the fallacy that correlation implies causation.
Mrrhum
14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't statistics comparing right-to-work states to union-shop states cover the entire time Taft-Hartley has been in effect (1948-present)? I think it is misleading using just a few years slice of time to justify any point. Anyway the statistics are misleading regardless, saying that one item has x% growth and another y% growth, but not giving any measure of comparison. This is the same technique which leads Welsh Nationalists to say that Welsh is the fastest growing European language because the number of people in Wales who speak Welsh has gone up 25% (from 1/5 to 1/4 of the population) even though the actual number of people who speak English or Spanish or German has far exceeded the new speakers of Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.98.22 ( talk) 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the text discussed above from the "criticism section" because the information is inaccurate and one sided. In MOST RIGHT TO WORK STATES: "unions must represent all "eligible" employees regardless of membership status." This is not unique to Guam. Hence the "free-rider problem".... Moreover, in right to work states in general, unions cannot exact any fee on non-union members. Moreover, there is no citation for this statement: "This section of the law has been criticized even by those who normally support right-to-work laws." The link provided is only to the Guam law, and does not support this statement. The section below does not belong on this page.
What was in the section: In the U.S. Territory of Guam, a right-to-work law not only stipulates that it's unlawful to require union membership as a condition of employment or to retain employment, but goes further by saying that unions must represent all "eligible" employees regardless of membership status. Furthermore, the unions are not allowed to exact any fee from those who don't want to pay. Effectively, a union is compelled by law to represent a non-member equally with a member, but cannot impose any fee upon them. This section of the law has been criticized even by those who normally support right-to-work laws. http://www.nrtw.org/c/guamrtwlaw.htm (in particular, refer to sections 4101, 4103, 4106, and 4107)
Short answer: the "union security" clause needs to be negotiated between the employer & the union, and is part of the union contract. Simply achieving representation does not automatically establish the union-membership or fee-payment requirement.
I am removing the part where it says that right to work states have higher death rates in the workplace than others because it is completely irrelevant to a proper argument (see Correlation does not imply causation). If anyone else sees this logical fallacy played out elesewhere in wikipedia, it should also probably be deleted. Pjbeierle ( talk) 05:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Let's face it. Politics aside, states with "Right to Work" generally have a lower economic system, lower taxes, lower cost of living. They tend to be "more rural," higher unemployment, etc. Their idea is to stimulate business by encouraging it, even to attracting businesses to relocate from other states.
States without Right to Work tend to have a higher level of economy, higher wages, higher taxes, higher density of traffic, no enthusiasm for "attracting new businesses" because it just means more traffic, higher prices for housing, even higher cost of living, etc. If some company moves out (as long as it's not your company) great! Less traffic! Just the reverse of the Right to Work states.
But one did not cause the other factors. They are all together as a set.
One might prove otherwise, but stating the above factors together without decent research from WP:RS sources, is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This would also include "death rates" or any other factor. All need proper research to establish cause and affect.
Student7 ( talk) 01:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I rm a statement that said "right to work states" were often called "right to work for less states." This tends to be rant. It is from a union tract. It would be nice if this were true from the antis pov. But it is not reported by a reliable source and should not be used. It would be nice to raise the level of any controversial article above the level of rant. Rant is great for tv 5-second blurbs. It looks lousy in an encyclopedia.
Student7 (
talk)
13:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have some concern that the article has become Non-NPOV or possibly politically slanted, possibly in an attempt to give the appearance of equal representation to the "Arguments against" section. While the section "Arguments for" seems to be based on a discussion of facts, the "Arguments against" section seems to be based on union dogma. The following statements though properly referenced are just restatements that labor unions have written papers against right-to-work.
While the statement "It is against federal law to use union dues money to fund political action. Any money used for political action must come from a separate PAC fund that members must opt into." is factual, but has no bearing pro or con to the right-to-work issue.
It seems that the section would be more factully oriented, impartially and concisely written as follows:
—
jhnsn957
04:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The Indiana Senate has voted 28 to 22 to approve the right-to-work bill that has prompted the legislative boycotts by House Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinsattorney ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
One statement in article: "..the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state." I don't think that this is disputed or disputable. What is disputed is the average cost-of-living in a non-RTW state! It is usually noticeably higher.
BTW, anything under 10% is usually not noticed by anyone. This is a human "law", if you will. So if costs or whatever are 9% more in New York than Pensylvania, this will not be noticed by the average shopper. If it is 11%, it will be. decibels and all that goes with the measurement. Student7 ( talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Point to note here. It appears that in the supporting documents that show pay is higher in non-RTW states than in RTW states the pay that is being compared is gross pay not take-home (net pay). Since the typical union deduction from a workers paycheck is between 2% and 3%, the average difference in net pay between non-RTW states and RTW staes may actually be smaller.
— jhnsn957 14:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.157.128 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are now 23 states that are RTW. Gov Mitch Daniels signed Indiana's RTW law about 30 min ago. Please update the page and the graphics. Thanks!!
Kingjustin ( talk) 20:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Already done
Celestra (
talk)
06:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add indiana to the rtw states.
173.56.114.137 ( talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Duplicate of request above.
Celestra (
talk)
06:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Why are we using one side's rhetoric for the title? Isn't that letting them dictate the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.188.56 ( talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
In the statement that an employee "could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.", which rules are the employer's and which one aren't? If the employer has agreed to a contract, then wouldn't that contract would be part of the employer's rules? For example, if a supplier's contract states that an employee can't disclose information that the supplier gave in confidence, and that employee discloses and is sacked, were they sacked because of the supplier's rules or the employer's? Also, are there states that impose limits on the contacts employers can make with suppliers and such, or does this sort of restriction only apply to labour relations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.59.58 ( talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this reference: Campbell, Simon. "Right-to-Work vs Forced Unionism" links to a site that does not seem very authoritative. The "company" that runs the site has only a president, no employees and appears to be the work of a parent whose children were affected by a teacher strike:(ref)Campbell, Simon. "About Us". Retrieved 14 November 2012.(endref)
Simon is a public school parent of three children in the Pennsbury school district, Bucks County. Simon's children were among the 11,500 children forced out of school during the 21-day Pennsbury teacher strike in November 2005. The average Pennsbury teacher salary at the time of the strike ranked #8 out of 501 school districts in Pennsylvania (top 2%).
My question is does this reference fall under the category of WP:BLOGS? If so, obviously it would need to be removed/replaced with an authoritative source. — Safety Cap ( talk) 19:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
In the comparisons section, the last sentence says "Adjusting pay for these regional cost differences results in higher real buying power in most of the right-to-work states." with three citations. Apart from the editorial tone of the wording, the three references are all materials that could be used to support the assertion, but no where make the assertion themselves. This sentence should be removed or appropriate references cited.
Frankly, a lot of the article reads as if a particular stance is being supported, rather than reporting the content of existing external analyses. OriEri ( talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I must inform you that although your wage information (hourly/annual salary) MAY be accurate, the overall wage is NOT included in that finding.
I am a union carpenter with a wage of $29.41 in a NON right-to-work state. I have been through about 6 1/2 years of on and off-the-job training- most of which was paid for by my union and that has been funded by the dues that each member pays while working (instructors must earn a wage and training centers cost money to build and keep running). In ADDITION to my wage, I receive additional benefits to cover healthcare for my family and retirement benefits.
In states that are NOW right-to-work, the employees DO NOT have to pay union dues, but the unions are disappearing. Those employees are now making about $20/hour. They ALSO have to pay for their own insurance and 401k out of THEIR WAGES! This means their take-home pay is SIGNIFICANTLY lower.
Right-to-work is a scam. It means that your company or organization- government or not- is now seeing significant profits while the working class families are deceived into thinking they are making almost as much as before. There is a lot more to the wage on the check if benefits are not included or are in addition to salary. Non-union workers do not realize their families full potentials if they think they are doing better than the union workers who are getting "robbed" by paying dues. Trust me- we're not. I provide a very good life for my children.
<self></self>
98.224.128.161 ( talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The comparison chart is worthless since it does not factor in cost of living. Camparing New York and Alabama proves nothing except wikipedia's ability to create useless charts. 12.190.150.34 ( talk) 19:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "However, this study did not account for unemployment rates, GDP per capita, nor relative costs-of-living in its comparison, which are also considerations in employment studies" under the heading "Studies of economic impact" is false as can be seen by anyone who actually did even a cursory look at the study. Please remove it. Thanks, Furious Style ( talk) 20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Amid Union Protests, Michigan GOP Passes Right-to-work Laws; Governor to Sign
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13866-amid-union-protests-mich-gop-passes-right-to-work-laws-gov-to-sign — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vitacore (
talk •
contribs)
15:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This might explain why there are currently 51 states accounted for in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tscreen1 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The specious reason of "adding unsourced or poorly sourced content" hardly merits a lock, let alone one for about a month. If people misunderstand what a "law" is or is not they can be and have been corrected. Locking the page over semantics does nothing to engender respect for Wikipedia, our system or our values. It will be seen as a political move by the biased and it should be reversed. 76.239.25.95 ( talk) 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found[11] that in right-to-work states both the unemployment rate in 2009 and the cost of living were lower." This is true, but perhaps misleading. The difference in unemployment rate - in 2009 of all years! - was 1%. The cost of living difference was 7.767% or 18.078%, depending on the method used, though both were the same direction. Data also showed that average wages were 16% higher in non-RTW states while mean wages were 14.4% higher in non-RTW states, overall. Little needs to be said about the increase in wages being reflected by the increase in cost of living.
While the Opponents portion mentions the wage difference to some extent, judging from the figures quoted here and in the Calculations section, it seems misleading. The Calculations section reflects considerably different numbers than the source. Neither may be in error, I do not know as of this date. - 68.97.130.80 ( talk) 03:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The cost of living is higher because some of the non-RTW states which on the whole are much more urban. Unions or not, the cost of living will be far lower in South Dakota than in New York or California. Most of the states with RTW laws have cheap real estate. Rural states have cheaper infrastructure (a four-lane expressway in rural South Dakota is built for connecting places outside the state and is far more than necessary for local use, but it is wholly inadequate for northeastern New Jersey) and lower costs of public services. Urban areas have to pay cops well to keep them from becoming tempted to moonlight for gangsters and teachers well enough that they don't use their talents for something more lucrative. Small towns rarely have the high-paying alternatives. The only RTW state with exorbitant real-estate costs are likely Florida, Georgia (Atlanta), Louisiana (New Orleans), and Virginia. If Hawaii were RTW it would still have exorbitant costs for real estate, infrastructure, motor fuels, and building materials.
The big difference may be whether the value of a a worker's life is higher in an RTW or a non-RTW state. In an RTW state the employer has far more control over workers, can speed up production at any time, and can get away with more shortcuts on workplace safety. Employers have more power to compel workers to take pay cuts when they find themselves in a negotiating advantage. If the cost of living is lower because labor costs are lower, so are the rewards for work. This may not be so in building trades in which unions are the only sources of apprenticeships, but in manufacturing industries, wages can easily go into a downward spiral. Sure, there may be lower unemployment... perhaps because industrial work becomes much less attractive. People can vote with their feet, so to speak, and choose safer occupations (like retail sales clerking) with lesser pay but much lower chance of death or injury on the job. Economic elites (owners, executives, and big land owners) certainly fare better, and workers get low pay and harsher working conditions. People paid badly almost invariably get treated badly in every aspect of life. Pbrower2a ( talk) 07:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a quote about degraded safety and health in the work place not covered by union contract. Maybe the AFL-CIO did make this statement once. Today OSHA covers workers nationwide, regardless of RTW or not. The book is written about a British labour (sic) situation and quotes the American issue somewhat offhand. Probably not a reliable source for that particular quote. Not up-to-date. I'm sure the union has something more credible to say about the modern workplace that is more convincing. Student7 ( talk) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone keeps changing the structure of the arguments section (which up until a couple of days ago had been pretty consistent), putting Opposition first and then Support, which is the opposite of normal convention. Including Support first further defines the subject of the article (Right-to-work laws), and then opposition addresses those issues. Basic writing convention, as well.
If there are no objections or logical reasons for doing so, other than apparent POV, I will change it back.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 18:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
One thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned is that (like all contracts), union contracts work best when the economy is, more or less, predictable. It works worst when the economy tanks; the employer being forced to pay wages to make widgets or whatever, that can't be sold. Or worse, the government is forced to give increases in wages when taxes revenue has dropped and everyone in a non-union environment either has wages that have plateaued (if they are lucky) or dropped, or the job has disappeared. Similarly, when inflation starts up, the business may be making money hand over fist, but the workers are left high and dry. This gets back to the term of the contract. If long, someone is taking a real risk. Too short, and constant negotiations take up too much time. Some of this may be in another article. Student7 ( talk) 19:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering when the states with RtW laws passed them (at least the years). JKeck ( talk) 04:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
As or more importantly, when and where did these laws appear? They were promoted by someone for a reason and context helps to understand their place and historical relevance. If there is a solid WP:RELIABLE history available (perhaps with sequencing) that would be terrific to include. Rorybowman ( talk) 22:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sorry, first time doing this:
In the section "studies of economic impact" on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law, there is a sentence that reads:
"However, this study did not account for unemployment rates, GDP per capita, nor relative costs-of-living in its comparison, which are also considerations in employment studies[citation needed]."
With no current citation. This is demonstrably false by going to the source of the report in question. http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf. Tables A2 and A3 clearly show that state cost of living and state unemployment were independent variables used in the regression.
Nfinio ( talk) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Nick
Why not delete the sentence if it is clearly false? Someone reading the article without going to the source document is going to be convinced that those variables weren't controlled for. I did, until I looked at the source document. It is obvious to any econometrician that those variables should be included as controls, but someone with no knowlege of regressions might think that the [citation needed] is in regards to the claim that those variables are considerations for employment studies.
204.9.158.39 ( talk) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The quality of life in Connecticut is better than Oklahoma. Both have about the same population. One has collective bargaining, the other one does not. -- JLAmidei ( talk) 23:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The section on the Taft-Hartley act is confusing, informing the reader that closed shops are illegal but not making it clear that agency shops are legal under Taft-Hartley. The impression is given that agency shops are similar to closed shops and thus similarly illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.47.32 ( talk) 21:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the above. The article states that "[t]he union shop rule... is also illegal", but that "the Taft–Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states... to outlaw the union shop...." Why would a state need to outlaw something that's already illegal? Musicjunkie701 ( talk) 19:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Just as a reference, here is the quote from the Taft-Hartley Act article: "Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass right-to-work laws that outlawed closed union shops." Aneah| talk to me 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I dont' know whether the unemployment data in the article is correct, but it is not supported by its citation. The citation merely lists the unemployment rate for each state in the union, but doesn't list the size of the workforce in each state, so it is impossible to come up with an aggregate unemployment rate from that source. 71.170.223.204 ( talk) 06:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, we could use one of these: [1] or Media Matters [2] (a left-wing outfit, which used a weighted average (as suggested above), finding that RTW states unemployment rates were 0.2% below the national average, or Heritage [3] (a right-wing outfit, which published similar findings); or Politifact [4] (a center-left publication from the WaPo)-- Lyonscc ( talk) 06:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
“I am opposed to “right to work” legislation because it does nothing for working people, but instead gives employers the right to exploit labor.” – Eleanor Roosevelt So, what is “Right to Work”? First of all “Right to Work” is a very misleading statement, because “Right to Work” laws weaken the rights of workers, union and non-union, and strengthen the power of corporations. So, a better label for such legislation would be pro-corporate laws, not “Right to Work”; which states an untruth. Proponents of pro-corporate law (Right to Work) target pro-worker organizations, who allocate resources to promote rights of union and non-union workers.
References Roosevelt, E. (1959). Why I am opposed to ‘right to work’ laws. American Federationist, 5-7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcdonaldlocal311 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The long quotation attributed to Hayek has link out to a nonexistent article in the Washington Examiner. Hayek certainly would have supported the Open Shop, but since the quote is unattributed and unnecessarily long, I think it should be cut. Maybe the contributor has a better source? But in any case it should be shorter. Toby Higbie ( talk) 22:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
"In 2009, the unemployment rate was 8.6% in the RTW states; 9.6% in the non-RTW states."
The bullet points before this point out the population that would "suffer" in some fashion because of RTW, but it does not show a number for this bullet point, which is a benefit, and a whole percentage point of unemployment; that is not insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.20 ( talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, the name that is commonly used trumps legalist assertions of what an article "should" be title. In my opinion, the truthful name is "right to work for less law"; but the propaganda machines of the corporate press won this battle long ago, and the name in common use is neither that nor "Right to not support a union law" but rather "right-to-work law". -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I find the Pros and Cons section quite loaded with political terms and attacks on advocates/opponents. Why can't it be more to the point and focus on the topic?
"Supporters of Right to Work argue that for freedom of association to matter, a person should have the freedom to not associate. Supporters of Right to Work point out that a labor union is the only private organization in America that can force you to accept its representation and pay for that representation as a condition of employment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that workers do not have to join a union in their workplace, but can still be forced to pay for the union's representation. Right to Work laws state that workers who are not members of a union can also opt out of union dues payments. Right to Work opponents argue that this creates the problem that nonmembers benefit from the union's bargaining efforts while not paying for it (i.e. "free riders") and is thus unfair. Right to Work advocates respond by pointing out that a union does not have to represent all workers in an unionized workplace but instead can negotiate contracts that are for members only.
Right to Work opponents argue that Right to Work weakens workers' ability of collectively organize for better working conditions and wages." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.223.50 ( talk) 15:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
See Rasmussen Reports#Criticism -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
We need to mention the fact that the world's first "right to work" law was passed in Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.246.243 ( talk) 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
In Kentucky, several of its counties have recently passed right-to-work laws, despite the state not having a statewide law (read this and/or this for more information). Additionally, there are proposals in other states, such as Illinois, to create "right-to-work zones" without a statewide law. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the RTW laws in Kentucky, or the other state proposals, will be, but if they are successful, I propose that a separate color-designation (preferably light teal) be added to the Right-to-Work state map showing such states where there are "right-to-work zones" which do not have a statewide law. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The last paragraph of this section mentioning Vance Muse and segregationist support for anti-union laws seem completely out of place with not only this section, but also the larger 'Opposed' section itself.
Before I remove it, does anyone want to give a valid reason why it's there? -- Adam9389 ( talk) 11:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Right-to-work law. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
West Virginia recently passed its right-to-work law, which will go into effect on July 1. Why hasn't it been added to the map on this article yet? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Job fatalities average about 30% higher in these states than the rest of the country, and 15 of the 20 states with the highest rates for on the job fatalities were right-to-work.
Is there a source for this statement? If after seven days evidence to butress assertion is not introduced, portion will be removed as original research.
I find it interesting that in the argument against right-to-work the list the statistics for fatalities the way they do. Using the numbers the author provides, 22 out of fifty are in right-to-work states leaving 28 out of fifty in non right-to-work states. DarthAlbin
For example, the departure of high-paying industrial work from union states to right-to-work states would decrease real wages, etc. in union states. Such disparities are not due to the ineffectiveness of unions, but due to ownership attempts to leave and generally avoid union states in favor of right-to-work states, in which they can pay lower wages.
Any way to re-word this paragraph a bit? It does convey a viewpoint but attempts to pass it off as a generally accepted fact. Maybe there is another way to word it a little more impartially? -- Wootonius 09:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I have attempted to clean up this article to a better standard of quality, and have reviewed the comments above and have tried as best as I can to make portions of the article more NPOV where criticisms exists, but while allowing both sides to argue their positions. I also added the comment on Arkansas' right-to-work provision, which is actually in its Constitution and not a statute.
Sansvoix:
You removed the section that stated, proponents of right-to-work laws argue union leaders are more likely to abuse their power in the absence of right-to-work-laws. You said it “sounds like original research” and asked for facts to back this up. I want to make sure I understand… You’re not asking for facts to back up that their argument is a good one. You’re asking for facts to back up the idea that “proponents of right-to-work laws argue thusly”, correct? Lawyer2b 06:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Lawyer2b asked me to come over here, so I figured i'd add my two cents from briefly looking at the situation. Here's what I can tell you i've found can save some trouble
I can start an rfc if you'd like. karmafist 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
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.
I believe this sentance should be either removed, or modified to somehow remove implication that the statements-within-statements are facts. While this is clearly (suprising to me!) something that they argue, it is not a quote from the proponent side. I don't think it does the proponent side justice either, as it just reads like a pretty bogus argument. Some specific issues:
Anyhow, thanks for hearing me out, I think doing something about this will be more fair to both sides on the table, and make wikipedia a better reference site.-- sansvoix 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Removed this little tidbit that used to be here because it was so mind numbindly retarded it made me wish I lacked the ability to read.
___Are you kidding? You actually published something with this sentence in a public forum??? "so mind numbindly retarded it made me wish I lacked the ability to read." I don't think I can adequately explain how offended and disgusted I am by this sentence. Let's just go ahead and use some racial or gender slurs next. There is a whole civil rights lesson here but let's just agree to leave those citizens who are not able to defend themselves out of your sick vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve4067 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(Note that the author of this study does concede that his adjustments for cost of living were at best questionable citation needed: “Estimates from this… regression model [controlling for cost of living] are suspect given the lack of an established series for controlling for regional, interstate, or intra-state costs of living.” For a critique of this study please see external link "Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses" below.)
This should be in the "Arguments For" section. Lay out the arguments, studies and sources and let them speak for themselves. There is no reason to have a seemingly bilateral debate in an "Arguments Against" section. The only reason I can see for such a schizophrenic approach to editing an encyclopedia article is for the author to inject his or her biases even in a section of the article devoted to laying out arguments the author specifically disputes.
Can somebody please source this comment? It seems to violate NPOV. In RTW States: "There is less money for public services and the quality of life is lower for the majority. When you drive through right to work states you notice the roads, buildings and housing for the lowest earning part of the population is of lower quality." -- 206.21.166.95 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I included information on Guam's "right to work" law under the Criticism Section because of its provision that's been especially criticized by people on both sides of the political spectrum. You'll see how Guam's law differs from what's presented as the norm for right to work laws in this article. Guam's law does appear very different and one-sided. This law serves as an example of how unfair right to work laws can be if not properly and objectively constructed and worded. Jlujan69 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason that I have the link up on this site is to show another site that is against unions. I feel that it should be up on the site so that people can see their point of view. If you have it removed you should have all the pro union articles removed also since this is a right to work site. John R G 09:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been reading the entries about union shop, right-to-work law, etc. and I still have a doubt:
If, in a state without a right-to-work law, the workers in a workplace vote for joining an union, these means that these workplace automatically becomes an union-shop or only means that the union-shop can be negotiated (or not)between the union and the employer?
In other words - in states without right-to-work laws, all unionized workplaces are union-shops, or they can be union-shops or open-shops, dependig of the agreement established between the company and the union?
I think that the articles (at least, one of them) should explain these point (specially to foregneirs - like me - who have curiosity in knowing the american laboiur law).-- 81.84.199.100 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The answer to your question is complex and requires an extended article. Simply stated; If the majority of a class of employees votes to be represented by the union, then the union is certified as the bargaining agent for all persons in jobs in that class. Non-union employees are covered by the collective bargaining agreement, but are not required to join the union. Only Union members have voice or vote on the terms of the agreement. Unions protect themselves with either "primacy" (first hire) agreement clauses, or "exclusivity" (hiring hall) clauses. The first case requires the employer to hire qualified union members first. In the second case, the employer agrees to hire all employees through a union hiring hall. In right to work states, the union hiring hall must list both union and non-union workers who are qualified for the job.
Basically, what I am asking is if (in states without Right-to-work laws) the employer can refuse to accept these clauses in the agreement.-- 81.84.199.100 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be
original research:
If you wish to salvage this content, please provide a reliable source. Best, MoodyGroove 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
This article has an NPOV tag, but I haven't seen any action on it since April. It looks fairly NPOV to me... is there any reason why the NPOV tag needs to still be here? — PyTom ( talk) 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
With regard to:
The poorest county in the United States, Buffalo County, South Dakota, is in a right to work state.
The wealthiest community in the United States, Rancho Santa Fe, California, is in a state that does not have a right to work law.
This appears to be original research and the implied argument is a synthesis. It's also a logical fallacy. It's equivalent to saying, "John has cancer and he drinks milk. Jane does not have cancer and she does not drink milk."
It's not enough to provide the reference for the fact. You have to provide a reference that ties the fact to arguments against right to work legislation. Best, MoodyGroove ( talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
One of the reasons that it would be "nice" to have scholarly references in this article instead of political ones is that separation of cause and effect might become more evident.
Rich states can afford more socialism, union shops, etc. Poor states cnnnot afford these luxuries. There is nobody to fund them. If industry is threatened in poorer states, they move elsewhere. Yes, industry moves in rich states, too, but they are moving away from a skilled labor force which may give them pause. Poorer states may not have that abundance of skilled labor. Poorer states also tend to be rural. Farmers rarely exhude prosperity in dollar terms. You really can kill the golden goose in a poorer state. It may stay alive awhile in a richer state.
But right-to-work doesn't "cause" poverty, and union shop doesn't "cause" luxury.
Pretty much what MoodyGroove was saying above. Student7 ( talk) 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor keeps trying to insert the claim that a RTW organization has been criticized for calling itself grass roots when it was not. But 1) There is no indication that anyone other than the editor trying to insert it has called them that. 2) The organization harps on "grass-roots lobbying," quite different from claiming that it is financed from the grass roots. a quote is given which was an offhand remark. Even if it did support the claim, it would simply be an offhand remark and not something deliberately claimed by the organization. Why stretch the truth? Can't we just present the facts here? Why aren't the real facts good enough to support whatever POV the editor has? Why invent?
There have been attempts lately to correct the slant of right-to-work preventing "Right of Assembly." If there were a real issue here (which should be referenced by a court decision BTW) the courts have long since decided that this did not violate the "Right of Assembly." Of course, employees from work can assemble all they want. This is true throughout the US. While there are valid issues that need to be discussed here, this one is frivolous and a non issue. The real issue is whether this "rightfully" assembled body can "rightfully" speak for all employees. But this is true of any politically or economically assembled group, not just a union! Student7 ( talk) 10:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of assembly is an inalienable right. Arguments against right-to-work laws support the right of a group of individuals to make exclusive contracts with another group of individuals, just as a business may make with a supplier of raw materials. Inherently Right to Work law makes a category of such contracts illegal - those that require contributions to the group engaging in collective bargining. Since these contracts are necessary for a union to meaningfully assemble, removing the right to participate in these contracts effectively nullifies the ground on which freedom of assembly operates. Without tangible rights to engage in contracts and covenants collectively there is no freedom of assembly. In order for freedom of assembly to be meaningful it must include fundamental rights to engage in covenants and contracts both collectively and individually. The advancement of Right-to-work laws and the failure of the courts to recognize the severe limitation on freedom these laws impose on citizens is an unfortunate corrosion of human rights in the United States as well as elsewhere. 70.141.53.204 ( talk) 04:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.53.204 ( talk) 04:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am pro-Right to Work.
I adjusted the section "Arguments against" to put the stuff I thought was logical and nearly irrefutable at the top. I would like to comment (and get some comments) on the next paragraph, picking on the first sentence about Chambers of Commerce favoring. By itself (sentence intro could be improved) this tends to be a fallacy. Guild by association or something.
Having said that, it seems to me that the sentence cannot be removed. Some people oppose it because they accept the logical fallacy. That is fine for this article if it is footnoted. The sentence could be improved by saying "some people suspect that the involvement of the C-of-C means that they can't be trusted or what they are saying can't be trusted (or is it the other way around. The trouble with fallacies!). In other words, if Bill Gates and Wall Street made an argument, it should be judged on the merits of the argument, not on the basis of who made it. I think they are saying here, that since the C-of-C favored right-to-work, therefore, anything further they say is suspect. While I agree with that (! :), it is still a fallacious argument on its surface! :)
We probably run into this sort of thing all the time in various arguments where emotions run high. Nor am I always on God's side here. I may want to quote or cite a fallacious argument or two myself!!! My question is basically, how do you handle an argument that is fallacious that is really supported by adherents/opposition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.93.147 ( talk) 18:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the focus on the right-wing groups in this article weakens the "Arguments against" section. Perhaps the article should focus on the arguments that are germane to the topic at hand. Mingr1 ( talk) 14:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Added a few citations to right-to-work proponents arguments. Also, changed sentence to say "unions to be able to agree with employers" instead of "unions to be able to force employers" and added citation. Mingr1 ( talk) 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
08/25/2009
I moved some "arguments for" which were CRITICAL of pro-RTW law evidence to the end of the arguments against section, and revised the wording somewhat. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.194.164.46 (
talk)
03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This article should be classed as "Mid" on the Importance scale. First, it lacks globalization. Germany, for example, has a right-to-work law (as that term is used in the U.S.) recognized by the courts. In a number of countries, the constitution guarantees a "right to work" that not only attempts to guarantee the right to be employed but also acts as a significant restriction on union activity. Second, right-to-work laws in the United States are only a subset of federal labor law. Taft-Hartley should be rated "High"; RTW laws should be mid. Third, right-to-work laws are state-level laws not pre-empted by federal law. Just because 22 states have acted in an area where federal law does not pre-empt does not raise that issue to "High" Importance. Third, under the scale and given the state of the article's depth, breadth, citation status, and NPOV issues, the article can't be considered "major" but rather "general". - Tim1965 ( talk) 14:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've requested a citation on "For these reasons, they often refer to right-to-work states as "right-to-fire" states, and "non-right-to-work" states as "free collective bargaining" states."
If this were really true, why is it so difficult to find a citation for it. Instead, the editor claims it is " common knowledge" often a refuge for someone who is making the information up.
For starters, not everyone reading this is a US citizen, even if it were "common knowledge." Student7 ( talk) 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
'A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags". According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas gained 1,615,000 new jobs. The article cites several reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.'
Really? How about because Texas ranks first in the US for population growth and Ohio ranks last? Now, I could see an argument for people moving to Texas because of work opportunities (and possibly because of right to work), but just citing job numbers and not normalizing those job numbers to population is a horrible form of argumentation. This editorial sounds like an incredibly weak argument no matter where it was published, and doesn't an "editorial" = "opinion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.92.36 ( talk) 18:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
We could very well use the structuralist/marxist perspective too perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.100.8 ( talk) 06:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
One of the statistical problems is correlating anything to a binary event. It's almost meaningless. So if I say that unionized states all have longer longevities than right to work, I haven't really proved anything. Correlation is not causation.
As opposed to (say) raising the speed limit. I can correlate the maximum speed with a highway fatality rate, and, given enough differences in max rates, and enough jurisdictions, actually arrive at a "probability" that "increased speeds cause increased n deaths." Still not a fact, but a little more provable, depending on the probability statistic. And unlike the previous bunch of facts, I think they can actually test the reverse proposition: that increased fatalities cause higher speeds. I know, it sounds stupid, and is in this case. But not for right to work. For example, in a real statistical comparison, they might prove (or disprove) that high unemployment caused right-to-work laws. Quite the reverse from what it's proponents/opponents are saying. Can't do that easily/credibly to binary events though.
So adding that right to workers are ranked better looking, or have more money, or less money, or are taller, or whatever, than states with no right to work, is not terrifically helpful nor useful! :)
Maybe a before and after in the same state might be useful. Might. Always biased observations, of course. Student7 ( talk) 03:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this section is called Libertarian "capitalist"? Most libertarians I know (including myself) don't really have any desire to defend a capitalist system and instead choose to argue in favor of simply "free markets". Using the term "capitalist" almost makes it seem like Libertarians are beholden to the banking system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.206.43.5 ( talk) 16:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union."
The above Libertarian quote is being used to cite as an example, Libertarians opposing Right to work laws. But it says that one should have the right whether they choose to join or not. So then that is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.4.85 ( talk) 03:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
As someone who came to this article to find out what Right-to-work means, I found some aspects of the article particularly confusing and unclear. I think it's important to not lose sight of the fact that those of us who are not familiar with the issues surrounding these laws (which, from the talk page, I gather are controversial) might require a more back-to-basics approach, which means spelling out what may seem either trivial or common knowledge to those who are editing this article, as well as editing out bits for the sake of clarity.
Using the first paragraph/sentence as an example:
1. Why is "enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S." part of the initial introduction to the subject?
Is the number of US States currently enforcing these statutes, and where most of them are located, part of what "right-to-work" means? If not, then I suggest this information should be moved to a less obtrusive location than the middle of a paragraph-long introductory sentence.
1a. The same question applies to the mention of these laws being "allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act."
I would imagine, though I am, as stated, not knowledgeable on the subject, that any law is allowed to exist as a consequence of some other laws, acts, Constitutional provisions, precedents, etc., so singling out one specific aspect of the chain of legislation that leads to any specific law seems, at this initial stage of the article, to be confusing rather than enlightening.
2. What value does "which would require the workplace to be a closed shop" add to the paragraph/article?
I followed the link to the "closed shop" page, and as far as I can tell, it means exactly what was already explained (union-employer agreements that require all workers to be members of the union), and if that's the case, then it doesn't serve to clarify or add additional information, while creating unnecessary confusion. If that's not the case, then further editing is necessary.
I would suggest these bits be cut out, leaving the following as the introductory sentence:
"Right-to-work laws are statutes which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that make membership, payment of union dues, or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."
Is there any reason why this shouldn't be the sentence that initially introduces users to the subject?
If the bits that were cut out should remain in the initial paragraph, for whatever reason, then a second sentence could be added, like so:
These statutes are enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., and are allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act.
To this second sentence, I would add something along the lines of "which states that..." or "which prohibits..." or "which allows..." if I knew enough about the Taft-Hartley Act to summarize it in such a way.
I will be happy to go over the rest of the article and try to suggest ways to make it more useful to those who want to learn about the subject without having prior knowledge, if this sort of feedback is welcome.
Fuzzyshark (
talk)
09:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't Right-to-work law / Right-to-work laws be a better title? -- stewacide 02:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Which states have these laws at this time? - Bevo 23:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
MAJOR ISSUE The entire title and substance of this page needs to be changed. Right-to-work and unions have nothing to do with one another. Right-to-work is the opposite of employment-at-will. Open-shop is the opposite of closed-shop. Open and closed shop states are a completely separate issue from right-to-work and employment-at-will.
Right-to-work means that everybody in the state that meets employment requirements has a right to work. This also means that you cannot be fired without reason by your employer. Employment-at-will means neither of these is true. Some of the states listed on this page are flat out wrong on this issue. Indiana IS a right-to-work state. Arizona is NOT, it is employment-at-will.
That doesn't make any sense. Indiana is NOT a right-to-work state (we ARE, however, an at-will state); our dutiful representatives are working on contentious legislation to try and become a right-to-work state right now. [1] Also, to say that unions and right-to-work are completely separate seems incorrect, as unions get deeply involved in this issue, since their dues CAN be drastically affected. Wikipedia editors, expect this page to get hotter as that debate heats up in January '12. 50.90.172.227 ( talk) 04:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please clarify the economic information somewhat? As it stands now, the actual implications of the data are about as clear as mud. The following few sentences are in particular need of elucidation, cuz as they stand now their meanings are somewhat ambiguous:
"Also according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, while a larger "growth" was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall real personal income remained higher in the "union-shop" states."
"Also according to the U.S. Census Bureau, while a larger "growth" was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall the number of those privately insured remained higher in the "union-shop" states."
"Also according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, while a larger "growth" was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall production remained higher in the "union-shop" states."
As well, can someone add a note explaining defining terms like "real personal income", or a link to a page that already has them? I mean, I'm a physicist, I could tell you the orbital period of hydrogen's electron off of the top of my head, and I have no idea what the hell crap like that really implies. Is it adjusted for inflation? The price of consumer goods? What?
134.10.12.40 10:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Tel
I've added a section on income inequality in the south versus the northeast, which I think adds some useful information. But frankly, this whole section seems to me to suffer from the fallacy that correlation implies causation.
Mrrhum
14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't statistics comparing right-to-work states to union-shop states cover the entire time Taft-Hartley has been in effect (1948-present)? I think it is misleading using just a few years slice of time to justify any point. Anyway the statistics are misleading regardless, saying that one item has x% growth and another y% growth, but not giving any measure of comparison. This is the same technique which leads Welsh Nationalists to say that Welsh is the fastest growing European language because the number of people in Wales who speak Welsh has gone up 25% (from 1/5 to 1/4 of the population) even though the actual number of people who speak English or Spanish or German has far exceeded the new speakers of Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.98.22 ( talk) 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the text discussed above from the "criticism section" because the information is inaccurate and one sided. In MOST RIGHT TO WORK STATES: "unions must represent all "eligible" employees regardless of membership status." This is not unique to Guam. Hence the "free-rider problem".... Moreover, in right to work states in general, unions cannot exact any fee on non-union members. Moreover, there is no citation for this statement: "This section of the law has been criticized even by those who normally support right-to-work laws." The link provided is only to the Guam law, and does not support this statement. The section below does not belong on this page.
What was in the section: In the U.S. Territory of Guam, a right-to-work law not only stipulates that it's unlawful to require union membership as a condition of employment or to retain employment, but goes further by saying that unions must represent all "eligible" employees regardless of membership status. Furthermore, the unions are not allowed to exact any fee from those who don't want to pay. Effectively, a union is compelled by law to represent a non-member equally with a member, but cannot impose any fee upon them. This section of the law has been criticized even by those who normally support right-to-work laws. http://www.nrtw.org/c/guamrtwlaw.htm (in particular, refer to sections 4101, 4103, 4106, and 4107)
Short answer: the "union security" clause needs to be negotiated between the employer & the union, and is part of the union contract. Simply achieving representation does not automatically establish the union-membership or fee-payment requirement.
I am removing the part where it says that right to work states have higher death rates in the workplace than others because it is completely irrelevant to a proper argument (see Correlation does not imply causation). If anyone else sees this logical fallacy played out elesewhere in wikipedia, it should also probably be deleted. Pjbeierle ( talk) 05:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Let's face it. Politics aside, states with "Right to Work" generally have a lower economic system, lower taxes, lower cost of living. They tend to be "more rural," higher unemployment, etc. Their idea is to stimulate business by encouraging it, even to attracting businesses to relocate from other states.
States without Right to Work tend to have a higher level of economy, higher wages, higher taxes, higher density of traffic, no enthusiasm for "attracting new businesses" because it just means more traffic, higher prices for housing, even higher cost of living, etc. If some company moves out (as long as it's not your company) great! Less traffic! Just the reverse of the Right to Work states.
But one did not cause the other factors. They are all together as a set.
One might prove otherwise, but stating the above factors together without decent research from WP:RS sources, is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This would also include "death rates" or any other factor. All need proper research to establish cause and affect.
Student7 ( talk) 01:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I rm a statement that said "right to work states" were often called "right to work for less states." This tends to be rant. It is from a union tract. It would be nice if this were true from the antis pov. But it is not reported by a reliable source and should not be used. It would be nice to raise the level of any controversial article above the level of rant. Rant is great for tv 5-second blurbs. It looks lousy in an encyclopedia.
Student7 (
talk)
13:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have some concern that the article has become Non-NPOV or possibly politically slanted, possibly in an attempt to give the appearance of equal representation to the "Arguments against" section. While the section "Arguments for" seems to be based on a discussion of facts, the "Arguments against" section seems to be based on union dogma. The following statements though properly referenced are just restatements that labor unions have written papers against right-to-work.
While the statement "It is against federal law to use union dues money to fund political action. Any money used for political action must come from a separate PAC fund that members must opt into." is factual, but has no bearing pro or con to the right-to-work issue.
It seems that the section would be more factully oriented, impartially and concisely written as follows:
—
jhnsn957
04:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The Indiana Senate has voted 28 to 22 to approve the right-to-work bill that has prompted the legislative boycotts by House Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinsattorney ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
One statement in article: "..the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state." I don't think that this is disputed or disputable. What is disputed is the average cost-of-living in a non-RTW state! It is usually noticeably higher.
BTW, anything under 10% is usually not noticed by anyone. This is a human "law", if you will. So if costs or whatever are 9% more in New York than Pensylvania, this will not be noticed by the average shopper. If it is 11%, it will be. decibels and all that goes with the measurement. Student7 ( talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Point to note here. It appears that in the supporting documents that show pay is higher in non-RTW states than in RTW states the pay that is being compared is gross pay not take-home (net pay). Since the typical union deduction from a workers paycheck is between 2% and 3%, the average difference in net pay between non-RTW states and RTW staes may actually be smaller.
— jhnsn957 14:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.157.128 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are now 23 states that are RTW. Gov Mitch Daniels signed Indiana's RTW law about 30 min ago. Please update the page and the graphics. Thanks!!
Kingjustin ( talk) 20:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Already done
Celestra (
talk)
06:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add indiana to the rtw states.
173.56.114.137 ( talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Duplicate of request above.
Celestra (
talk)
06:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Why are we using one side's rhetoric for the title? Isn't that letting them dictate the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.188.56 ( talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
In the statement that an employee "could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.", which rules are the employer's and which one aren't? If the employer has agreed to a contract, then wouldn't that contract would be part of the employer's rules? For example, if a supplier's contract states that an employee can't disclose information that the supplier gave in confidence, and that employee discloses and is sacked, were they sacked because of the supplier's rules or the employer's? Also, are there states that impose limits on the contacts employers can make with suppliers and such, or does this sort of restriction only apply to labour relations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.59.58 ( talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this reference: Campbell, Simon. "Right-to-Work vs Forced Unionism" links to a site that does not seem very authoritative. The "company" that runs the site has only a president, no employees and appears to be the work of a parent whose children were affected by a teacher strike:(ref)Campbell, Simon. "About Us". Retrieved 14 November 2012.(endref)
Simon is a public school parent of three children in the Pennsbury school district, Bucks County. Simon's children were among the 11,500 children forced out of school during the 21-day Pennsbury teacher strike in November 2005. The average Pennsbury teacher salary at the time of the strike ranked #8 out of 501 school districts in Pennsylvania (top 2%).
My question is does this reference fall under the category of WP:BLOGS? If so, obviously it would need to be removed/replaced with an authoritative source. — Safety Cap ( talk) 19:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
In the comparisons section, the last sentence says "Adjusting pay for these regional cost differences results in higher real buying power in most of the right-to-work states." with three citations. Apart from the editorial tone of the wording, the three references are all materials that could be used to support the assertion, but no where make the assertion themselves. This sentence should be removed or appropriate references cited.
Frankly, a lot of the article reads as if a particular stance is being supported, rather than reporting the content of existing external analyses. OriEri ( talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I must inform you that although your wage information (hourly/annual salary) MAY be accurate, the overall wage is NOT included in that finding.
I am a union carpenter with a wage of $29.41 in a NON right-to-work state. I have been through about 6 1/2 years of on and off-the-job training- most of which was paid for by my union and that has been funded by the dues that each member pays while working (instructors must earn a wage and training centers cost money to build and keep running). In ADDITION to my wage, I receive additional benefits to cover healthcare for my family and retirement benefits.
In states that are NOW right-to-work, the employees DO NOT have to pay union dues, but the unions are disappearing. Those employees are now making about $20/hour. They ALSO have to pay for their own insurance and 401k out of THEIR WAGES! This means their take-home pay is SIGNIFICANTLY lower.
Right-to-work is a scam. It means that your company or organization- government or not- is now seeing significant profits while the working class families are deceived into thinking they are making almost as much as before. There is a lot more to the wage on the check if benefits are not included or are in addition to salary. Non-union workers do not realize their families full potentials if they think they are doing better than the union workers who are getting "robbed" by paying dues. Trust me- we're not. I provide a very good life for my children.
<self></self>
98.224.128.161 ( talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The comparison chart is worthless since it does not factor in cost of living. Camparing New York and Alabama proves nothing except wikipedia's ability to create useless charts. 12.190.150.34 ( talk) 19:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "However, this study did not account for unemployment rates, GDP per capita, nor relative costs-of-living in its comparison, which are also considerations in employment studies" under the heading "Studies of economic impact" is false as can be seen by anyone who actually did even a cursory look at the study. Please remove it. Thanks, Furious Style ( talk) 20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Amid Union Protests, Michigan GOP Passes Right-to-work Laws; Governor to Sign
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13866-amid-union-protests-mich-gop-passes-right-to-work-laws-gov-to-sign — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vitacore (
talk •
contribs)
15:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This might explain why there are currently 51 states accounted for in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tscreen1 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The specious reason of "adding unsourced or poorly sourced content" hardly merits a lock, let alone one for about a month. If people misunderstand what a "law" is or is not they can be and have been corrected. Locking the page over semantics does nothing to engender respect for Wikipedia, our system or our values. It will be seen as a political move by the biased and it should be reversed. 76.239.25.95 ( talk) 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found[11] that in right-to-work states both the unemployment rate in 2009 and the cost of living were lower." This is true, but perhaps misleading. The difference in unemployment rate - in 2009 of all years! - was 1%. The cost of living difference was 7.767% or 18.078%, depending on the method used, though both were the same direction. Data also showed that average wages were 16% higher in non-RTW states while mean wages were 14.4% higher in non-RTW states, overall. Little needs to be said about the increase in wages being reflected by the increase in cost of living.
While the Opponents portion mentions the wage difference to some extent, judging from the figures quoted here and in the Calculations section, it seems misleading. The Calculations section reflects considerably different numbers than the source. Neither may be in error, I do not know as of this date. - 68.97.130.80 ( talk) 03:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The cost of living is higher because some of the non-RTW states which on the whole are much more urban. Unions or not, the cost of living will be far lower in South Dakota than in New York or California. Most of the states with RTW laws have cheap real estate. Rural states have cheaper infrastructure (a four-lane expressway in rural South Dakota is built for connecting places outside the state and is far more than necessary for local use, but it is wholly inadequate for northeastern New Jersey) and lower costs of public services. Urban areas have to pay cops well to keep them from becoming tempted to moonlight for gangsters and teachers well enough that they don't use their talents for something more lucrative. Small towns rarely have the high-paying alternatives. The only RTW state with exorbitant real-estate costs are likely Florida, Georgia (Atlanta), Louisiana (New Orleans), and Virginia. If Hawaii were RTW it would still have exorbitant costs for real estate, infrastructure, motor fuels, and building materials.
The big difference may be whether the value of a a worker's life is higher in an RTW or a non-RTW state. In an RTW state the employer has far more control over workers, can speed up production at any time, and can get away with more shortcuts on workplace safety. Employers have more power to compel workers to take pay cuts when they find themselves in a negotiating advantage. If the cost of living is lower because labor costs are lower, so are the rewards for work. This may not be so in building trades in which unions are the only sources of apprenticeships, but in manufacturing industries, wages can easily go into a downward spiral. Sure, there may be lower unemployment... perhaps because industrial work becomes much less attractive. People can vote with their feet, so to speak, and choose safer occupations (like retail sales clerking) with lesser pay but much lower chance of death or injury on the job. Economic elites (owners, executives, and big land owners) certainly fare better, and workers get low pay and harsher working conditions. People paid badly almost invariably get treated badly in every aspect of life. Pbrower2a ( talk) 07:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a quote about degraded safety and health in the work place not covered by union contract. Maybe the AFL-CIO did make this statement once. Today OSHA covers workers nationwide, regardless of RTW or not. The book is written about a British labour (sic) situation and quotes the American issue somewhat offhand. Probably not a reliable source for that particular quote. Not up-to-date. I'm sure the union has something more credible to say about the modern workplace that is more convincing. Student7 ( talk) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone keeps changing the structure of the arguments section (which up until a couple of days ago had been pretty consistent), putting Opposition first and then Support, which is the opposite of normal convention. Including Support first further defines the subject of the article (Right-to-work laws), and then opposition addresses those issues. Basic writing convention, as well.
If there are no objections or logical reasons for doing so, other than apparent POV, I will change it back.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 18:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
One thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned is that (like all contracts), union contracts work best when the economy is, more or less, predictable. It works worst when the economy tanks; the employer being forced to pay wages to make widgets or whatever, that can't be sold. Or worse, the government is forced to give increases in wages when taxes revenue has dropped and everyone in a non-union environment either has wages that have plateaued (if they are lucky) or dropped, or the job has disappeared. Similarly, when inflation starts up, the business may be making money hand over fist, but the workers are left high and dry. This gets back to the term of the contract. If long, someone is taking a real risk. Too short, and constant negotiations take up too much time. Some of this may be in another article. Student7 ( talk) 19:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering when the states with RtW laws passed them (at least the years). JKeck ( talk) 04:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
As or more importantly, when and where did these laws appear? They were promoted by someone for a reason and context helps to understand their place and historical relevance. If there is a solid WP:RELIABLE history available (perhaps with sequencing) that would be terrific to include. Rorybowman ( talk) 22:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sorry, first time doing this:
In the section "studies of economic impact" on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law, there is a sentence that reads:
"However, this study did not account for unemployment rates, GDP per capita, nor relative costs-of-living in its comparison, which are also considerations in employment studies[citation needed]."
With no current citation. This is demonstrably false by going to the source of the report in question. http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf. Tables A2 and A3 clearly show that state cost of living and state unemployment were independent variables used in the regression.
Nfinio ( talk) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Nick
Why not delete the sentence if it is clearly false? Someone reading the article without going to the source document is going to be convinced that those variables weren't controlled for. I did, until I looked at the source document. It is obvious to any econometrician that those variables should be included as controls, but someone with no knowlege of regressions might think that the [citation needed] is in regards to the claim that those variables are considerations for employment studies.
204.9.158.39 ( talk) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The quality of life in Connecticut is better than Oklahoma. Both have about the same population. One has collective bargaining, the other one does not. -- JLAmidei ( talk) 23:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The section on the Taft-Hartley act is confusing, informing the reader that closed shops are illegal but not making it clear that agency shops are legal under Taft-Hartley. The impression is given that agency shops are similar to closed shops and thus similarly illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.47.32 ( talk) 21:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the above. The article states that "[t]he union shop rule... is also illegal", but that "the Taft–Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states... to outlaw the union shop...." Why would a state need to outlaw something that's already illegal? Musicjunkie701 ( talk) 19:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Just as a reference, here is the quote from the Taft-Hartley Act article: "Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass right-to-work laws that outlawed closed union shops." Aneah| talk to me 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I dont' know whether the unemployment data in the article is correct, but it is not supported by its citation. The citation merely lists the unemployment rate for each state in the union, but doesn't list the size of the workforce in each state, so it is impossible to come up with an aggregate unemployment rate from that source. 71.170.223.204 ( talk) 06:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, we could use one of these: [1] or Media Matters [2] (a left-wing outfit, which used a weighted average (as suggested above), finding that RTW states unemployment rates were 0.2% below the national average, or Heritage [3] (a right-wing outfit, which published similar findings); or Politifact [4] (a center-left publication from the WaPo)-- Lyonscc ( talk) 06:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
“I am opposed to “right to work” legislation because it does nothing for working people, but instead gives employers the right to exploit labor.” – Eleanor Roosevelt So, what is “Right to Work”? First of all “Right to Work” is a very misleading statement, because “Right to Work” laws weaken the rights of workers, union and non-union, and strengthen the power of corporations. So, a better label for such legislation would be pro-corporate laws, not “Right to Work”; which states an untruth. Proponents of pro-corporate law (Right to Work) target pro-worker organizations, who allocate resources to promote rights of union and non-union workers.
References Roosevelt, E. (1959). Why I am opposed to ‘right to work’ laws. American Federationist, 5-7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcdonaldlocal311 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The long quotation attributed to Hayek has link out to a nonexistent article in the Washington Examiner. Hayek certainly would have supported the Open Shop, but since the quote is unattributed and unnecessarily long, I think it should be cut. Maybe the contributor has a better source? But in any case it should be shorter. Toby Higbie ( talk) 22:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
"In 2009, the unemployment rate was 8.6% in the RTW states; 9.6% in the non-RTW states."
The bullet points before this point out the population that would "suffer" in some fashion because of RTW, but it does not show a number for this bullet point, which is a benefit, and a whole percentage point of unemployment; that is not insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.20 ( talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, the name that is commonly used trumps legalist assertions of what an article "should" be title. In my opinion, the truthful name is "right to work for less law"; but the propaganda machines of the corporate press won this battle long ago, and the name in common use is neither that nor "Right to not support a union law" but rather "right-to-work law". -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I find the Pros and Cons section quite loaded with political terms and attacks on advocates/opponents. Why can't it be more to the point and focus on the topic?
"Supporters of Right to Work argue that for freedom of association to matter, a person should have the freedom to not associate. Supporters of Right to Work point out that a labor union is the only private organization in America that can force you to accept its representation and pay for that representation as a condition of employment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that workers do not have to join a union in their workplace, but can still be forced to pay for the union's representation. Right to Work laws state that workers who are not members of a union can also opt out of union dues payments. Right to Work opponents argue that this creates the problem that nonmembers benefit from the union's bargaining efforts while not paying for it (i.e. "free riders") and is thus unfair. Right to Work advocates respond by pointing out that a union does not have to represent all workers in an unionized workplace but instead can negotiate contracts that are for members only.
Right to Work opponents argue that Right to Work weakens workers' ability of collectively organize for better working conditions and wages." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.223.50 ( talk) 15:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
See Rasmussen Reports#Criticism -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
We need to mention the fact that the world's first "right to work" law was passed in Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.246.243 ( talk) 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
In Kentucky, several of its counties have recently passed right-to-work laws, despite the state not having a statewide law (read this and/or this for more information). Additionally, there are proposals in other states, such as Illinois, to create "right-to-work zones" without a statewide law. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the RTW laws in Kentucky, or the other state proposals, will be, but if they are successful, I propose that a separate color-designation (preferably light teal) be added to the Right-to-Work state map showing such states where there are "right-to-work zones" which do not have a statewide law. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The last paragraph of this section mentioning Vance Muse and segregationist support for anti-union laws seem completely out of place with not only this section, but also the larger 'Opposed' section itself.
Before I remove it, does anyone want to give a valid reason why it's there? -- Adam9389 ( talk) 11:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Right-to-work law. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
West Virginia recently passed its right-to-work law, which will go into effect on July 1. Why hasn't it been added to the map on this article yet? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)