@Cycloptichorn,
I took a careful look at your arguments on the quantative benefits of Right to Work Laws and as well at the references you cited.
The first reference from Prefessor Stevens of Hoffstra University was the most interesting. He performed a multivariate statistical analysis, based on variables he selected, (I would choose them differently) to assess the estimated differences between wage and benefit and employment rates in Right to Work States and others, finding that, in view of the clearly more favorable business climates (his statement) in RTW states the measured benefits of these laws, where they occurred, are not due to the RTW laws themselves, but rather to the business climate prevailing in these states. I found that very remarkable in that it was a sweeping indictment of the results of his own analysis which did indeed, as you noted, find some benefits associated with RTW laws. He also used other factors outside the domain of his analysis, including the net greater population movements into RTW states and relative education levels to further discount the measured benefits. Remarkable contradictions both in that he fails to address just what might be behind the net immigration and how average educational levels might affest competition for jobs might affest his calculated results. This in an academic paper promising rigorous accuracy, but these folks are like that and they often have an agenda too.
The other two papers, one from the Economic Policy Institute, a totally union funded lobbying organization (look at their web site and their published liost of board members). and the other the NEA, a close ally of Randy Weingarten and the National teachers Union, are both union shills - I gave them as much attention as I think you would to some propaganda fron the National Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Manufacturerds were I to have provided them.
We apparently both agree that unemployment has dropped much faster in RTW states following the recession; that job and GDP growth is higher than in other states; and, as your professor noted, immigration also much higher in RTW states than others. (That means, by the way, that adjusted for this immigration difference, unemployment in non RTW states would be higher than reported (one of several relevant variables Prof. Stevens didn't include in his "analysis").
I do fully agree with this statement of yours;
Quote: From a businessman's point of view, I can see the attraction of RTW. But from an employee's point of view, it's hardly a good thing.
However, with one caveat. Only actively incumbent union employees in non RTW states get any benefit. Unemployed workers find their job opportunities lowered by the protective walls unions erect around current members (who are very hard to fire even for good cause), and by the observable lower rate of hourly job creation in those states, which I assume to be related to union demands.
You should ask yourself why the people of Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and now Michigan have even seriously considered RTW laws ( passed them in Indiana, Ohio & Michigan and passed something similar in Wisconsin - the Ohio action was overturned by a narrow margin in a referendum hotly supported by unions). These states have long been at the very heart of the union movement in this country for over three generations. Only New York and New Jersey are more unionized, but there Mafia involvement and corruption are substantial.
I belive that this is a very clear indicator of changed public perceptions of the self-serving character of labor unions and their willingness to impose serious burdens of public prosperity and public finances in pursuit of preserving their own political power and political leverage over state government. The evident fact is that new investment in manufacturing is, and has long been, very focused on RTW states, and that those states have benefitted economically as a result. Unionized states are far less competitive than they once were, and inexorably that will drive new investment and job creation to other areas. Better to keep Boeing Manufacturing in South Carolina than see it go overseas. In this the competitive factor that press on corporations tend to equalize wealth and investment in the country, moving economic activity to less weealthy and costly areas, and as conditions improve, paying the higher wage requirements that result from improved average economic conditions.hat's wrong with that? it sounds a lot like Obama's spreading the wealth around theme to me.
Boeing faces very serious competiution with subsdidized operations in Europe from Airbus and increasingly from smaller companies in Canada (Bombardier) and Brazil (Embraer). They will either compete effectively or die. The consequences of such a failure would extend far beyond the narrow interests of the Seattle-based engineers and mechanics unions. Unfortunately the unions take no responsibility for that.
The world is a competitive place and nothing you or the so called 'progressive' movement in politics can change that. The Soviets tried hard .... and failed utterly.
Interestingly Germany has found a way to sustain unions and, at the same time encourage productivity improvements (more efficient use of labor), investment and competitive labor rates. That (and lower levels of public debt) indeed are the chief difference between the German economy, and those of its , now troubled neighbors. The Germans instituted these reforms a decade ago when their economy was floundering, and has benefitted greatly from them. Frankly I don't know how they do it. Perhaps it's because they are Germans !
I enjoyed very cordial relations with the Local Presidents of the unions that infected two large companies for which I was the CEO. They were usually nice and polite with me, but there was never any confusion on their part or mine over the evident fact that their goals were different from those of the company. They had no interest in productivity improvements and accepted no responsibility for the consequences. Their interest was only the preservation and increase of the pay and benefits of existing employees and in resisting any introduction of new blood that migh inn any way threated the job security of their members - no matter how much change was required of the company overasll to sustain its economic position. I never had the luxury of separating these things. In the end these unions collapsed losing all their jobs.
