Indiana Is Now Rust Belt's First Right-to-Work State
| Percentage Change, 2000 to 2010 | Right-to-Work States | Forced Union States |
|---|---|---|
| Private Employment | 10.30% | 1.90% |
| Private Sector Compensation | 11.10% | 0.70% |
| Real GDP per Capita | 9.70% | 7.89% |
Source: BEA
USA Today -- "Indiana's controversial right-to-work bill became Indiana's law Wednesday. The state Senate voted 28-22 Wednesday to pass the labor union bill as thousands of protesters packed Statehouse hallways shouting their disapproval. Thousands more lined up outside waiting to get in. Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the "right to work" bill shortly thereafter without ceremony, making Indiana the 23rd state in the nation with the law.
Sen. Carlin Yoder, the Middlebury Republican who is the chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said for him "this bill is all about jobs." Unions, he said, will thrive despite it. And he said he apologized for all the "issues" lawmakers had to struggle with on it, an apparent reference to the constant protests against the bill. "But the fact is this bill is worth it for Hoosiers who desperately need jobs," he said.
Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, disputed that, saying "there is no empirical evidence … that right to work creates one job." "It's a downward spiral to lower wages and fewer benefits," she said. "Was it worth it?" she repeatedly asked, saying they had pushed a divisive bill based on "myth and anecdote" and not fact."
MP: Some facts appear in the table above, showing the differences in some key economic variables between right-to-work states and forced unionism states in the ten-year period between 2000 and 2010 based on BEA data available here. Here's a summary:
1. Private employment in right-to-work states grew by 10% between 2000 and 2010, or more than five times the 1.9% private job growth in forced union states.
2. In the period between 2000 and 2007 before the recession started, almost 8 million jobs were created in right-to-work states compared to fewer than 6 million new jobs in forced union states, even though forced union states outnumber right-to-work states 28 to 22 and have populations and labor forces that are 65% greater than right-to-work states.
3. Total private sector compensation grew more than 11% in right-to-work states in the 2000s, compared to only 0.70% in forced union states.
4. Real per-capita GDP increased 9.7% between 2000 and 2010 in right-to-work states, compared to 7.89% in forced unionism states.
Myth and anecdote?
Myth and anecdote?
58 Comments:
Unions, Dems and the left-wing media are rushing out to remind us that Indiana passed RTW in 1957 only to see it repealed - but what is not being said is that that era had the highest ratio of union membership to total workforce but it still took eight years to overturn RTW.
We witnessed inadequate public discussion of the phenomenon of allowing a union organization (with no skin in the game) to dictate business practices and work rules. The resulting hinderance of workplace efficiency and increased product costs has raised consumer prices since the very inception of this socialistic attack on American exceptionalism.
The leftist press knows this but refused to discuss the issue and Governor Mitch Daniels only wanted to whitewash the truth by promoting the line that union jobs and wages were not going away. Indeed, Indiana needs more jobs and this is how we will get them.
Never mind pointing out that the employees' right to work without paying union dues is protected by the Constitution.
Good for Indiana.
This issue should always and ever be expressed as the right to choose to belong to a union or not. In the end, all the noise was from the unions, themselves, not the supposedly unhappy non-union workers.
Democrats no longer have a guaranteed clamp on union dues. As the union money dries up, Democrats will go broke.
If one can vote, if one can vote with your dollars, if one can vote with your feet…..then certainly one can vote with his/her human capital. Since 90% of the private sector is non-union, then 90% of human capital has voted non-union.
Everyone should be free to join or not join a union. Why do 45% of the people polled by Pew express a positive view of unions but only about 12% belong to one? Maybe they are not being given the chance to join one for some reason?
The favorability ratings for labor unions remain at nearly their lowest level in a quarter century with 45% expressing a positive view. Yet the public expresses similar opinions about business corporations -- 47% have a favorable impression -- and this rating is also near a historic low.
(Source: Pew Research February 17, 2011)
Walt G. wrote:
"Everyone should be free to join or not join a union. Why do 45% of the people polled by Pew express a positive view of unions but only about 12% belong to one? Maybe they are not being given the chance to join one for some reason?"
There's certainly nothing new in your statistics. People who want to work for a union have always had trouble getting a job in a union. Union jobs pay more for the same work--often for less work. As the song says, "Nice Work If You Can Get It." Incidentally, that song came out as a direct result of all the government jobs created by FDR. Those jobs paid well (for those days), made wages artificially high, and kept unemployment high for too long. Sounds like today, doesn't it? Nothing has changed except our attitudes toward unions. It's amazing that their thuggishness never seemed to matter to Americans. What finally brought them down is their greed.
"People who want to work for a union have always had trouble getting a job in a union."
Why? If half the people want something that is within the realm of what they can realistically do, why do only 12% do it? They can start their own union if they want one: it only takes two people to start. It seems to me either they are lying or there is something that is stopping them from doing it.
Private employment in right-to-work states grew by 10% between 2000 and 2010, or more than five times the 1.9% private job growth in forced union states.
===============================
If you have five jobs that pay $20 an hour is that better than 2 jobs that pay $100 an hour?
It's amazing that their thuggishness never seemed to matter to Americans.
=================================
I think history shows us there were plenty of thugs on both sides.
This strikes me as like measuring stock growth: it depends on when you start. This pendulum has swung both ways.
What hapens if we stop calling unions as a pejorative and simply regard them as labor corporations, like Mantech? Does that affect how we think they should be controlled?
I don't see any reason why people should not be free to associate: to form corporations or labor corporations as they wish. Nor do I see any reason one kind of corporation should have different rules from another: let them compete fairly.
The successful existence of even a few percent of unions has to keep other corporations looking over their shoulder, just as the police need only apprehend a few speeders to control traffic.
So, if only 10% of the working population is union, and they succeed in getting higher compensation, then the other 90% is at least partially free riders.
"People who want to work for a union have always had trouble getting a job in a union."
Why? If half the people want something that is within the realm of what they can realistically do, why do only 12% do it? They can start their own union if they want one: it only takes two people to start. It seems to me either they are lying or there is something that is stopping them from doing it.
================================
Where is te lie here? The fact is only 12% are in unions. Union employes get higher compensation (sometimes or usually). So, who would not want higher compensation (provided it did not put the employer out of business)?
If this was any other corporation, then your argument would be that there is a shortage because of government interfernce.
If you have five jobs that pay $20 an hour is that better than 2 jobs that pay $100 an hour?
Don't you mean to ask if five jobs that pay $20/hr are better than one job that pays $100/hr?
If you have five jobs that pay $20 an hour is that better than 2 jobs that pay $100 an hour?
==================================
Except that compensation went up 11% vs. .7%, so it's actually 10 jobs that pay $110 vs. 1 that pays $100
Walt G: "If half the people want something that is within the realm of what they can realistically do, why do only 12% do it?"
Having a positive view of unions does not imply that one wants to join a union. You know that.
Remember that the group of people who have a positive view of unions will likely include:
- non-working members of union households;
- retired workers who no longer belong to the union;
- government employees who manage union workers;
- highly paid professionals who may be sympathetic to unions but have no need themselves for collective bargaining;
- and many small business owners who would not otherwise be competitive with large firms which are unionized.
Why do you immediately through out the idea that workers are being prevented from forming unions?
ahh, there's the rub-
you should be free to join or not join a union.
but many union states do not have this. many can force you to join a union or pay them fees.
you should be free to hire or not hire union too. in many states, 51% of your workers can force you, the employer, to hire only those they permit.
if you want to see why unions are hated, that's why.
people talk about right to work states liek they are anti union, ut that's not so at all. they are just anti compulsion.
you can still form a union. people are still free to join. they just can't force you to join or force an employer to hire only union.
far from being some sort of anomaly, they are actually just upholding basic rights of association that are abrogated by tyrannical union laws in "closed shop" states.
"If you have five jobs that pay $20 an hour is that better than 2 jobs that pay $100 an hour?"
why is that question even relevant to this discussion?
both wages AND employment went up more in right to work states.
i think we can all agree that 110 jobs at $11 are better than 101 jobs at $10.
Jet Beagle: "Why do you immediately through out the idea that workers are being prevented from forming unions?"
Because I read over 100 NLRB random-sample case decisions from 1995 to 2005 and coded them to write my graduate thesis :)
I don't have a problem if people want to join a union, but the penalty for an illegal discharge for union organizing is laughable. After a three-year wait to be heard, a winning employee ULP case gets back pay minus any unemployment or earnings from other work and the employer has to post a piece of paper on a bulletin board in a conspicuous place that they violated the NLRA. That would be like me stealing your billfold and a judge deciding I have to give it back to you three years later and apologize for taking it as punishment AND I only have to give you back the money in your billfold you have not replaced.
morganovich,
Wages might be up, but we should measure total compensation. A lot of union jobs have health care, pensions and such that would not be counted in a typical wage comparison.
We also happen to live in a country where political clout often determines your fate. That is reality whether we like it or not. Unorgainized people do not have that clout because speaking as one does not receive much attention.
walt-
"private sector compensation" includes benefits.
"Unorgainized people do not have that clout because speaking as one does not receive much attention."
then why are they getting more and better jobs.
i think you have this backwards.
companies that run well grow and prosper and this drives higher productivity and compensation.
the "organized" folks disrupt this process and thus wind up with fewer jobs, less growth, and less wage gain.
they wind up cutting their own throats while the "unorganized" leave them in the dust.
look st the figures. it's pretty stark.
"If you have five jobs that pay $20 an hour is that better than 2 jobs that pay $100 an hour?" -- Hydra
Let's see, do starting workers at unionized automakers make more or less money than their non-unionized counterparts?:
... the $14 an hour is not something new employees will endure for a few years while their pay is gradually stepped up to full scale over a 3- to 5-year period, as has been the case in several previous "two-tiered" contracts. The "lower starting wage" is for all practical purposes a "permanently lower wage." ... These rules, which in essence amount to a current member protection racket, explain the wholly justified resentment cited earlier ... starting wages at Toyota in Georgetown, Kentucky are $18-$25 an hour. The UAW rules just outlined are why GM, Ford, and Chrysler newbies start making less, and will continue making less. The current administration in Washington is ultimately responsible for making the political decision to preserve the UAW's current member protection racket. -- NewsBusters
But wait, surely tenured union workers are being paid more than non-union workers, right?:
On Wednesday, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger predicted there would be no wage cuts as part of the union's concessions to GM and Chrysler. Gettelfinger argued Toyota's workers actually make $2-per-hour more than UAW workers, if you count bonuses. But ... but. ... Toyota did not go bankrupt. ... Toyota hasn't had to be rescued with $17.4 billion of taxpayer money. ... If Toyota can afford to pay its workers $2/hour more than UAW workers--perhaps because it doesn't have to build cars under the union's legalistic work rule system--that's great. It doesn't mean Gettelfinger's workers have a right to $28/hour if at that wage their employers can't stay in business without an ongoing multi-billion dollar subsidy. I'm sorry if this seems obvious. It's apparently not obvious enough. ... P.S.: So will promoters of greater unionization now boast that with unions, workers can earn $2/hour less? ... P.P.S.: The simplest solution would still seem to be to simply not give the Detroit companies more money. Let them keep the bailout funds they've gotten. Fine. A little gift. Beyond that, they have to work out amongst themselves--employers, union, creditors, bondholders, investors--how to survive. A car czar, or board of czars, increasingly looks mainly like a way to provide cover for ongoing subsidies, no? ... -- Mickey Kaus, Slate
Perhaps, the discrepancy can be explained by the cost of forced contributions to the Democrat Party.
Join the union, make less money!
"What hapens if we stop calling unions as a pejorative and simply regard them as labor corporations, like Mantech? Does that affect how we think they should be controlled?" -- Hydra
You really are lost. These are not "labor corporations" competitively bidding for a contract. Business owners cannot choose to do business with another "labor corporation" if they do not like the unions performance. Unions function more like the Mob running an extortion racket. They make a demand for above market compensation and if the business refuses to pay, they shut it down. And, yes, it is always a demand for above market compensation. Otherwise, why would unions exist?
No business owner is going to willingly choose to be put at a competitive disadvantage. So, all unions are instituted and maintained through force.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Because I read over 100 NLRB random-sample case decisions from 1995 to 2005 and coded them to write my graduate thesis" -- Walt
The NLRB should not even exist. What is its function, other than providing recourse to the use of government force to the benefit of the unions?
Here's an idea, instead of ganging up and trying to steal one that someone else has started, start your own business.
"What is its function, other than providing recourse to the use of government force to the benefit of the unions?"
To counterbalance corporate power at the legislative level through worker representation numbers. Twelve percent of the workforce can still drive a lot of $$ decisions down instead of up. Our government is and has been in a redistribution of wealth mode for a long, long time.
""What hapens if we stop calling unions as a pejorative and simply regard them as labor corporations, like Mantech? Does that affect how we think they should be controlled?" -- Hydra"
we have that.
it's called a "right to work" state.
there the union is just a bunch of guys who bargain collectively.
they lack the ability to force others to join or to hire only their workers, just like manpower.
unsurprisingly, stripped of those power, they perform terribly.
why would the best and brightest want a union contract based on tenure and dues paid? and why would employer seek to hire any but the best and brightest?
the unions rapidly fade into backwaters of mediocrity and workers benefit greatly from higher compensation and more plentiful jobs.
replacing the mafia with a free market tends to do that.
Walt,
Typical of one who seems union-favorable to mention the minor pay increases (which can be largely negated by union dues) without mentioning the huge costs of unions on business....like bigger h.r. staffs, more man power spent with regulators, specialized legal help, strikes and strike planning, pressure to hire full-time employees, etc...
Mike,
The business does not pay the cost. The customers pay.
"To counterbalance corporate power at the legislative level through worker representation numbers"
no walt. that would just be collective bargaining. to go the step further and include coercive powers on membership and hiring decision go far beyond that.
further, based on the numbers that Che gave us and the one's in mark's piece, then if that is their goal, they are doing a miserable job. they are the equivalent of an 18th century doctor purging you with mercury.
lower compensation and fewer jobs sure seems like the sort of representation i could do without.
walt-
"The business does not pay the cost. The customers pay."
nonsense.
you have a union shop. i have a non union one. the flexibility i posses lets me gain productivity faster, change more readily, and offer lower prices.
if i can sell more innovative products than you can at lower prices, you cannot pass that on to customers.
your profits shrink, you cannot reinvest as much, and i drive you out of business.
you watched this exact thing happen to GM from a front row seat.
i find it surprising that you would, in the wake of that, claim they could pass costs on to customers.
I have not decided if the right to work law is good or bad. Their are pro's and con's when it comes to unions. I would like to see companies pited against each other in the form of a ranking system. It could range from how socially responsible a company is to how they rate as far as the treatment of their workers to how good or how bad the benifits and pay rate are compared to other companies. How able a company or how unable a company is to pay certain wages and benifits. All of this would be voluntary of course. I am not a great fan of unions but I am not a great fan of many companies either.
Walt,
"The business does not pay the cost. The customers pay."
Wow. I don't mean to be rude, but that's one of the silliest things I've heard in a while. Even if it were true (as in the case of federal taxes) you think it would be "fair" in your world of "fairness" to make every consumer pay for higher, non-competitive wages? We are the non-union 88% and we demand lower prices!
Crazy talk.
James,
Start a business and you'll decide which side makes more sense quickly....and you will despise any busy-body who thinks they can decide if your business is "socially responsible"...to who? The sooner people realize that biz it what it is and not some charity org, the better.
Mike,
No agenda here. All costs are passed through to the customer whether that is the consumer, the stockholder, or the workers, and we must not forget that.
I don't support everything unions do--just their right to exist.
Union employes get higher compensation (sometimes or usually).
Well that's a bullshit assumption.
When I was a teen, I worked for Stop and Shop. Being part of the union was a condition of employment. I made minimum wage (which in MA at the time was $8/hr). After union dues, I was making less than $4/hr. When I brought this up to the union, I was told I was wrong. My math was wrong and that I am actually making more. Anyway, I was told, I should be grateful for the opportunity to work in support of all the grocers in the nation.
I quit that very day and took a job as a pizza delivery guy. The salary was the same but my net was a lot higher.
I've done significantly better in the private sector than I ever did working for a union.
Do unions serve a purpose? Of course they do. But joining one should never be a condition of employment. That's a medieval practice (literally). While we're at it, let's require all teachers to join a Christian church before they can teach.
One of the fundamental rights Americans have is the freedom to associate with whomever one wishes. To force association is not only grossly unconstitutional, but deeply amoral.
walt-
"the customer whether that is the consumer, the stockholder, or the workers, and we must not forget that. "
that is a terrible framing. shareholders are not "the customer".
what's more you say nothing about overall costs.
unions wind up crippling most of the industries they take over.
look at airlines, autos, the posy office, aerospace, name it. look st public schools.
they inhibit innovation and productivity by imposing overly restrictive labor rules, policies, and restrictions on hiring and firing.
that's not just a cost, it's a deadweight loss, and it affects everyone.
they also rarely attract the best and brightest.
the best and brightest want to get paid on ability, not tenure.
the union is largely an outmoded idea that now inflict harm on its members (who pay for the privilege of reducing jobs and getting paid less) and on the companies they inflict productivity and competitiveness losses on.
"One of the fundamental rights Americans have is the freedom to associate with whomever one wishes. To force association is not only grossly unconstitutional, but deeply amoral."
amen brother. and this is equally true in terms of a closed shop forcing an employer to hire only union employees.
how in hell is that not a monstrous abrogation of the employer's rights?
if hershey's votes that you could only eat their chocolate from now on, you'd call that totalitarian.
amazing that supporters of unions feel it's ok when they do it.
if hershey's votes that you could only eat their chocolate from now on, you'd call that totalitarian.
amazing that supporters of unions feel it's ok when they do it.
It's the whole "fight fire with fire" sort of deal. Companies "oppress" workers so it's ok to bind them with restrictive rules.
It's the same argument you hear nowadays: The 1% stole this money from me (or earned it dishonestly) so I can steal it from them.
In my opinion, the "ends justify the means" mindset is extremely dangerous. I say: let the means justify the ends.
If you have five jobs that pay $20 an hour is that better than 2 jobs that pay $100 an hour?
What are the jobs producing?
morganovich,
Ok. Stakeholders is a much better term than customer. My point is that a lot of people are involved in success or failure and pay one way or another than just the end consumer.
Your points are well-taken. We have to get better at what we do.
Walt,
To add to what Morganovich said... Not only are stakeeholders not customers, they're owners (passing higher costs to business owners is exactly what I said) given a choice, which company would you invest in? Workers aren't necessarily customers either - and the increased costs are supposed to benefit them, right? So how are they paying the costs?
In no way would I say that unions should be "outlawed", but there is no reason why employees can't reasonably organize without being a giant weight around the neck of business. The costs we're talking about can't be passed on to anybody in a competitive open market without a poor result.
"In my opinion, the "ends justify the means" mindset is extremely dangerous. I say: let the means justify the ends."
i'd put it a little differently:
if you get the means right, the ends take care of themselves.
As always, Morganovich, you take my club of unrefined philosophy and turn it into a shining bar of golden wisdom.
Jon,
Don't sell yourself short. Your thoughts are right on the money, IMO.
They have chosen damnation.
May it be repealed swiftly.
Unions, Dems and the left-wing media are rushing out to remind us that Indiana passed RTW in 1957 only to see it repealed
Ohio rightfully and justly booted the person that tried it one year later. Thankfully this time around, Ohio's peer in pattern-legislation got neutered before he could go that far.
If you want a true RTW law, it will respect yes-votes as much as it will respect no-votes. The current legislation does not do this, for it does not make penalties or enforcement against business strong enough. It does not make things transparent enough to unmask who is providing intimidation advice to the employer. If you want a good RTW law, it will be a law that, in practice, does not have any of the defects that current RTW implementations all have.
Yes, there are plenty of folks trying to get Ohio to follow Indiana off the cliff as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
replacing the mafia with a free market tends to do that.
Not if it is replaced by a competing mafia in the business world.
Walt G: "Because I read over 100 NLRB random-sample case decisions from 1995 to 2005 and coded them to write my graduate thesis :) "
Do you really believe that your sampling of 100 cases involving organizing attempts is any evidence whatsoever about why 33% of the nation which claims to see unions favorably but has chosen not to organize? What was your control group, Walt? Did you do research on the hundred million workers who have chosen not to even attempt organizing? Do you understand that your sample is obviously biased and should not be used for projecting attitudes on the general population?
Unions are death to general economic well-being and have been barriers to innovation. When individuals are forced to justify their employment, we'll all be much better off.
Jet Beagle,
The sample was pulled using a random number generator in Excel and then matched to case numbers on the NLRB Website. The methodology was approved by my thesis advisor.
Try it out yourself. Pull 10 cases at random and see what you think.
walt-
i think you are running into thought and reality, not somehting sinister.
if 50% of americans say they ought to lose weight, maybe only 10% will do something about it.
they take a look at what's involved and decide not to.
people may favor union in general, but when they look at the actual cost/benefit for themselves, they decide they are unattractive.
there is nothing contradictory about being pro union but not wanting to join one.
i'm pro soccer, but don't want to join a team.
seth-
as ever, your nonsense knows no bounds.
"Not if it is replaced by a competing mafia in the business world."
is utterly meaningless. until a business can force you to work for them or to buy their products, there is no even remote equivalent.
businesses operate on CONSUSUAL transactions.
unions do not.
if a company could treat its customers like a union can treat a company, coke could vote that you could only buy their soda and ban you from even drinking pepsi without your consent.
i marvel at how totally divorced from reality you are.
it's absolutely stunning.
Walt G,
I don't have to look at NLRB casebook files to know that the cases are not representative of the millions of Americans who say that they view unions favorably. Do you not understand that the universe you sampled from is biased from the start?
I realize that the goal of your re4search was probably not to confirm that the general public at large was prevented from unionizing. But you're the one who has offerred the results of your research as support. And I'm the one telling you that your sample is not representative of the public at large.
Walt,
I also support the freedom of workers to form associations. Where we likely differ is that I support the freedom of employers to hire and fire whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish to do so. I understand that your desired freedom is currently the law and my desired freedom is not. But that's exactly why I oppose most union-related laws: because those laws take away the freedom of business owners.
Jet Beagle,
I've worked more than one job most of my life. I have four contracts I am working on now: GM/UAW, college instructor, curriculum writer, and program coordinator. Only one of these contracts is a union contract. I do prefer the clear expectations that are spelled out in most of my contracts whether it is for my GM job or my non-union jobs. I find if both sides know what is expected from them a lot of problems are avoided.
I don't always agree with everything unions do, but I believe they serve a purpose in large organizations and in our political system to see that workers are not forgotten. Capitalism has their representation. Labor needs their representation, too.
People who don't want to be in unions should not have to join one: ever. At the same time, employees who don't want to be in unions should not get a free ride in unionized shops. If the non-unionized want representation and the bargained benefits the available union provides, they should have to pay for them. I am a huge believer that the NLRA needs to be changed for the 21st century because the current adversarial roles are not possible if unions want to survive.
love all your data-driven posts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
is utterly meaningless. until a business can force you to work for them or to buy their products, there is no even remote equivalent.
Apparently you keep on forgetting the Morton's Fork - where all choices are equally bad, and there are no choices that are any better. Force can be constructed logically from that situation.
if a company could treat its customers like a union can treat a company, coke could vote that you could only buy their soda and ban you from even drinking pepsi without your consent.
I don't think you thought that one through.
Social media datamining can already give businesses that ability to do just that thing.
Replace the purchasing decision with a labor relations decision. Yet again, that can happen thanks to RTW's insufficient protections given to yes-voters compared to no-voters.
But that's exactly why I oppose most union-related laws: because those laws take away the freedom of business owners.
The freedom to intimidate, and to seek advice on how to do so without disclosure(while unions have to disclose)?
Those freedoms that businesses seek come at the cost of lack of freedom for those who are not businesses.
Unions are death to general economic well-being and have been barriers to innovation
While businesses bring death to general economic well-being if their ransom isn't paid.
Did you do research on the hundred million workers who have chosen not to even attempt organizing?
It's easy to scare people into not organizing when a business can hire hit-team law firms to intimidate or fire yes-voters under some obscure technicality. With 96% success, nonetheless.
Shame there has been no Eliot Ness to rein in the mafia-like intimidation of unionbusters.
"Shame there has been no Eliot Ness to rein in the mafia-like intimidation of unionbusters."
Aren't you currently seeking a position? There's your opportunity! Go for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home