Where the republicans have it wrong
today on the Mitt Romney and Friends Super Fishy Political Happy Hour Show("the debates"), i was horrified to hear that the Federal government is about to implement a national "Right To Work" program.
please give me a chance to try to defuse this bomb, which the Republican candidates seem to know nothing about.
the state's "Right To Work" program gives businesses the ability to fire employees for ANY reason at ANY time, ..that's all you need to know.
this program is being served up as something that hurts unions.
this program is being served up as something that is good because California IS NOT a "Right To Work" state, and has employment problems.
please do some research and look up the truth, ..which is..
i don't know how this law effects unions and i don't care ...and neither should you.
the left-wing is trying to ride hatred for unions , into complete business freedom for the private sector.
California USED TO BE a "Right To Work" state.
they changed the name to "At Will" work state , for propaganda reasons, so it's harder to trace California's problems to ths policy,
..and because Messikin people were suing the state because they believed they had a "Right To Work".
if you want to see you job turn into a temporary position, then support a Federal "Right To Work" program.
PLEASE HEED THIS WARNING!
a long time ago the Democrats came to California, ..the state where much of the manufacturing was taking place, and everyone was making good money,
they said "vote for us" , "we're going to place strict regulations on business, they can no longer ask you if you plan to become pregnant, they can no longer ask you if you're black ...blah blah blah"
the people liked the sound of this crap and allowed them to get involved with everything.
one day, silently, 20 years ago? , they passed this "Right To Work" crap.
NOW employers fire you for any reason they want.
they CAN fire you for becoming pregnant, they simply just don't tell you.
businesses in California now have a rotation of employees.
minimum wage is becoming the prevailing wage.
businesses offer raises, when raise time comes around, people are dropped.
RIGHT NOW, across the country, the average job lasts only 2 years.
don't take my word for it.
do your own reseach.
the only thing a California employers are required to do is abide by minimum wage rules and pay into Socialist programs.
if you look up "California labor attorneys" , you'll find that the only credible case you have against an employer is minimum wage and racial discrimination.
the Republicans AND the Democrats are going to fvxk everyone in this country with this Right To Work bill.
CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.
Change your vacuum pump oil now.
Test. Testing, 1,2,3.
Originally Posted by wolfstrike
As a business owner why would I want to fire a good worker that makes me money, unless of course he/she is costing more then I get from their labor.
As to getting pregnant, if you decide to have a child, stay home and take care of it, why do people are so proud to have children, and then have a stranger take care of it, so they can work and make money to pay for the same child care......sorry but this has never made any sense. If you cant afford to stay home and take care of your child, dont have one, and please dont ask me to pay taxes for such child care.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
So, remind me why it is that the Right to Work states are in better shape economically than union states, of course, except those RTW states that are taxed to oblivion like Cali? Cali's problems aren't due to RTW status or "At Will" Status, it's governments burdens on the private sector and out of control public sector waste, IMO.
If you have to have a union to feel secure in your job, probably should look inward rather than place blame outwardly...
A job is not an entitlement, it's a mutually beneficial relationship between employer and employee. If the empolyer doesn't gain a benefit by having you work hard for a fair wage and benefits, then why should he have to keep you around, or if you are unhappy or underpaid, why should you stay and give him your great work ethic?
Right-to-work States Outperform,1997-2007
Productivity Growth Job Growth Economic Growth
Right-to-work 18.6% 17.6% 41.6%
Union shop 17.3% 8.9% 33.5%
Sources: GDP by state from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and state employment from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The ten most heavily unionized states saw 29.2% job growth and a 45.3% increase in GDP. The ten states with the lowest union concentration had substantially better economic performance: a 36% increase in private sector jobs and a 69.9% increase in GDP.
States that have allowed this freedom experienced tremendous growth as business move their operations to states that promote a friendly business environment.
Right to work states have had more than double the population growth of union shop states since 1990. The right to work states saw, on average, a 65.5% increase in GDP over the 16 year period while states with union shops laws only experienced an average of a 45% increase. The wages of workers in right to work states rose an average of 23% in right to work states while in union shop states average wages only rose 15%.
Research that EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act-what a misnomer) is bad for business
Top line summary of the research: Studies have found that:
1) Real GDP was depressed by about $3.5 trillion dollars from 1947 to 2000 due to unions. If you added the decrease in real wages paid to employees, the total impact rises to more than $50 trillion.
2) From 2001 to 2006, the economies of states where unionizing is more difficult outperformed more than union-friendly states in total economic growth, job growth, gross state product, and per-capita disposable income.
* One study found that union-produced “deadweight” loss to the US economy of 0.91% of GDP in 1980 and 0.34% of GDP in 2000 (noting that the effect on GDP declined as union membership declined).
* The study also found a shortfall in real GDP of about $3.5 trillion dollars from 1947 to 2000 due to unions. If you added the decrease in real wages paid to employees as a result of unions to the impact on the country’s GDP, the total impact of unions for the period 1947 to 2000 exceeded $50 trillion.
* The Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy – using data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis – compared union-heavy Michigan to less unionized states with right-to-work laws. The report found that:
- Michigans average annual growth in real gross state product (the market value of all goods and services produced in a state) was only 1.8 percent from 1977 to 1999. Right-to-work states, with much lower levels of unionization, saw their real gross state product growth rate almost double Michigans rate at 3.4 percent.
- Michigans average annual employment growth was only 1.5 percent from 1970 to 2000, whereas right-to-work states grew by 2.9 percent.
- Michigans manufacturing growth actually declined during this time period by 0.3 percent whereas right-to-work states saw an increase in manufacturing job growth by 1.5 percent.
- The overall poverty rate for right-to-work states dropped by 6.7 percent from 1969 to 2000, while Michigans poverty rate increased by 0.6 percent.
Hmmhh, makes you wonder, huh?
I believe Texas is a RIGHT to Work state. It does mean an employee can be fired for any reason. It also means an employee can quit for any reason.
Would really like to see what the figures would be without unions getting bailed out by Obama buying their votes ?????
Originally Posted by WebCTRL