Polling data out that shows 54% of Ohioans would support making Ohio a right-to-work state.  Referendum on the November ballot a strong possibility.

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/14/poll-ohioans-support-right-to-work/

Not this Ohioan........

 

Calling these laws "right to work" is like labeling people that are "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion".  It's an effective play on words, no doubt, but let's be realistic here..... no state has EVER outright denied anybody the "right to work"

I'm a supporter of right-to-work laws but still not a fan of the right-to-work label.  For one thing, there is no right to work the way there is a right to free speech or free assembly.  No one has the obligation to give you a job.

 

I haven't heard any quick and easy phraseology that works, though, so I keep my objections muted.  "Closed shop ban" is as close as I've been able to come up with.

Not a fan of unions or the forcing of folks to join an organized movement. But I would hardly call it a "right to work" amendment.

For one thing, there is no right to work the way there is a right to free speech or free assembly.  No one has the obligation to give you a job.

 

Of course not.  My point was that it is not like citizens have to apply for work visas or anything akin to that.  Your 'right to work' (wherever you can find a job you are qualified for) has never been abridged.

 

It's a conundrum because there really is no middle ground.  No matter what you call the law, its purpose is to effectively destroy the bargaining power of unions in the long term and, in the short term, it allows free-loaders to reap the benefit of collective bargaining without paying union dues.

 

And, as Gramarye seems to touch on in his response, right to work laws have some negative consequences for free market principles.  The employer's right to exclude should, except in limited circumstances, override any governmental action.

 

As far as evidence for the whole premise that right to work laws lead to manufacturing booms and better lives for blue collar workers, I would simply point to the last state to enact a right to work law, Oklahoma, and the current state of its manufacturing economy.  Companies are still leaving, manufacturing is still down, unemployment is up, and wages have generally decreased.  These laws work much better when they are more unique to your state and usually only have a short term benefit.  The more they become widespread, even that short term benefit will disappear.

As far as evidence for the whole premise that right to work laws lead to manufacturing booms and better lives for blue collar workers, I would simply point to the last state to enact a right to work law, Oklahoma, and the current state of its manufacturing economy.  Companies are still leaving, manufacturing is still down, unemployment is up, and wages have generally decreased. 

 

I think that's short sighted to look at one single state with a recent perspective.  Take a look at the last decade and the new auto plants and production which have chosen to locate in Mississippi and Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, North & South Carolinas.... BMW, Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Hyundai....  Boeing built a new plant in South Carolina....  add up all the the support and technology firms which are located nearby these facilities....  labor is cheaper there, and those states are gaining population and Ohio and other Midwest (union) states are losing.  We sit around & cheer just because our plants aren't actually closing, but not because some new manufacturing actually opened. 

 

^Allow me to respond simply by using data from the states you glorified as compared to Ohio.  Not saying there is any connection to 'right to work'.... but since you brought it up....

 

STATE - UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (Dec. 2011) - Median Income

 

Mississippi* - 10.4% - $33k

 

North Carolina - 9.9% - $37k

 

South Carolina - 9.5% - $37k

 

Kentucky - 9.1% - $38k

 

Alabama - 8.1% - $38k

 

Ohio - 8.1% - $40k

 

Texas* - 7.8% - $39k

 

*Texas has over half a million workers employed at or below minimum wage

*Mississippi tied with Texas for highest percentage of minimum wage jobs

 

 

 

I wouldn't tie the union movement and manufacturing together too closely anymore.  There's obviously a great deal of history there, but unions have spread well beyond the manufacturing sector (and they'd have been foolish to do anything else), while also declining overall.

 

Realistically, I don't know of anything that would bring a great deal of manufacturing employment back to this country, union or otherwise.  Manufacturing activity is another matter (and, indeed, manufacturing output has risen steadily in America even as employment in the sector has declined).  Technological advances have made it possible to run a pretty sizable factory with a lean staff.

 

I used to think that something truly dramatic, like a civil war in China, would bring a lot of it back here, but I think it would just spur further and faster automation technology advancements.

 

Retail, transportation, landscaping, construction, and healthcare jobs are harder to outsource (or automate, though retail is working on that).  Education, for the moment, is harder to outsource or automate as well.

^Allow me to respond simply by using data from the states you glorified as compared to Ohio.  Not saying there is any connection to 'right to work'.... but since you brought it up....

 

STATE - UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (Dec. 2011) - Median Income

 

Those stats are worthless - unemployment rate is comprised of dozens of sectors, not just manufacturing.  Quote how much employment increased in manufacturing sectors, technology/engineering/science over the last ten years in those states vs midwest states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.  That's what matters.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the "right-to-work" amendment, but I do have an issue with the freeloader problem that Hts121 mentioned above.

 

Basically the 50 states are racing each other to the bottom, with many Southern states off to a fast start.  This is not a good thing in a country where corporations already have wrestled away far too much control from citizens/employees.

One person's race to the bottom is another person's race to the top.

 

As for the freeloader issue: I don't think it's a given that all nonunion employees will automatically be entitled to any benefits obtained by the union from the employer, and it's certainly not true that nonunion employees would be entitled to the same benefits provided by the union to its own members (such as the UAW's prepaid legal services plan for its members, or group/collective purchasing for any number of products and services).

^^^Not really.  For one, see Gramarye's post immediately below mine.  There are several reasons why some of those states saw increases in manufacturing.  'Right to work' laws were only one factor.  This type of thinking also ignores the bigger and more long-term consequences of effectively removing any real threat of meaningful collective bargaining.

 

I just can't believe that conservatives are in favor of telling an employer what type of shop they are going to run.  If the employer wants to deal with one bargaining representative and have one contract for all of his employees, why should anyone be able to tell him otherwise?  Why are we going to give employees rights in his workplace that don't affect health and safety?  Those really aren't my concerns when looking at this issue, but the fact they are completely ignored by the talking heads seems more than a bit hypocritical.....

One major caveat about discussing this: the Quinnipiac Poll queried registered Ohio voters, not likely voters. If this were on the ballot like SB5, and likely voters were polled, the numbers would look very different. The same numbers were trotted out by Qunnipiac in the weeks before the SB5 vote, but no one took them seriously because they polled registered, not likely, voters. Bad methodology equals no news here.

All this talk of "race to the bottom" and estimates of how this is going to undermine everyone's pay is unfounded.  The southern states have a cheaper cost of living - everything is cheaper there, especially housing, and manufacturing wages are accordingly cheaper.

 

Look at the impact that Honda of America has had here in Ohio.  Over 20 yrs ago they built the assembly plant outside Marysville, now they have engine & transmission plants nearby, motorcycle & ATV plants....  purchasing, engineering, accounting....  all non-union, but good paying, stable jobs.  Add in several thousand more jobs which support those facilities located nearby, producing parts, tool & die shops....  union manufacturing is on it's way out.  If GM & Chrysler hadn't been bailed out, the UAW would have gone under completely.  States passing right to work laws are simply leveling the playing field.  Without it, they'll never compete due to wage restrictions and you'll see massive tax incentives being offered to attract & retain manufacturing.

And if union manufacturingg dies out as you hope it does, just wait and see what happens to the wages and benefits in those non-union jobs.  Wait until you see the impact on other working conditions not directly related to wages and benefits. 

One person's race to the bottom is another person's race to the top.

 

The workers get pushed into the race for the bottom, while employers continue racing to the top.  :wink:

I just can't believe that conservatives are in favor of telling an employer what type of shop they are going to run.  If the employer wants to deal with one bargaining representative and have one contract for all of his employees, why should anyone be able to tell him otherwise?

 

An employer could still choose to do so, AFAIK.  At most law firms, for example, all entry-level associates at least begin at identical pay and benefits, even though there's no union contract there.  At some law firms (including some of the most elite firms in NYC), pay and benefits are lockstep until partnership.

^I worked in a union manufacturing facility while interning in college.  We had final assembly machines which required periodic alignment to maintain quality control.  The alignment could be done by anyone with a tape measure and a 9/16" wrench.  My job was to tag these assembly machines which were out of alignment, stop the production, then wait for a union millwright to come and make the adjustment.  The worker who's station was tagged went on break usually for an hour or two, sometimes more, until the millwright made the adjustment, then assembly resumed. 

 

Add up the wasted time of the assembly operator, the wasted time of the millwright who performed a task so simple anyone could do it, the lost production of the idle equipment multiplied by hundreds of assembly machines on 3 shifts and you're quickly at tens of thousands of dollars wasted because of some stupid union work rule.

 

Anyone who's ever worked in a union plan could write a book filled with so many wasted hours and worthless tasks because of these union work rules.  Talk about a race to the bottom.  I have friends & family that work for Honda and they cross-train their people to perform a variety of tasks including assembly and maintenance.  Everyone is responsible for the end product quality and morale is much better.  At the plant I worked at, it was very common for the assembly worker to screw up the alignment of his machine, just so he could go sleep on break for 2-3 hours and still get paid while the machine was down waiting for a millwright to come realign it.

All this talk of "race to the bottom" and estimates of how this is going to undermine everyone's pay is unfounded.

 

Is it really unfounded?  If it were, than what's the point?  This whole thing is about lowering wages and benefits and undermining the power the employees have.

 

The southern states have a cheaper cost of living - everything is cheaper there, especially housing, and manufacturing wages are accordingly cheaper.

 

I think this is a generalization that is sometimes true, though not always anymore depending on specific locales.  I do see your point, however.

^^And we could have an endless back and forth using examples of things that have gone wrong in the absence of a union.  Safety risks the employees have been exposed to unreasonably and so on.  It's pointless because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in our current labor LAW which requires any non-sensical time or resource wasting as you describe above.  You are cherry-picking an example of some NEGOTIATED quirk which is inevitably more complex than some lazy worker wanting to create a 2-3 hour window for himself to sleep.

 

What we are talking about is the LAW.  More specifically, we are talking about creating some 'right' here in Ohio that would restrict the rights of unions and, in many ways, employers.  If you want to explain how the current laws require a union millright to do this or that, please do.  Otherwise, you are just complaining about the details of one singular negotiated collective bargaining agreement.  Whether it is just from not understanding the distinction, regurgitation of anti-union rhetoric, or an intentional attempt to mislead, it distorts the conversation.

 

I can do the same if that's the shape the debate will take.  For instance, the City of Cleveland had 3 fire deaths last year.  That is an all-time low on record and we can certainly thank Local 93's tireless efforts to keep the equipment upgraded, the trucks adequately staffed, and the stations open.  If the City had its way, the response times would be unacceptable and the suppression efforts would be greatly hampered.  You don't hear about that though, do you?  All you hear about with regard to CFD is how 3-4 guys gamed the system (not illegally, btw) and that is somehow the union's fault, not the fault of management which had refused to upgrade the time-keeping system as the union had been suggesting for some time now.

 

See how easy cherry-picking is?

Anyone who's ever worked in a union plan could write a book filled with so many wasted hours and worthless tasks because of these union work rules.

 

Sorry, but as a former union member, I would not be able to write a book about wasted hours and union work rules. I could, however, write a book about a whole range of workplaces: the inefficiencies and bloat and stupidity of unions; the effectiveness, cooperation and protection of other unions; the utter humiliation and unfairness I was subjected to by employers in non-union shops; and the and the supportive benevolence I enjoyed at other non-union shops. In my experience, what gives rise to union shops is more than pay issues. More often, it is working conditions and unfairness that finally propel workers toward a union. With a union, or without one, the key is to treat workers right.

Anyone who's ever worked in a union plan could write a book filled with so many wasted hours and worthless tasks because of these union work rules.

 

Sorry, but as a former union member, I would not be able to write a book about wasted hours and union work rules. I could, however, write a book about a whole range of workplaces: the inefficiencies and bloat and stupidity of unions; the effectiveness, cooperation and protection of other unions; the utter humiliation and unfairness I was subjected to by employers in non-union shops; and the and the supportive benevolence I enjoyed at other non-union shops. In my experience, what gives rise to union shops is more than pay issues. More often, it is working conditions and unfairness that finally propel workers toward a union. With a union, or without one, the key is to treat workers right.

 

My labor law course in law school had a brief section on modern labor history and current events in unionizing campaigns nationwide, and this was generally the rule as well.  It almost always was more than complaints about pay driving a unionization vote.  Quite often, it was intensely personal feelings towards particular people in management, and the sense that a unionizing vote was in some sense "sticking it to the Man," with the Man actually being a particular person or group of people in the company.

 

Short version: if you're an executive want to avoid a union vote among your rank and file, don't hire jackasses to manage them (and try not to be a jackass yourself).

^^And we could have an endless back and forth using examples of things that have gone wrong in the absence of a union.  Safety risks the employees have been exposed to unreasonably and so on. 

 

Call it cherry picking if you like, but it's reality.  And we already have OSHA to investigate any workplace injuries, accidents, deaths or complaints.  They have jurisdiction over pretty much any worksite, private or public, and plenty of regulations on the books to keep workers safe. 

 

This comes down to simple free market economics.  Companies look at locating a manufacturing facility in terms of proximity to suppliers, proximity to customers, access to transportation, local regulations and cost of labor.  They are going to seek out the best overall deal.  And they are always re-evaluating that deal.  That might be Ohio or Indiana, or Alabama or Mississippi, or Brazil or Mexico.  I'd like to see the jobs stay here in the midwest and we need to be competitive in order to do that.

My dad always says that most companies that have a union probably deserve one (or deserved one when the union was formed). If business/managers treated people right you would never see union organization.

^^If it's really about free market economics and not some thinly veiled attempt to simply get rid of unions for purely political reasons, then why not let the employers decide?  Why create this 'right' for the employee that the employer/shop has to comply with whether they like it or not?  Doesn't sound too 'free market' to me....

 

And I must say I am suprised that you, of all people on this board, cited a government agency (OSHA) as being capable of adequately regulating workplace safety.  How convenient it is to be able to deride government regulation when you don't like and then glorify it when it fits your argument.  OSHA neither has the time nor resources to act as anything other than a reactionary agency (i.e. the guy's arm has already been chopped off) and, in all honesty, the work done by unions limits its necessity.  So, if I have this right, you want a...... wait for it...... MASSIVE EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT (clutch your pearls, MTS) in the workplace as opposed to private parties working towards private resolution and private agreement.  Interesting.

 

You didn't respond to my request for clarification, btw.  How do your complaints about lack of efficiency (or whatever) have ANYTHING to do with "right to work (for less)" laws?  Please explain..... if you can.

I just can't believe that conservatives are in favor of telling an employer what type of shop they are going to run.  If the employer wants to deal with one bargaining representative and have one contract for all of his employees, why should anyone be able to tell him otherwise?

 

An employer could still choose to do so, AFAIK.  At most law firms, for example, all entry-level associates at least begin at identical pay and benefits, even though there's no union contract there.  At some law firms (including some of the most elite firms in NYC), pay and benefits are lockstep until partnership.

 

This has nothing to do with a "single bargaining representative."  There's not any "bargaining" involved at major law firms. 

My dad always says that most companies that have a union probably deserve one (or deserved one when the union was formed). If business/managers treated people right you would never see union organization.

Excellent point. Our place just got a union, and it was exactly for this reason. I happily joined.

I don't see the benefit of forcing employees to join a union, forcing them to slash their salaries for virtually nothing. This isn't a hundred years ago, and rules like that do not make Ohio particularly attractive to businesses and therefore population.

 

Right-to-work just make sense in today's world.

You are acting under the presumption that joining a union results in a slashed salary.  It is also a false presumption that union benefits are limited to wages.  The phrase 'terms and conditions of employment' applies to much more than wages

In recent years, globalization and the shape of the world's economy have pushed American companies — manufacturers and service providers alike — to look overseas for cheap labor. But some of these same trends may now be pushing employers to take another look at the U.S. "There's a pendulum that swings all the time," Sirkin says. "And now it is swinging back."

 

The rising cost of labor in China — wages in the thriving coastal regions are rising at a 15 percent clip — and the rising strength of China's currency, the renminbi, are combining to make Chinese-produced goods more expensive. Meanwhile, falling wages in the United States--thanks to high unemployment, weakened unions, and the continued growth of manufacturing in lower-cost states in the south--have helped make U.S. labor more competitive.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-obama-touts-onshoring-made-america-back-221759270.html

 

I guess Obama is OK with weakened unions now that it's bringing manufacturing jobs back

What does Obama have to do with this thread?  Even still, your point is not well taken

I forgot one other thing that may well bring some manufacturing back to America (while also keeping a great deal more in Asia): rising transportation costs.  As transportation costs increase as a share of the price of bringing a widget to market and the costs of labor decline as a share of that widget (whether in America or Asia), manufacturing closer to the ultimate destination of the project becomes increasingly competitive, on the margin.

 

Right now, of course, we're doing other things with transportation cost efficiency, which are also good: notably, an increasing reliance on freight rail, which is the most efficient overland form of transport for almost all solid goods.  That and other upgrades to our transportation infrastructure (e.g., modern intermodal freight hubs) will allow us to continue manufacturing at a distance for some time yet.  Yet we're likely to get to a point where even the best supply chain managers, even those working for the companies with the most leverage over their logistics providers, will find it cost-competitive to move some production back to the USA.

 

The flip side of this is that this applies to American exports, too--it will become even more cost-effective to locate production facilities in China to supply the Chinese market rather than export goods made in the USA to China or anywhere else.

How is joining a union "forcing" someone to slash their salaries for virtually nothing? That never was the case when I worked for a company that had a union, in fact I got some nice raises that were negotiated by my union, got more time off, etc.

 

Right-to-work makes sense in today's world if you want the benefits of a union w/out having to pay the dues..........

My dad always says that most companies that have a union probably deserve one (or deserved one when the union was formed). If business/managers treated people right you would never see union organization.

 

That's pretty much my view, and I've worked in management in both union and non-union places.  Places where the decision makers are offsite are particularly likely to "need" a union.  Hell, sometimes the on-site managers can use it as an excuse to treat people right.

 

I'm a conservative that has no use for the Democratic Party, so this view isn't in line with the "party line".  But I do think a secret ballot is absolutely essential, so "card check" is a horrible idea.  I also think you need strict bans on using union money for political advocacy, and it needs to be just as easy to decertify a union as to certify one, and vice versa.

I agree about card check and the need for secret ballots.

 

As for using union money for political purposes, that should be an issue for the members of the union internally once the union is certified; I have serious problems with any legislative restraints on such spending.  I no more support a ban on union political activity than on corporate political activity (indeed, the two are essentially legally indistinguishable).  Corporations are, in the abstract, associations of owners of capital; unions are associations of owners of labor.  That conceptual distinction is meaningless under the First Amendment and meaningless under most laws other than the enabling laws and resulting regulations of the Department of Labor itself.

 

The one practical distinction is that it is often much easier for a dissatisfied shareholder to exit the arrangement than it is for a union member--a shareholder can generally sell his shares with less disruption to his life than a union member who chooses to leave his job due to dissatisfaction with his union's political spending.  However, it isn't always so easy even in the corporate context, because most corporations out there are not publicly traded, and minority shareholders in closely held corporations can't always get out on a dime, either.

I was going to say what I think Gramarye sort of hinted at...... wouldn't a ban on using union funds for political advocacy be in violation of the Citizens United decision?

At the very least, bans on any expenditures to facilitate or disseminate union political speech would be.

 

The distinction that advocates of restraining mandatory contributions for political activities make is that they're proposing restrictions on where unions can get money from, not what they can spend it on.  I'm not sure how well that holds up.  No other shareholders, partners, members, donors, etc. of non-natural legal persons have the automatic right to receive partial reimbursements of their financial contributions if they disagree with all or part of the speech of their organization.  This goes well beyond the for-profit corporation context.  I do not have the right to demand a partial refund of my Federalist Society dues even though I don't espouse every single position of the organization.

 

Large, multipurpose nonprofits are the most sophisticated about this, actually; their dependence on voluntary support often makes them uniquely accommodating of donor concerns, and their multipurpose missions make them able to accommodate a wide variety of requests.  For example, while Ohio State might prefer that I make a completely unrestricted gift, they will absolutely work with me and other donors to establish funds earmarked for particular purposes if there is enough interest from the donor community.  In fact, they have hundreds of separate funds set up for specific purposes to make channeling donations easier, because they know that voluntary contributions are generally larger when the donor has more control over the use of their money.  Thus, even if Ohio State does adopt a position that I oppose, I really can say that I didn't directly fund it, notwithstanding the fungibility of money.  Granted, if it's serious enough, donors dry up anyway just out of protest, but at least the money they actually gave is relatively separated from the activities they oppose.