Ohio Discussion > Ohio Politics
Ohio "Right-to-Work" Movement
gottaplan:
--- Quote from: Hts121 on February 14, 2012, 07:48:38 AM ---^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
--- End quote ---
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.
Clevelander17:
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.
Gramarye:
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).
Hts121:
^^^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.....
westerninterloper:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version