Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But very few people want to live in Right to Work states. Would you like to live in one of them, such as Oklahoma or Kansas?
I did for 17 years. Loved it. Metro Nashville had highest growth rates of any region I ever lived in. Had superb benefits at my Tn employers (far better than Ct, NJ, or NY employers I was at), only moved due to family situation. Will retire back there again.
PS: Nashville metro population growth has been huge for a few decades now, mainly in suburbs. Mine had 269 citizens in 1969 in the city itself, is around 60k now, will reach 90k.
And when it comes down to economics can no longer support a work force at its current level the unions first rule is to ensure that they get theirs while the rank and file have to be let go. How many industries do well with good benefits and conditions without the union sticking their finger in it....
One of the main reasons some say is the reasons some cities are in a terrible financial condition is the cost of benefits to their state employees. A result of the unions.
The difference I saw right away between the "right to work" state and the neighboring "blue state," is that the first one prefers to hire part time with no benefits ( health insurance including,) while the other one likes to hire full time with all the benefits.
So the "disposable income" becomes a very questionable advantage for the workers under these circumstances, even though the cost of living is indeed somewhat lower in the so-called "right to work" state.
"the first one prefers to hire part time with no benefits" So all the plumbers, carpenters, electriciana, truck drivers, mechanics, auto assembling people, etc., etc., etc. are "part time"!
I moved to a RTW state. Thankfully my pension was based on the earning's made in a union friendly state. Same corporation the entire time.
I made more and increased my pension and 401K contribution's in the Union state.
My health benefit's were better in the Union state. Since I retired that Corp has lowered earning's and benefits in the RTW state.
I was a teamster member back in the early 80's. We decertified. However we were able as a group to use the union forming ability to our advantage. Increasing earning's and benefit's. Here in the RTW state it goes the other way.
Right to work states are states where you have the right to a job without being forced to join a private 3rd party organization (union) and pay dues in order to have that job.
Moreover, you have a right to a government job without being forced to join a private 3rd party organization (union) that in turn forces you to pay dues.
Right to work states seem to be economically better off than forced union states at the moment.
Percentage Growth in Number of People employed 2009 to 2019:
Right to Work States 16.9%
Forced Union States 9.6%
Growth in Manufacturing, Private Sector Payroll 2009 to 2019:
RTWS 10.0%
FUS 2.9%
Percentage Growth in Total Private-Sector, non-farm employment 2008 to 2018:
RTWS 17.2%
FUS 13.0%
Cost of Living-Adjusted per Capita Disposable Income (2019):
RTWS $48,102
FUS $46,676
Cost of Living-Adjusted After Tax Mean Income per Household (2018):
RTWS $60,806
FUS $56,530
Aggregate Tax Freedom Day (2019):
RTWS April 9
FUS April 22
Growth in Number of Residents aged 35 to 54 (2008 to 2018):
RTWS 1.5%
FUS -7.9%
Your post is irrelevant. Minimum wage in California is now $12 an hour. However, in Texas, which has Right to Work, the minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour. Would you love to live there and work for $7.25 an hour?
As an employee I want the right to work for any company without being forced into a union. What's wrong with that? Why not let the worker decide if they want to join the union or not in any particular company? Why be forced to join a union as a requirement to work there?
I am a pro union guy but I agree with this because I lived with it.
Part of the Janus decision dealt with "agency fees" which I never heard of because they were not required in every state, including my RTW state. These fees are less than union dues but required to cover costs associated with the union contract since you were covered by the contract whether you were in the union or not. Non union members in my state paid zero.
In practice when there was a disciplinary action the boss would always ask if the employee was in the union. Why? So the boss could judge how much pushback he would get from the union.
"the first one prefers to hire part time with no benefits" So all the plumbers, carpenters, electriciana, truck drivers, mechanics, auto assembling people, etc., etc., etc. are "part time"!
Nothing like muddying the waters!
Ha-ha, it's interesting that you list the kind of trades, that are in high demand ANYWHERE in the country, and that command high pay. ( In fact they are so much in demand, that they often don't need an "employer with that "full time schedule."
They can be self-employed.
And auto-assembling people? The kind that understand the technology? They are in demand anywhere in US as well, since US experiences shortages in this kind of people in manufacturing.
No of course the trades that are in demand - these people actually command their wages.
But when it comes to "etc," etc" - that's when the so-called "Right to Work" states LOVE to take advantage of workers and treat them as disposable as much as possible ( and THIS includes hiring part time, in order to avoid paying benefits.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.