There will be blood!

[RoadKingLarry]

Right to work signed into law in Michigan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/teachers-call-out-as-protests-rev-up-against-michigan-union-bill/

There will be blood, there will be repercussions," State Democratic Rep. Douglas Geiss, speaking on the House floor on Tuesday, warned ahead of the votes.

I can only imagine the shatstorm that would ensue if a republican lawmaker made such a statement.

Oklahoma passed Right to work by state question shortly after the 9/11 attacks. The governor made his case by assuring the voters that there were dozens and dozens of companies just lined up at the state line just waiting for right to work to be passed before moving into the state to created tens of thousands of jobs.
Not sure what the actual effect was though, we never saw the promised rush of new companies and the union I pay dues to is still just as useless and pathetic as it was before.

[SteveS]

There is a lot of anger about the way it was passed. The legislation was written in 2011 and earlier, but never went anywhere, then boom it sails through without much of a discussion.

Meanwhile, the GOP is sitting on 2 or 3 pro-gun bills that don't seem to be going anywhere and the governor has shown reluctance in giving support.

[De Selby]

I'm not sure right to work bills do much more than lower wages. 

[Fitz]

Lol

[lupinus]

I'm not sure right to work bills do much more than lower wages. 

You're...serious

[RoadKingLarry]

In 11 years OK has had RTW I can't see anything pro or con that can be credited to our RTW law.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not sure right to work bills do much more than lower wages.  

[drewtam]

I suspect RTW will be a boon to the most marginal of workers, such as grocery stores and similar. These guys pay minimum wage, no benefits, and then the worker pays union dues on top of that.Teenagers are the only ones ignorant enough to apply for such jobs. Part time work, taxes, and union dues combine to yield two weeks worth of work and literally a $10 net check. They usually quite after that non-sense.


As for other classes of workers (e.g. full time manufacturing), it may have little effect. I don't know for sure, I haven't looked at the unemployment data, which is always confused due to complicated dynamics. But typically introducing unions don't significantly change the net labor market prices. From that experience, weakening the unions probably doesn't change the net labor market price either.


In terms of politics though, its a big deal in cutting the democrats major funding source. I suspect that is what riles them up more anything else combined.

[Angel Eyes]

The union supporters are exercising their usual restraint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/11/Union-Mob-Destroys-Tent-With-People-Inside

[makattak]

Thank you. Now I don't have to say it.

[De Selby]

You're...serious

Yes.  There's no proof that they increase employment, as the real life experience of RKL shows and a great many others no doubt.

The laws mainly affect union shops, not all workplaces change when they're passed.  It's not hard to see how gains in employment at those shops could be offset by new, easier-to-do layoffs.

It's quite funny how policies for which there is a genuine economic dispute at the moment are taken here on this board as gospel.  I suppose that partly explains all the "I never saw it coming!" a few Wednesdays ago.

[Regolith]

Yes.  There's no proof that they increase employment, as the real life experience of RKL shows and a great many others no doubt.

Yup, that's why all of the auto companies are locating their new factories in Michigan, instead of the mostly-RTW South. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yes.  There's no proof that they increase employment, as the real life experience of RKL shows and a great many others no doubt.

The laws mainly affect union shops, not all workplaces change when they're passed.  It's not hard to see how gains in employment at those shops could be offset by new, easier-to-do layoffs.

It's quite funny how policies for which there is a genuine economic dispute at the moment are taken here on this board as gospel.  I suppose that partly explains all the "I never saw it coming!" a few Wednesdays ago.

you ever do a real job?

[slingshot]

I really don't know how "under handed" the MI right to work bill is.

I know there may be stress, possibly conflict, in union shops.  I see two scenarios developing; (1) You will get two classes of workers as time moves forward.  You'll have the union workers and the lesser but well paid non-union workers.  (2)  But, if the company works it right, this could actually encourage the facility to go non-union by paying non-union workers an equal amount of money.  Union workers will see that it is not so bad and drop out of the union.

It is easier to terminate someone in a RTW state.  Essentially, there needs to be little reason to dismiss someone.  They will still get unemployment, but under normal circumstances, that is for a limited amount of time.  It remains to be seen how the RTW laws and unions interact.  I suspect this could be determined fairly easily by looking at union shops in RTW states.

New companies will pay less than union scale.  But it will attract new business to MI.  You get more jobs but at less pay.  Ultimately, it is probably better for the potential employees and the state with more people working.  But the new companies can not pay $8.50/hr and expect to retain workers if and when things improve.  Right now, companies can dictate the wage paid.  IF things improved economically, things could develop that are more in the middle pay ranges.

[De Selby]

Yup, that's why all of the auto companies are locating their new factories in Michigan, instead of the mostly-RTW South. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/10/how-right-to-work-laws-could-reshape-michigans-economy/

Well, there's at least some dispute - how much growth is there in other states that comes from these laws???

[De Selby]

you ever do a real job?

You ever asked a real question?

[kgbsquirrel]

You ever asked a real question?

You ever answer a real question?

[slingshot]

All you have to do is spend some time in Lexington KY area and you will see the Toyota mark everwhere.  I spent time there prior to Toyota.  The world changed when Toyota built their first plant in Georgetown.  I don't think they ever considered places like MI.

You didn't see VW building their new plant in WV or PA.  VW had a plant in PA years ago that made the rabbit.  It closed after poor sales.  I feel sure the union mentality also affected its profitability, but sales are everything.

[Regolith]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/10/how-right-to-work-laws-could-reshape-michigans-economy/

Well, there's at least some dispute - how much growth is there in other states that comes from these laws???

So, if it wasn't because of the RTW laws, why did Toyota and other car makers choose to put their plants in the RTW South? You would think they'd locate where they can easily find skilled workers, of which there are lots sitting around without jobs in MI.  What other reason would they have for not locating there besides wanting to avoid the stranglehold of the unions?

[makattak]

So, if it wasn't because of the RTW laws, why did Toyota and other car makers choose to put their plants in the RTW South? You would think they'd locate where they can easily find skilled workers, of which there are lots sitting around without jobs in MI.  What other reason would they have for not locating there besides wanting to avoid the stranglehold of the unions?

The easily accessible ports in Kentucky. Err... the major cities with many airline hubs. Err... Bluegrass. The Japanese have a great love of Kentucky bluegrass.

[De Selby]

So, if it wasn't because of the RTW laws, why did Toyota and other car makers choose to put their plants in the RTW South? You would think they'd locate where they can easily find skilled workers, of which there are lots sitting around without jobs in MI.  What other reason would they have for not locating there besides wanting to avoid the stranglehold of the unions?

That's obviously a big reason why they went there - but if they hire fewer people in the south than they would have in the union state, or pay them lower wages, what's the net difference?   I don't see one state getting the crumbs from another as a net gain to the economy.  I'm not that sure (as I said above) what the effect is overall.

I certainly think it's worth questioning whether these laws actually do anything beneficial.  Out-doing the Chinese in labor conditions and wages in order to get jobs isn't necessarily the outcome I want for America.

[makattak]

That's obviously a big reason why they went there - but if they hire fewer people in the south than they would have in the union state, or pay them lower wages, what's the net difference?   I don't see one state getting the crumbs from another as a net gain to the economy.  I'm not that sure (as I said above) what the effect is overall.

I certainly think it's worth questioning whether these laws actually do anything beneficial.  Out-doing the Chinese in labor conditions and wages in order to get jobs isn't necessarily the outcome I want for America.

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

[Regolith]

That's obviously a big reason why they went there - but if they hire fewer people in the south than they would have in the union state, or pay them lower wages, what's the net difference?   I don't see one state getting the crumbs from another as a net gain to the economy.  I'm not that sure (as I said above) what the effect is overall.

I certainly think it's worth questioning whether these laws actually do anything beneficial.  Out-doing the Chinese in labor conditions and wages in order to get jobs isn't necessarily the outcome I want for America.

You know who HAVE fled the country with their new factories? GM and Ford. Why? Because if they open another factory in the US, they have to allow it to be unionized. Many manufacturers are fleeing the US because US manufacturer workers are overpriced, almost entirely because of the unions. It is far better to have a lower paying job than no job at all.

[De Selby]

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Yeah, how is my questioning right to work laws inconsistent with that?

[De Selby]

You know who HAVE fled the country with their new factories? GM and Ford. Why? Because if they open another factory in the US, they have to allow it to be unionized. Many manufacturers are fleeing the US because US manufacturer workers are overpriced, almost entirely because of the unions. It is far better to have a lower paying job than no job at all.

While this is true, it's hardly the case that governments have no policy options to protect wages and jobs.  Tariffs being the obvious example.  While those options all have costs, so does competing with Chinese labor markets, and I think it's worth a very detailed examination before we decide that accepting third world conditions and wages is the only way to keep jobs.