Is Right to Work Law Good or Bad for Indiana? (tax credit, living)

[Broadrippleguy]

Originally Posted by ccc123

I think in the long run it will be a bad decision for Indiana and will not make a difference in attracting new jobs.

Look at the south lol.
Also only time will tell who is right

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by Broadrippleguy

Also only time will tell who is right

That's the thing........time probably will not tell. Ever since RTW has passed, you've been pimping every new job creation in Indiana as a Right to Work thing. In fact, Amazon went out of its way to announce that their expansion had nothing to do with RTW. It is all a bunch of political rhetoric touched off with a heavy dose of spin.

[rrtechno]

If RTW is the deciding factor in all of this, why did a tubing manufacturer just announce the opening of a plant, with plans to eventually have 200+ employees, in Middletown OH, just 25 miles from the Indiana line?

Tube-maker picks Middletown

[Broadrippleguy]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

If RTW is the deciding factor in all of this, why did a tubing manufacturer just announce the opening of a plant, with plans to eventually have 200+ employees, in Middletown OH, just 25 miles from the Indiana line?

Tube-maker picks Middletown

Ohio had to offer alot more in tax credits?
that could also do it but in the long run it screws ohio if the state ever runs low on money like Ill-Annoy.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by NewOrleanianLA1

I've lived in Louisiana my entire life and it is a right to work state. I don't know anything about unions except the fact that it can help the working men to have their ways by exercising their rights as a member of the union.

By the way, I found good comparsions:



According to the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2010 Occupational Employment and Wages Estimates htt://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm . Comparing the average medium hourly wage of all 22 Right to Work States (RTW) and all 28 Collective-Bargaining States (CBS) as of May 2010.

• CBS all occupations average $22.73
• RTW all occupations average $18.86 a difference of $3.87 an hour
• CBS Middle School Teachers average $56,784 annual
• RTW Middle School Teachers average $47,862 annual a difference of $8922
• CBS Registered Nurses average $34.69
• RTW Registered Nurses average $29.08 a difference of $5.62
• CBS Sheet-Metal Workers average $24.56
• RTW Sheet-Metal Workers average $19.09 a difference of $5.47
• CBS third-quarter 2011 cost-of-living $117.03
• RTW third-quarter 2011 cost-of-living $94.46 a difference of $22.58

It looks like it would mean lower wages/salaries for Hooisers and keeping the cost of living lower or more stable for Indiana compared to its neighboring states.

The UAW is paying $14 per hour in Michigan for new hires.

[Broadrippleguy]

Originally Posted by ram2

The UAW is paying $14 per hour in Michigan for new hires.

Bravo to the UAW. Bravo
Finally they get it.

[jman07]

Originally Posted by NewOrleanianLA1

I've lived in Louisiana my entire life and it is a right to work state. I don't know anything about unions except the fact that it can help the working men to have their ways by exercising their rights as a member of the union.

By the way, I found good comparsions:


According to the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Labor"]United States Department of Labor[/URL], Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2010 Occupational Employment and Wages Estimates htt://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm . Comparing the average medium hourly wage of all 22 Right to Work States (RTW) and all 28 Collective-Bargaining States (CBS) as of May 2010.[LIST][*]CBS all occupations average $22.73[*]RTW all occupations average $18.86 a difference of $3.87 an hour[*]CBS Middle School Teachers average $56,784 annual[*]RTW Middle School Teachers average $47,862 annual a difference of $8922[*]CBS Registered Nurses average $34.69[*]RTW Registered Nurses average $29.08 a difference of $5.62[*]CBS Sheet-Metal Workers average $24.56[*]RTW Sheet-Metal Workers average $19.09 a difference of $5.47[*]CBS third-quarter 2011 cost-of-living $117.03[*]RTW third-quarter 2011 cost-of-living $94.46 a difference of $22.58[/LIST]It looks like it would mean lower wages/salaries for Hooisers and keeping the cost of living lower or more stable for Indiana compared to its neighboring states.

I don't see how a halfway intelligent person can take this seriously. First of all, your comparing whole states, that have whole different costs of living and wages all together. Most RTW states are southern, where wages are lower regardless of RTW. Second, only around 12% of workers are in unions, so its pointless to compare the effects of a RTW law on a whole states entire workforce. Third, it doesn't mention the unemployment rate for those occupations. Generally when you forcefully increase wages you increase unemployment rates.

RTW does not have as large of an effect as both sides want you to think. It's just become a huge political issue. Like I said, most workers aren't even in unions. All your doing with RTW is basically making a tradeoff between wages and jobs so "good for the state" is subjective. If RTW was that big of a deal there would be no unionized factories at all in INdiana because they would have just built in a RTW state over a non-RTW. We recently had Whirlpool leave Evansville and it was unionized. Many say that if there was no union they would have stayed. Not having RTW hurt those workers, but it helps those that are in a union and currently employed. It also was a huge form of tax revenue for Evansville. I would say RTW is a positive for Indiana as a whole.

[Bruin Rick]

The good side is that it will probably save and maybe attract some jobs but the bad side is that jobs will certainly pay less and have far fewer benefits. It depends on how the law is written too.

[jodipper]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

The laws that were passed can be changed just as easily if there is no one there to fight to keep them. We all saw those attempts in Wisconsin and Ohio last year.

I was a union member for over 30 years at a previous job. I never once saw the union try to protect a "bad" employee. There were numerous times where I saw the union make sure that proper procedures were used to remove someone from a position where there was a problem. I saw numerous times where the union tried to work with an under-performing employee to try to help them improve and keep their position. I saw numerous times where the union flat out told an employee, "You aren't doing an appropriate job. You haven't made an honest effort to improve. You ought to consider a career change at your choice rather than being forced into it."

I believe many people hear a story or two about an instance and believe that it is the norm. I personally know more good employees who were let go for no legitimate reason at a non union business, than poor employees who were "protected" by a union.

Ohio did not try to change any law other than collective bargaining for public employees. If you heard differently you were told union bs. The UAW tried to scare the elderly by telling them there would not be enough nurses. That classroom would be doubled in size.

I worked in union shops for many years. Most of what they did was protect the lazy and addicted. All day every day. Not a few instances. Ask any UAW or IUE member, and I don't mean a union official. You can ask generations of workers and get the same answer.

How do you know that good employees were let go at a non union business? If you weren't there, you have no way of knowing if they were good employees or if the reason was legitimate. Maybe you don't consider excessive absenteeism, sleeping at work, theft, or intentional damage legitimate.

Why would a person think that a union should "work with" an underperforming employee? Get rid of them and get a performer.

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by jodipper

Ohio did not try to change any law other than collective bargaining for public employees.

Exactly my point. There was a law providing for collective bargaining in the state of Ohio and the majority in the legislature rammed through a law repealing it with very limited debate and discussion, even changing committee memberships to get it to the floor. This time it was collective bargaining by public employees. What will it be next time.

I worked in union shops for many years. Most of what they did was protect the lazy and addicted. All day every day. Not a few instances. Ask any UAW or IUE member, and I don't mean a union official. You can ask generations of workers and get the same answer.

I never said this never happens, I said it isn't always like this. The union at my workplace did not operate in this manner. I will not say that your story is not true if you don't call me a liar.

How do you know that good employees were let go at a non union business? If you weren't there, you have no way of knowing if they were good employees or if the reason was legitimate. Maybe you don't consider excessive absenteeism, sleeping at work, theft, or intentional damage legitimate.

One instance was my wife. I do believe I know the circumstances. New management, get rid of all the long time employees and replace them with new (cheaper) ones.

Why would a person think that a union should "work with" an underperforming employee? Get rid of them and get a performer.

Some union personnel care about people. If you have a person who you have invested initial training in, and who basically knows what to do, but has some difficulties with performance, why wouldn't you try to work with them to improve performance before you just "dump" them and start over. Many things can be considered "throw away" but some people don't consider people to be in that category