US Politics: Mark your calendars

[Fez]

That doesn't prove that right-to-work is the reason why. There are plenty of possible underlying reasons as to why wages have decreased in the same states that have passed right-to-work laws. People might become less in favor of unions in states with a trend of decreases wages. Or there might be other underlying reasons for both outcomes. I don't think that establishes a cause-and-effect relationship between those two factors. If you can show that wages were stable or were increasing before right-to-work laws were passed then we might be getting somewhere.

Uh no, they adjust for potential differences between states. Note that even the Chamber of Commerce says that RTW laws will lower wages, but according to them that is temporary and desirable. The lower wages will attract more business, which will eventually lead to higher wages. That study from Notre Dame that I linked in the first sentence debunks the rest of the argument, but agrees with the Chamber that RTW will lower wages.

[Shryke]

That doesn't prove that right-to-work is the reason why. There are plenty of possible underlying reasons as to why wages have decreased in the same states that have passed right-to-work laws. People might become less in favor of unions in states with a trend of decreases wages. Or there might be other underlying reasons for both outcomes. I don't think that establishes a cause-and-effect relationship between those two factors. If you can show that wages were stable or were increasing before right-to-work laws were passed then we might be getting somewhere.

What, you think they haven't done this? "Controlling for other factors"/Ceteris Paribus is economics 101.

A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:^[11]

• Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
  
• The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
  
• The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.
  

Basically, RTW means lower wages and less benefits, when controlling for other factors.

[Fez]

The Supreme Court's announced it will hear 2 cases on gay marriage. One on DOMA and one on California's Proposition 8. Considering personal liberty is the area where Kennedy does often side with the liberal wing, and the Proposition 8 ruling could be a broad one, this summer could see the nationwide legalization of gay marriage.

[The Winged Wolf Bran Stark]

SCOTUS to receive hearings on DOMA and Prop 8.

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000003

EDIT: Too late.

[Guest Raidne]

Uh no, they adjust for potential differences between states. Note that even the Chamber of Commerce says that RTW laws will lower wages, but according to them that is temporary and desirable. The lower wages will attract more business, which will eventually lead to higher wages. That study from Notre Dame that I linked in the first sentence debunks the rest of the argument, but agrees with the Chamber that RTW will lower wages.

I can't help but mention that you might have a different opinion on all of this if you'd ever been to Michigan.

Now that I've read this article, it says that the "intervening variables" factored out by the Chamber of Commerce were unscientifically and artibtrarily chosen in order to favorably distort the data - and on the question of economic growth in right-to-work states, not falling wages. The authors discuss their own "study" but provide no data, no mention of an multivariate analysis, etc.

I found what looks like a better paper here: http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/clearinghouse_resources/stevans_article.pdf

It's a multivariate analysis published in the Review of Law and Economics. I tried to see if it has a typical "Law and Economics" bias, which is libertarian, but it doesn't necessarily seem like it. Still reading it, but it looks like it supports the idea of lower wages in RTW states at first glance.

[Fez]

I can't help but mention that you might have a different opinion on all of this if you'd ever been to Michigan.

Why? The numbers are the numbers. Are you suggesting that if I had a closer connection I'd be more willing to ignore the data in favor of wishful thinking?

And I have been to Michigan. To Flint, which is the basically the epicenter of bad economy conditions.

[Guest Raidne]

Why? The numbers are the numbers. Are you suggesting that if I had a closer connection I'd be more willing to ignore the data in favor of wishful thinking?

Okay I read the article I posted. Reading between the lines and in accordance with the data, what I am seeing is this: In RTW states, companies are able to lay more people off. That fits with what I said upthread about losing representation from the union when you don't pay dues. And believe me - it makes a difference. I've watched my union get every union member who was fired over the last year reinstated, while those who were not members were never seen again. Those people are then pushed into lower-paying jobs or unemployment, and the net effect decreases overall wages.

Which is at it should be. If you're going to be a shitty employee, it would behoove you to pay your union dues. I don't really have a problem with crappy employees being fired. I worked on a nice assortment of cases dealing with the termination of union employees and I can't think of one - not one - where I didn't personally think the person should have been fired. Oh yes, and all those cases were from Flint, "the epicenter of bad economy conditions," because the attorney I was working for was the chair of the Flint ACLU at the time. I grew up less than an hour from Flint. I lived an hour away from Flint for 28 years. These are issues that are near and dear to my heart.

Anyway, what that data does NOT say is that salaries that are collectively bargained for are lower in RTW states than in non-RTW states. One does wonder why that data isn't used instead of state-wide wage data as it would be directly on point?

And I have been to Michigan. To Flint, which is the basically the epicenter of bad economy conditions.

You don't sit around over family holidays and talk about the insane pensions and health benefits that your retired GM-worker friends and relatives are getting. Ultimately, there was nothing that the state government could do by way of tax breaks, etc., to bribe the auto companies into staying and they fled the state, taking all the jobs with them. I'm sure you've seen Roger and Me? I don't blame the unions for that - they were doing their jobs. I blame the auto companies for having no balls and agreeing to everything the unions asked for, and I really blame John Engler for spending us into a hole that Michigan is still to this day wallowing in as part of some fruitless and either stupid or corrupt effort to fight a losing battle by throwing unsustainable amounts of taxpayer money at the auto companies.

[TrackerNeil]

The Supreme Court's announced it will hear 2 cases on gay marriage. One on DOMA and one on California's Proposition 8. Considering personal liberty is the area where Kennedy does often side with the liberal wing, and the Proposition 8 ruling could be a broad one, this summer could see the nationwide legalization of gay marriage.

My partner and I are watching the DOMA case very, very carefully. If that sucker goes down, we're making a run for New York for a license.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Trisky - The retirement of Boomers is pushing down the civilian employment ratio, but there are still many people who were forced out of work and have become disheartened and so aren't counted in U3. So there are two different factors - one permanent and ongoing and another hopefully temporary - that are driving workforce participation down.

In other news, President Obama has apparently said (well, Jay Carney said it) that he unequivocally does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives him the authority to bypass the debt ceiling. So, fuck, either he is very confident in his ability to cut a deal, or he is planning to go all in and hope that the GOP is blamed for the resulting chaos of a second downgrade and, likely, recession.

[sToNED_CAT]

Real unemployment rate hasn't changed much in last 3 years. What changed are just statistics. See this graph http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Employment-Population-Ratio-1.png. The ratio of adult workforce able to participate in job market went down during 2008 and never recovered. The same report that stated that unemployment rate is now 7.7 says that this ratio is 58.7% (compared to 58.5% in 2010). http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm. (app in 1/4th of the report) It was over 63 before the crisis. What is funny is that unemployment rate in 2010 (according to statistics federal govt uses) was 9.5-9.7%, 2% higher than today, while the ratio of adult working to nonworking persons is almost the same. The only logical answer is indeed that people are just stopping looking for work and they are not showing in statistic, not that economy is recovering.

And BTW the same graph for the last 60 years, if you are interested. lower values in 50ties and 60ties are probably caused by lower participation of women in workforce. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Employment-Population-Ratio-2.png

[Guest Raidne]

I'd prefer a system with freedom of organization, where forming and joining a union is a legal right, and once a union is of a certain size (as a percentage of the work force), they have the power to perform collective bargaining on the behalf of their members (not everyone else). Likewise employees are free to either stay out of unions, join current union(s), or form new competing unions.

With the exception of the very last part there, which isn't necessarily provided for - I honestly just don't know about that part - what you ask for is exactly what a "right to work" state has - not sure if that was clear or not thus far.

In the other states, employees must be a member of the union and pay dues whether they think their grandfather was killed by Jimmy Hoffa, they were beaten senseless by a union steward, or whatever.

And yes, many employees are exploited by unions. For instance, there is a long history of problems with sexism in unions. I will also mention that when I went to my union for advice on a matter earlier this year, they were utterly uninterested and generally not helpful, and it was clear that this will always be the case unless I want to file a formal grievance, i.e. serve as a public poster child for their awesomeness. As the advice I was seeking was in furtherance of the goal of avoiding ever having to file a grievance, this was not very helpful, akin to "wait until you're truly and wholly fucked, and then we'll talk."

[Shryke]

Okay I read the article I posted. Reading between the lines and in accordance with the data, what I am seeing is this: In RTW states, companies are able to lay more people off. That fits with what I said upthread about losing representation from the union when you don't pay dues. And believe me - it makes a difference. I've watched my union get every union member who was fired over the last year reinstated, while those who were not members were never seen again. Those people are then pushed into lower-paying jobs or unemployment, and the net effect decreases overall wages.

Which is at it should be. If you're going to be a shitty employee, it would behoove you to pay your union dues. I don't really have a problem with crappy employees being fired. I worked on a nice assortment of cases dealing with the termination of union employees and I can't think of one - not one - where I didn't personally think the person should have been fired. Oh yes, and all those cases were from Flint, "the epicenter of bad economy conditions," because the attorney I was working for was the chair of the Flint ACLU at the time. I grew up less than an hour from Flint. I lived an hour away from Flint for 28 years. These are issues that are near and dear to my heart.

Anyway, what that data does NOT say is that salaries that are collectively bargained for are lower in RTW states than in non-RTW states. One does wonder why that data isn't used instead of state-wide wage data as it would be directly on point?

Um, there are studies that say that Raidne. I linked one.

One begins to wonder at this point what your agenda here is. Because you seem to just want to frame this as "Oh, it's just about how unions make it hard to fire bad employees and RTW totally solves that!".

[Guest Raidne]

Oh, Shryke, didn't see it. Any chance you'll link it again or tell me what post # of yours it's in? By the way, are you "one"? Or do you think other people besides you are wondering about my "agenda?" You're fucking hilarious, dude.

Anyway, I don't have an "agenda." I am a union member in the federal government, which is "right to work" and, contrary to all of my expectations having done pro-union labor work in Michigan prior to being a federal employee, it would seem that my coworkers and I are nevertheless not suffering from a lack of rights.

Part of the reason for this are the greater statutory employment law protections that we enjoy as federal employees. That's the other option. Note we don't leave it labor unions to completely negotiate wages - we have a (laughable) minimum wage statute. In the federal government, we have a statory compensation schedule. I am far more in favor of passing employment law to guarantee rights for all workers than I am for empowering unions which, in the United States, often exploit the employee just as much as the employer.

...I wonder if someone could explain.

Arlington Bill actually works for BLS. You should just PM him and summon him to answer your question - he is overflowing with all the relevant expertise you might want on the subject.

[Shryke]

Also, more Michigan state government fun:

Legislators in the Michigan Senate were hard at work yesterday, fighting for your right to not receive any insurance coverage for abortion unless you are literally dying. Because who needs to rebuild the economy when there are greedy women out there who need insurance coverage for expensive medical procedures?

The Senate passed three bills that would prohibit all insurance coverage for abortion: 612, 613, and 614. To clarify, that means women won't be able to use insurance to get an abortion under the Affordable Care Act or any insurance plans offered in the state, except in the case of threat to the life (not health) of the mother.

http://jezebel.com/5966342/michigan-senate-just-passed-a-bunch-of-bills-prohibiting-all-insurance-coverage-for-abortion

[Shryke]

Oh, Shryke, didn't see it. Any chance you'll link it again or tell me what post # of yours it's in? By the way, are you "one"? Or do you think other people besides you are wondering about my "agenda?" You're fucking hilarious, dude.

I think Fez is certainly wondering why you came out so hard against him simply linking a study while also dismissing the data before even knowing what it was.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Also, more Michigan state government fun:

http://jezebel.com/5...ge-for-abortion

Now you're concerned about government meddling in the free market.

[Crazydog7]

I know I need to get off this horse of the treaty but man I felt like I was watching something out of the twlight zone. You know we really deserve our shitty country.

I.......I......I just really don't know what to say.

Now I really am convinced that a very great many of the GOP are just concerned about what MAY happen at some unclear point in the future. These are not the actions of a poltiical party or a constuancy of that party these are the actions of mental patients

[Guest Raidne]

I think Fez is certainly wondering why you came out so hard against him simply linking a study while also dismissing the data before even knowing what it was.

Oh honestly? Because he said "uh no" in an answer to my question, which was both kinda rude and wrong, since it was a really crappy "study," (i.e. article critiquing another study and reporting their own findings with no data) that didn't include any valid multivariate analysis. I like to respond to condescending wrong people by being dissmissive but also right.

That works better for me that slapping everyone with the "you have a secret agenda" label, but YMMV. Whatever floats your boat, man.

Anyway, if I am not right, please, I will be interested in nothing else more than this data of my wrongness until it is made available to me, so let's see this data showing that union employees under collective bargaining agreements in non-right to work states are paid higher wages than both union and non-union employees under collective bargaining agreements in right to work states, with other factors like local cost of living, etc. factored out (as even the study Fez linked managed to address that last one).

[The Iceman of the North]

With the exception of the very last part there, which isn't necessarily provided for - I honestly just don't know about that part - what you ask for is exactly what a "right to work" state has - not sure if that was clear or not thus far.

So in "right to work" states, all employees are free to form unions, and these unions have collective bargaining rights? If so, I don't have much of a problem with the system.

As for your personal experience with your union, that sound like a really unprofessional union. I've never heard of something like that over here. I have heard complains about the "free rider" issue from a friend of mine in the construction industry, but he's a union rep. Companies with collective bargaining agreement usually offer the same wage conditions for non-union members (but I guess that's more a practice chosen because it's less work than dealing with those employees individually).

[Guest Raidne]

Yes, and the wages are the same for all employees in the defined group, union or not, here also. Without right to work, the union doesn't get more support, they just get more money because everyone has to pay. And things do cost money, like representing employees in court and paying steward salaries, but you can't buy a better collective bargaining unit.

I will also mention that AFGE straight up gave me $100 in cash for signing up which is a little...unsavory-seeming?