Is Right-to-Work: Protecting workers or UNION-Busting??!!

I know this is all long and boring and full of icky facts, but maybe you can learn something here. From the New American.com

"A better way of evaluating whether Right to Work laws help or hurt the poor — and the economy in general — is to compare Right to Work states as a group to non-Right to Work states. In fact, such a comparison debunks another argument being used to discredit the Right to Work principle: It amounts to little more than “the right to work for less,” because workers who belong to labor unions generally earn more than workers in the same industry who are not members of a labor union. However, upon closer inspection, the situation is, once again, not quite that simple. According to a May 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage for all occupations across all of the states allowing the union shop is 20.5 percent higher than the overall average for the Right to Work states. On the other hand, the cost of living across all of the union shop states is 23.9 percent higher than in all of the Right to Work states taken together. And a February 2011 study by the Economic Policy Institute revealed that the overall unemployment rate is lower in Right to Work states.

And there’s more: As reported in the National Right to Work Newsletter, based on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Labor, the top six states in job growth are all Right to Work states. The worst six are union-shop states, except for Louisiana, which is still recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Between 2001 and 2011, Right to Work states experienced private-sector job growth of 2.4 percent and real personal income growth of 12.5 percent. Meanwhile, over the same time period, the union-shop states lost 3.4 percent of their private-sector jobs and had real personal income growth of only 3.1 percent.

On top of that, U.S. Census Bureau data reveal that, while just 23 of the 50 states have Right to Work laws, more than half of the nation’s population resides in those 23 Right to Work states. After the 2010 census, eight states gained seats in the House of Representatives because their populations grew significantly faster than the national average. Seven of those eight were Right to Work states. Nine states lost seats in the House of Representatives because their populations grew significantly slower than the national average. Only two of the nine were Right to Work states, and one of the two was Louisiana.

Think of the states that have been in the news for being in such dire financial straits, such as California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. They are all union-shop states.

The record is clear: Right to Work works, while the union shop, which encourages productivity-killing work rules and a hate-the-boss work environment, leads to economic stagnation and financial misery. That probably explains why surveys repeatedly show that nearly 80 percent of Americans support the Right to Work principle, and why Indiana became the nation’s 23rd Right to Work state on March 14 of this year, after Governor Mitch Daniels signed Right to Work legislation into law in February."

There isn't a single flaw in my previous comments. Calling them flawed doesn't make it so. I realize a concept like that may be hard for a rage filled (that means angry) mind numb robot such as yourself to get your head around. I suppose union pawns are used to simply saying and doing what they told.

If the report I cited about Honda being better than Chevy is flawed, then blame US News, not me. But, you know me, I am nothing if not fair. I mean I used YOUR source not mine. But somehow when I use the source it becomes biased? You are an idiot.

Anyway, I did some research on your Chevy Cruze. Oooo, not such good news I'm afraid. This is from "The Truth About Cars.com

"Ever since emerging from bankruptcy, the Chevrolet Cruze has been something of a symbol of GM’s rebound. Widely hailed by the automotive media as General Motors’ strongest effort to date in a compact segment that has become increasingly important in recent years, the Cruze seemed to show that the “new” GM was capable of selling smaller cars on their merits, rather than as afterthoughts to more profitable truck, SUV and large car offerings. And indeed, through the first half of this year, it seemed that the Cruze was something of a roaring success, regularly outselling its segment competitors. But then, in June, when production shifted from 2011 models to 2012 models, something changed: sales started to slow, and inventories started to rise. As Cruzes began piling up on dealer lots, GM trimmed production moderately, but still, inventories began to grow out of control. Clearly something was going wrong.

Last week, GM shut down production of the Cruze, saying only that it had an unspecified “supplier issue.” But Automotive News [sub] reports that had already GM shut down the Lordstown plant for the entire week of November 28, after inventories shot from 33 days supply to 73 days supply during the months of September and October. As of December 1, inventories had risen higher still, to 88 days, as sales continue to slacken. Lordstown reopened yesterday, but with sales falling and inventories running out of control, another slowdown or stoppage of production seems inevitable.

So, what happened to the Cruze’s sales? The fact that its downturn coincided with the switch from 2011 to 2012 is certainly mysterious, as GMInsidenews’s reliable guide to 2012 model-year changes shows that only the following features were deleted from Cruze in the switch from 2011 to 2012:

(GAP) Imperial Blue Metallic exterior color
(EN4) Cargo cover compartment
Rear center headrest on all trims
Surely a lost cargo cover compartment and rear center headrest don’t explain the downturn… which might actually be cause for even greater concern. If GM could pinpoint a specific problem that is keeping buyers away from new 2012 Cruzes, it could remedy it fairly easily. As things stand though, it’s tough not to conclude that GM may simply have filled the bulk of market demand for their car, and that it’s now losing out to the brutally tough competition in its segment. If that’s the case, it doesn’t bode well for The General… at least in terms of perception, as the Cruze goes, so goes GM."

Hey, don't fret, you always have the Volt. (Snicker) Hey, when you're beholden to the man in the 'Big House', you have to do what the the man in the 'Big House' says.

So, you only like your own sources for information. You refuse to listen to reason. You resort to name calling at the drop of a hat. And you try to bully peopel around. Hey wait, are you my 11 year old nephew? (No, he knows how to spell.)

OK, what was it you challenged me on? Oh yeah, public sector unions and unfunded pension liabilities. Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management estimates that the states have roughly 3.3 trillion dollars in unfunded pension liabilities. Then you need to add another 574 billion dollars to represent the unfunded pension liabilities of all the counties and cities within the 50 states.

You know, I don't think it was such a good deal when Obama took my tax dollars to bail YOUR ass out on 2009. I don't want to take another hit for your your public sector bros.

I know, what ever the facts are they are made up, biased, or blah, blah blah. That's why you never learn anything union boy!