Quantcast

The effects of RTW (Right to Work)

Gยเtคг Plคאєг ( JFK Democrat ) 2012/03/27 15:46:46
I belong to a union and I support unions
I do not belong to a union, but i support Unions
Sill hate Unions
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
What does Right to Work Mean



  • RTW
    legislation is permitted under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. This law
    prohibits “closed shops,” where union membership is a condition of
    employment and refusal to join a union would get one fired. “Union shops,”
    where workers have a period of time after they are hired to join the
    union, and “agency shops,” where union membership is not required but
    workers still pay dues, are allowed under this act.
  • Regardless
    of whether employees agree to join the union and pay dues, they will
    benefit from union bargaining, which includes better pay, fringe benefits
    and support in grievance procedures. In this system, due paying members
    are forced to support non-due-paying workers.
  • Workers
    in non-RTW states already have the option of not paying dues for union
    activities that conflict with their religious or political beliefs.
    Workers are only required to pay for the “financial core” dues that go
    towards collective bargaining and administration costs for activities that
    benefit them.



What Effects does it have on the middle class and poor families
STATISTICS:

·
INCOME:
According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the average per capita
personal income was $3,984 lower in RTW states than non-RTW states, $35,916 vs.
$39,900 in 2007. Only 3 of the 22 RTW states have a per capita personal income
higher than the United States average of $39,430.



o The
US Bureau of Labor Statistics’ estimate on 2009 hourly wages, further
demonstrates that workers in RTW states have a lower income that workers in
non-RTW states. On average, workers in all occupations make $2.67/hour less
than workers in non-RTW states. That is $106.80 less a week and $5,553.60 less
a year. For example, occupations in construction make $4.38/ hour less in RTW
states than non-RTW states.



o According
to the 2007 American Community Survey, There are 2.21% more households in the
middle class in non-RTW states that in RTW states. At this rate, 51,251
Missourian families would be squeezed out of the middle class.



o According
to the US Department of Agriculture, in 2009 the average net farm income per
acre is only $83/acre in RTW states, compared with $127 in non-RTW states.





·
PRODUCTIVITY
& GROWTH
: In 2009, the productivity in RTW
states was considerably lower than non-RTW states. The value added per
production worker hour, obtained from the US Census Bureau, was $113 in R2W states
bordering Missouri and $124 in Missouri.



o According
to the US Department of Agriculture, the average monetary value of production
for every acre in 2009 was $304 lower in RTW states, $418/acre, than non-RTW
states, $722/acre.



o Data
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that from 2008 to 2009 RTW states
averaged an 85% decrease in GDP, compared to an average 81% decrease among
non-RTW states.



o Nationally,
based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, RTW states and non-RTW
states averaged nearly the same unemployment rates (8.8% compared to 8.4%).
Missouri’s unemployment rate recovered more quickly than all six RTW states
that border it, except Tennessee.





·
POVERTY:
The rate of poverty, provided by the US Census Bureau, in 2009 was higher for
families in RTW states than families in non-RTW states. RTW states have 11.3%
at 100% poverty and below and 28.6% at 200% poverty and below. Non-RTW have 9.6%
at 100% poverty and below and 24.4% at 200% poverty and below.





·
EDUCATION:
According to the US Department of Education’s National Center for Education
Statistics, average educational attainment has been higher in non-RTW states
than RTW states.



o The
average graduation rates in public secondary schools is an average of 72.4% in
RTW states, compared to 77.8% in non-RTW states.



o On
average, in non-RTW states 86.5% of the population have a high school education
or higher and 28% have a bachelor’s and/or master’s degree and RTW states have
84.6 with a high school education or higher and 24.1% have a bachelor’s and/or
master’s degree.





·
HEALTHCARE:
The US Census Bureau’s statistics have also shown higher rates of uninsured
individuals in RTW states, with the average of 16% in RTW states compared to
13.2% in non-RTW states.



o Average
infant mortality rates are higher in RTW states (7.5 per 1000) than in non-RTW
states (6.4 per 1000).





·
SAFETY:
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average RTW work states
experience 2.07 occupational fatalities per 100,000 population than non-RTW
states who experience 1.17 per 100,000 population.





·
ORGANIZED
LABOR
: According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, rates of
union membership and representation of those employed more than doubled in
non-RTW states (15.1% membership and 16.5% representation) compared to RTW states
(6.6% membership and 8.0% representation).



o Historically,
labor unions have provided minorities with the opportunity for equal pay. With
women making up 47% of all persons employed and Latinos, Asians, and African
Americans being 30% of the US labor force in 2008, closing the gap in wages in
crucial.

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Q 2012/03/27 15:59:26
    I do not belong to a union, but i support Unions
    Q
    +12
    The unions were instrumental in building up America's middle class which made us into an economic superpower, now that they are being attacked and turned into scapegoats by the conservatives the working poor has become the new norm.

    Right to work means right to work for less.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • I do not belong to a union, but i support Unions
    Яᴇv☠Doɴɴγ☠Dooᴍ☠Aɢɴosᴛɪc
    Growing up around union workers I've seen how unions can be good for worker's right & safe working conditions & but I've also seen how they can get in the way of weeding out the workers who are piss poor at their jobs like some times with Teacher's Unions.
  • La 2012/04/01 07:38:44
    I belong to a union and I support unions
    La
    +1
    "On average, workers in all occupations make $2.67/hour less than workers in non-RTW states. That is $106.80 less a week"

    Geez. My union is $6.10 a week :/ It is not compulsory to join the union but most people do.
  • chuck 2012/03/29 16:09:09
    I belong to a union and I support unions
    chuck
    +1
    I belonged to a union all my life cant believe people would give there rights away
  • Gยเtคг ... chuck 2012/03/29 17:36:59
    Gยเtคг Plคאєг ( JFK Democrat )
    Thanks Chuck. My family has also
  • Lee The Hybrid Snowflake 2012/03/29 13:21:22
    I do not belong to a union, but i support Unions
    Lee The Hybrid Snowflake
    +2
    Most of the men in my family are Ironworkers in fact most of them worked on the twin towers in the seventies.
  • Gยเtคг ... Lee The... 2012/03/29 17:38:16
    Gยเtคг Plคאєг ( JFK Democrat )
    +2
    Thanks lee, I also support unions, but i know there are some problems with them, that could be corrected, but not what some of these people are claiming
  • Lee The... Gยเtคг ... 2012/03/29 21:05:51
    Lee The Hybrid Snowflake
    +2
    As usual it's the big wigs screwing it up for everyone.
  • Miss UT 2012/03/29 04:22:16
    I do not belong to a union, but i support Unions
    Miss UT
    +3
    I am retired now, but the hospital I worked for was not unionized. The administration made us sign "employed at will" contracts, meaning that we were employed "at will" and could be terminated "at will" for no reason. I was raised in a union household and have always supported umions. My father was a union member and president of his local IAM& AW. My mother was the secretary to the business rep for the unions in our town.
    Unions, through the years, have given us EVERY benefit that we receive as employees. Many in the workforce today have come to expect these benefits as part of the job, but have no idea how they got there...through the blood, sweat, and tears of union members that fought for those rights. So I'm definitely a UNION GIRL!
  • marianne Miss UT 2012/03/29 08:00:51
    marianne
    +3
    well said ;]
  • Minarchist 2012/03/29 02:12:48
    Sill hate Unions
    Minarchist
    Everybody discusses the two major problems with unions
    1: campaign contrbutions
    2: bargaining heavy equals outsourcing

    nobody discusses the additional problems with unions:
    1: artificial pricing of widgets afecting market prices
    2: artificial wages of employees
    3: companies going broke because of union deals and red tape prevent revamp of business model.
    4: prevention to fire insubordinates
    5: prevention of awarding individuals that strive to achieve excelence.
    6: when union fail to fight for people thus wasted union dues.
    7: damage to property or life threatened of non-union individuals for working.

    Liberty comes with responsibility Free to try, free to buy, free to sell, free to fail.
  • marianne Minarchist 2012/03/29 07:02:07 (edited)
    marianne
    +1
    pardon me, but you left out - free to exploit

    and to ;

    Everybody discusses the two major problems with unions
    1: campaign contributions..

    aren't you concerned about the mega contributions by the corporations?
  • \V/ 2012/03/28 22:10:39
  • voice_matters 2012/03/28 19:54:41
    Undecided
    voice_matters
    funny how there isn't a "i am in a union and hate it" response option. funny how most right to work states are in the south and the majority of income is from agriculture. but then again those are the facts that the libs ignore
  • Charles E 2012/03/28 13:38:53
    Undecided
    Charles E
    +1
    You provide a lot of interesting statistics, but none of them prove a cause and effect relationship.

    It could be that poorer states are more willing to pass RTW laws in the hope of attracting new business and increase employment.
    Or that wealthier states are more willing to accept the higher labor costs associated with unionization.
    Or any number of other possible reasons not addressed by you or me.
  • Sinpac Charles E 2012/03/28 14:25:36
    Sinpac
    I kept looking for you counter proof. I looked all over this post maybe you will post it later.
  • Charles E Sinpac 2012/03/28 15:06:44
    Charles E
    "Or any number of other possible reasons not addressed by you or me."

    i did not claim proof.
    I merely provided alternatives to your statements, that were also not proof.
  • Nomad58 Charles E 2012/03/28 15:12:33
    Nomad58
    +1
    Try John Coopers paper Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions, and Businesses? The link is here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p... and you can skip to the Conclusion on page 42 or read the full report to see how he refutes the arguments made in the Union literature.
  • Charles E Nomad58 2012/03/28 16:11:57
    Charles E
    Thank you for the link and information.
  • marianne Nomad58 2012/03/29 06:49:24 (edited)
    marianne
    +1
    your website appeared as:

    Oops! We're sorry, but the page you are looking for cannot be found. The site administrator has been informed.
    You may be able to find the information you need at:

    SSRN Homepage
    SSRN User HQ
    FAQ

    Other things to try:

    Search static.ssrn.com:
  • Nomad58 marianne 2012/03/29 15:24:19
    Nomad58
    +1
    Wow, you're right ~ one of those working one day, down the next.

    Try this: http://www.johnwcooper.com/ri...
  • marianne Nomad58 2012/04/06 21:45:04
    marianne
    thanks...;]
  • Nomad58 2012/03/28 11:02:07 (edited)
    Sill hate Unions
    Nomad58
    +1
    This information is corrupted by misleading data.

    The cost of living in many RTW States is significantly lower than Non-RTW States to begin which will affect all other calculations therefore skewing the meaning of the results.

    Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions, and Businesses
    by John Cooper
    (Conclusion)
    The main reasons people claim a state should not adopt RTW laws are that they lead to lower wages, are damaging to unions, and are morally wrong because they allow people to receive union services without paying for them. This paper’s critical analysis of RTW literature has provided strong evidence that the first two potential drawbacks of RTW laws are red herrings. Numerous credible studies have shown that real wages in RTW and non-RTW states are about the same, and if anything RTW states have slightly higher real wages.

    Additionally, although RTW laws do make it easier for people to free ride or receive union services without paying for them, the best estimate available suggests the proportion of people who are truly taking advantage of unions in this way is insignificant—only 2-3% more people do so in RTW states than do so in non-RTW states. As to how RTW laws affect union membership, the jury is still out. Most research suggests that total union membership wi...




    This information is corrupted by misleading data.

    The cost of living in many RTW States is significantly lower than Non-RTW States to begin which will affect all other calculations therefore skewing the meaning of the results.

    Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions, and Businesses
    by John Cooper
    (Conclusion)
    The main reasons people claim a state should not adopt RTW laws are that they lead to lower wages, are damaging to unions, and are morally wrong because they allow people to receive union services without paying for them. This paper’s critical analysis of RTW literature has provided strong evidence that the first two potential drawbacks of RTW laws are red herrings. Numerous credible studies have shown that real wages in RTW and non-RTW states are about the same, and if anything RTW states have slightly higher real wages.

    Additionally, although RTW laws do make it easier for people to free ride or receive union services without paying for them, the best estimate available suggests the proportion of people who are truly taking advantage of unions in this way is insignificant—only 2-3% more people do so in RTW states than do so in non-RTW states. As to how RTW laws affect union membership, the jury is still out. Most research suggests that total union membership within a state could decrease by between zero and eight percent after a state adopts a RTW law. This would be the most significant negative effect to a state of adopting RTW laws. However, it seems fairly safe to say that the possible reduction in union size does not negatively affect workers’ wages.

    The main reason to adopt RTW laws is that RTW laws spur a state’s economic activity, lead to lower unemployment and higher job growth, and make a state more attractive to business. The aforementioned benefits are supported by the preponderance of available research on this topic, and by the experiences of the two most recent adopters of RTW laws, Idaho and Oklahoma. Both of these states have experienced tremendous economic activity after adopting RTW laws. There are other relevant benefits of RTW laws. These laws do stop a state’s citizens from having to go through the ordeal and possible harassment associated with becoming Beck Objectors. Additionally, a limited amount of research on the topic does suggest that adopting a RTW law may actually have a small positive effect on the value of a state’s businesses’ stocks.

    When one weighs the benefits of RTW laws, mainly stronger economic growth and new job creation, against the negative effects of RTW laws, mainly the possibility of somewhat weakened unions, the choice is clear. In either case the real wages people earn are the same, but the economic growth and job creation are different. States wanting to be well positioned for success in the 21st century should adopt a Right to Work law.
    see full paper at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
    (more)
  • Sinpac Nomad58 2012/03/28 14:25:16
    Sinpac
    I kept looking for you counter proof. I looked all over this post maybe you will post it later.
  • Nomad58 Sinpac 2012/03/28 15:05:36
    Nomad58
    Posted above as Edit (link at bottom provides full paper)
  • Sinpac Nomad58 2012/03/28 15:24:24
    Sinpac
    +1
    The only thing I take from that story that was written by a lawyer and is one sided script.
  • Nomad58 Sinpac 2012/03/28 15:42:04
    Nomad58
    Read the whole document then ~ it's only 43 pages shouldn't take long.
  • Sinpac Nomad58 2012/03/28 15:53:47
    Sinpac
    +1
    I read about 15 pages that was all I needed to read.
  • Sinpac Nomad58 2012/03/28 15:54:06
    Sinpac
    I read about 15 pages that was all I needed to read.
  • marianne Nomad58 2012/03/29 08:14:08
    marianne
    +1
    appears that mr cooper had a bias...

    he left out the statistical difference of job fatalities, i think that the almost double more who now are dead in the rtw states, may not have it so good.
  • Nomad58 marianne 2012/03/29 15:44:31 (edited)
    Nomad58
    +1
    Sorry, that argument will not work ~ Unions initial good of implementing Safety rules has been superseded by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

    I believe you are using the research by Roland Zullo which was based on statistical analysis and not actual case studies. The paragraphs that were used ignored by the Union supporters follow:

    "He found that the rate of industry fatalities is 40 percent higher and the rate of occupational fatalities is 34 percent greater in right-to-work states. Zullo acknowledges that these numbers alone fall short of testing whether right-to-work laws are responsible for the relatively high fatality rates.

    "Right-to-work laws are found predominantly in the southern and western United States, and it could be that other factors, such as geographic terrain, weather, and so forth, affect worker safety," he said. "Unions also have a stronger presence in non-right-to-work states."
    Right-to-work laws endanger workers (April 8, 2011), Web Sourced from OSHA Safety: http://www.physorg.com/news/2...

    Had Mr. Zullo or even OSHA taken the time to look into the files of these accidents they may have had a strong argument. I do not agree with the distracters who state that Obama's OSHA did and found no correlation, yet published the findings anyw...
    Sorry, that argument will not work ~ Unions initial good of implementing Safety rules has been superseded by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

    I believe you are using the research by Roland Zullo which was based on statistical analysis and not actual case studies. The paragraphs that were used ignored by the Union supporters follow:

    "He found that the rate of industry fatalities is 40 percent higher and the rate of occupational fatalities is 34 percent greater in right-to-work states. Zullo acknowledges that these numbers alone fall short of testing whether right-to-work laws are responsible for the relatively high fatality rates.

    "Right-to-work laws are found predominantly in the southern and western United States, and it could be that other factors, such as geographic terrain, weather, and so forth, affect worker safety," he said. "Unions also have a stronger presence in non-right-to-work states."
    Right-to-work laws endanger workers (April 8, 2011), Web Sourced from OSHA Safety: http://www.physorg.com/news/2...

    Had Mr. Zullo or even OSHA taken the time to look into the files of these accidents they may have had a strong argument. I do not agree with the distracters who state that Obama's OSHA did and found no correlation, yet published the findings anyway. I believe OSHA has enough to do without doing a history report. However, I feel it was incompetent on Mr. Zullo part to have published without more research. This is probably why he did not receive a pier review endorsement. Really a shame, this study had so much promise.
    (more)
  • marianne Nomad58 2012/04/06 21:54:03
    marianne
    again, thanks for great info....
    i will look into it...
    howabout the income disparity that has grown at the same time when the unions have lost influence and membership?
    seems to me that many people have been brainwashed to vote against their own interests.
  • Nomad58 marianne 2012/04/06 23:14:56
    Nomad58
    The income disparity is not as great as reported and once you factor in the lower costs of living in most Right-to-Work States it reveals workers have an advantage.
  • marianne Nomad58 2012/04/10 23:34:31
  • Nomad58 marianne 2012/04/11 21:16:44 (edited)
    Nomad58
    Your graph was developed from faulty data therefore it is useless. The Middle Class share of the income is a moving target since people are constantly mobile between classes in this Nation. Union membership has nothing whatsoever to do with the growth of the Middle Class. You are at best 11.9% of the Workforce, thus not a significant element to cause an impact of the economy.

    So what does the real Middle Class look like?
    MiddleClassIncome
    As the graph above shows, the average household size has declined by 21% from 1967 to 2006, while real, median household income increased by 31% over the same period. Result? A significantly, much, much higher standard of living for the average household member, i.e. the typical member of the middle class!

    Isn't it time that we bury many of the myths forever about the "middle-class squeeze," "the war on the middle-class," "the American middle-class is fighting for its life," "Two Americas," etc.
  • marianne Nomad58 2012/04/11 22:11:26
    marianne
    perhaps we can respectfully disagree, and maybe we even can find agreement in more subjects than not, but...
    your graph shows increase of middle class income by 31 %, where my graph, shows the share. so we're sort comparing oranges and apples.

    here's another, from;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    US income Gini indices over time

    Gini indices for the United States at various times, according to the US Census Bureau:[13][14][15]

    1929: 45.0 (estimated)
    1947: 37.6 (estimated)
    1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
    1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
    1970: 39.4
    1980: 40.3
    1990: 42.8
    2000: 46.2
    2005: 46.9
    2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
    2007: 46.3
    2008: 46.69
    2009: 46.8
  • Nomad58 marianne 2012/04/12 04:19:12
    Nomad58
    +1
    Don't trust Wiki ~ it is useless as a reference, always go to the sources. In this case the author of the Wikipedia article either read the data wrong or intentionally took the worse figures from the charts ( I fear the latter since this data is all over the place):

    Here is the data from the first 1967 reading from the Census Bureau:

    2010 39.7% 1988 35.5%
    2009 40.4% 1987 35.3%
    2008 40.3% 1986 35.5%
    2007 39.4% 1985 34.8%
    2006 41.1% 1984 34.2%
    2005 40.9% 1983 34.0%
    2004 40.5% 1982 34.0%
    2003 40.1% 1981 33.4%
    2002 40.5% 1980 33.1%
    2001 40.9% 1979 33.5%
    2000 40.5% 1978 33.3%
    1999 39.9% 1977 33.2%
    1998 39.3% 1976 32.8%
    1997 39.4% 1975 32.7%
    1996 39.3% 1974 32.6%
    1995 38.8% 1973 33.0%
    1994 39.5% 1972 33.6%
    1993 38.9% 1971 32.8%
    1992 36.0% 1970 32.6%
    1991 35.5% 1969 32.6%
    1990 35.9% 1968 33.3%
    1989 36.2% 1967 34.0%

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/ww... (IE-2)

    In any event, disparity in income is not necessarily a bad thing if all of the population is still gaining in wealth. If the rich get richer in a wealth producing Nation would not the Middle Class and Poor also gain if the join in the industry?

    There were three ties for lowest index @ 32.6% in '69, '70' & '74. The highest was 2006 @ 41.1%. Also you will notice a big jump in the numbers in '93, this was due to an adjustment to the method of calculating the form...

    &

    &&
    Don't trust Wiki ~ it is useless as a reference, always go to the sources. In this case the author of the Wikipedia article either read the data wrong or intentionally took the worse figures from the charts ( I fear the latter since this data is all over the place):

    Here is the data from the first 1967 reading from the Census Bureau:

    2010 39.7% 1988 35.5%
    2009 40.4% 1987 35.3%
    2008 40.3% 1986 35.5%
    2007 39.4% 1985 34.8%
    2006 41.1% 1984 34.2%
    2005 40.9% 1983 34.0%
    2004 40.5% 1982 34.0%
    2003 40.1% 1981 33.4%
    2002 40.5% 1980 33.1%
    2001 40.9% 1979 33.5%
    2000 40.5% 1978 33.3%
    1999 39.9% 1977 33.2%
    1998 39.3% 1976 32.8%
    1997 39.4% 1975 32.7%
    1996 39.3% 1974 32.6%
    1995 38.8% 1973 33.0%
    1994 39.5% 1972 33.6%
    1993 38.9% 1971 32.8%
    1992 36.0% 1970 32.6%
    1991 35.5% 1969 32.6%
    1990 35.9% 1968 33.3%
    1989 36.2% 1967 34.0%

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/ww... (IE-2)

    In any event, disparity in income is not necessarily a bad thing if all of the population is still gaining in wealth. If the rich get richer in a wealth producing Nation would not the Middle Class and Poor also gain if the join in the industry?

    There were three ties for lowest index @ 32.6% in '69, '70' & '74. The highest was 2006 @ 41.1%. Also you will notice a big jump in the numbers in '93, this was due to an adjustment to the method of calculating the formula after the 1992 collection resulting in a radical 2.9% jump in the figures in a single year.

    Your graph itself is misleading through using a title saving Union Membership Decreases; Middle Class Income Decreases then provided a chart showing "share" of National Income (btw that is class warfare tactics & nonsensical in a wealth producing society). Therefore, I provided a graph showing the true growth of Middle Class income.

    The Apples & Oranges were in the Union Chart. "Income" & "Share of Income" do not match thus the chart itself is misleading. Of course, it served its purpose as it was used to fool Huffington Post (of course that's like fooling your dog by pretending to toss a ball). I understand propaganda's effectiveness as a weapon and a tool. I just find it a shame when full-on deception must be used to support an institution.
    (more)
  • marianne Nomad58 2012/04/12 20:18:54
    marianne
    both of our charts have similar trend.
    more equality at a time when unions were stronger. we might not be able to definitely tell the cause and effect, but at least all facts from this site make me believe that union positive effects outweight the negative ones.

    about workplace accidents;

    http://dailymail.com/News/201...

    ....and some could argue if egg came before chicken, but here's list of countries with and without unions
    . http://www.marketforum.com/?i...

    Countries with Unions - Countries without Unions
    sam - Sat Mar 5 2011 at 5:15 PM

    (Source: US dept of Labor) Year & Percent of workforce

    Austria......................... 2002 18.2
    Belgium......................... 2002 41.7
    Denmark......................... 2003 20.4
    Finland......................... 2003 29.7
    France.......................... 2003 33.0
    Germany......................... 2003 19.8
    Ireland......................... 2003 8.0
    Italy........................... 2004 53.1
    Netherlands..................... 2003 20.1
    Norway.......................... 2002 26.0
    Spain........................... 2003 6.0
    Sweden.......................... 2003 20.7
    Switzerland..................... 2001 13.0
    United Kingdom......................... 2003 12.8
    ................................
    Average......................... 24.2

    List of countries without labor unions is too...




















    both of our charts have similar trend.
    more equality at a time when unions were stronger. we might not be able to definitely tell the cause and effect, but at least all facts from this site make me believe that union positive effects outweight the negative ones.

    about workplace accidents;

    http://dailymail.com/News/201...

    ....and some could argue if egg came before chicken, but here's list of countries with and without unions
    . http://www.marketforum.com/?i...

    Countries with Unions - Countries without Unions
    sam - Sat Mar 5 2011 at 5:15 PM

    (Source: US dept of Labor) Year & Percent of workforce

    Austria......................... 2002 18.2
    Belgium......................... 2002 41.7
    Denmark......................... 2003 20.4
    Finland......................... 2003 29.7
    France.......................... 2003 33.0
    Germany......................... 2003 19.8
    Ireland......................... 2003 8.0
    Italy........................... 2004 53.1
    Netherlands..................... 2003 20.1
    Norway.......................... 2002 26.0
    Spain........................... 2003 6.0
    Sweden.......................... 2003 20.7
    Switzerland..................... 2001 13.0
    United Kingdom......................... 2003 12.8
    ................................
    Average......................... 24.2

    List of countries without labor unions is too long to list but it reads like a who's who in places you don't want to live or visit. Here are just a few that were on a list as countries exploiting children in dangerous jobs (126 million children world wide)

    Afghanistan
    Angola
    Azerbaijan
    Bangladesh
    Bolivia
    Belize
    Burma
    Cambodia
    Cameroon
    China
    Ecquador
    Egypt
    El Salvidor
    Ghana
    Honduras
    Iran
    Jordon
    Pakistan

    there is strength in numbers.
    (more)
  • Nomad58 marianne 2012/04/12 21:09:24
    Nomad58
    The workplace accident study was dismissed by OSHA as "needing more study" because it failed to account the variations in the studies and just offered more theories for information that could have easily been discovered. Also, why is a Law Professor doing an incomplete study on Mine Safety?

    Aren't those Countries with the high Union Membership the ones having the greatest economic troubles right now?
  • marianne Nomad58 2012/04/12 21:17:08
    marianne
    out of the ones listed, i believe that spain, ireland and italy have been listed as troubled economies,
    as to those countries without unions... i only know that china is debtor nation, a financial superpower, but most chinese have poor working and living conditions.
  • Nomad58 marianne 2012/04/12 21:26:01
    Nomad58
    China is definitely a shameful condition. I was in Hong Kong in '91 (prior to reunification in '97) and the place was great. Now it is overrun with soldiers to make sure no one gets away. Now that is a place that is as close to slave wages as you can get (next to North Korea)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/27 19:17:51

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals