Which states will be "right-to-work" in 2025?

[The_Doctor]

I hope nationally right to work on the federal level is the law of the land.  I want to return to the Calvin and Grace Coolidge days.

I have never hated things more than I hate labor unions…

[The_Doctor]

I have never hated things more than I hate labor unions…

1) Why? 2) Do you got a job?

Labor unions are a distortion of capital being connected with human resources. They inflate (artificially) what these workers are worth and they distort the market. More often than not, unions try to force membership on whole groups of people to increase their bargaining power. You can't enter some jobs without joining the local union - and paying union fees - which I find inherently anti-democratic. And lastly, by paying union dues, I'm indirectly subsidizing the Democratic Party, a Party I am most definitely not interested in supporting or subsidizing. them.

Why does the job bit matter by the way? I'm between jobs at the moment, but even if I had one, I don't want to work for a union and give union dues to one.

[The_Doctor]

I hope nationally right to work on the federal level is the law of the land.  I want to return to the Calvin and Grace Coolidge days.

I have never hated things more than I hate labor unions…

Yeah, that was a grand old time, wasn't it?

I believe these people are Democrats. Really. They are. 1920s Democrats. Our party in Coolidge's heyday was the one winning 75% of the black vote. So yes, I advocate a return to Coolidge's heyday, before the New Deal.

[The_Doctor]

I hope nationally right to work on the federal level is the law of the land.  I want to return to the Calvin and Grace Coolidge days.

I have never hated things more than I hate labor unions…

1920s -- a slum of a decade, an era of corruption, mindless hedonism, social stasis, and destructive speculation. Coolidge kept the screws tight on German reparations, which harshened economic conditions in Germany -- which may have led to one of the greatest political disasters of inhuman history, the rise of Adolf Hitler. 

Labor unions give workers a stake in capitalism; without them workers get stepped on so often and so hard that working people might as well have Karl Marx as their savior. 

The Roaring 1920s were actually one of the most economically prosperous and productive times in American history. They were a time when radio and electronics became available to the masses, in greater quantities than ever. The average American was more prosperous than anytime before and voted accordingly (as you can see by Coolidge almost carrying New York City in 1924).

The Teapot Dome Scandal was terrible, but President Coolidge was a squeaky clean President who exercised minimal governance and was among the most principled Presidents in history. The Republican Congress was also fairly scandal free.

As an internationalist, I'll agree that the German reparations were unfair. The isolationism of the Coolidge era was a mistake, I'll concur - and I'll cop to being an internationalist.

I don't see the problem with hedonism, as long as consenting adults operate in the confines of their bedroom. I don't see why you have a problem with it.

As for the destructive speculation you speak of - had the Federal Reserve intervened in 1929, we could have continued the 1920s and staved off the worst effects of the Great Depression. The very fact the Federal Reserve didn't is what hurt us the most. I'm going to once again point out that speculation is not necessarily bad (the telecommunications boom was a speculative endeavor in the 1990s but gave us cheap internet in the process).

And Karl Marx - heh. If he had his way and had the Soviet Union followed him, we'd be all be under the foot of a far more authoritarian force than mere business.

[The_Doctor]

As for the next right to work states: Nevada, Missouri, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The Republicans in Nevada are in control for the first time since 1929. They'll try to (I hope) push right to work through. Missouri's Republican legislature has enough votes to now override the governor. And Wisconsin is a given. Ditto West Virginia (simple majority needed to override the Democratic Governor). So +4 right to work states.

Pennsylvania is off the table because of the Democratic governorship (Tom Corbett should really have pushed right to work through when he had the chance and the legislature for it).

Down the line if we win Kentucky's lower house (plausible in the next 5 years), Kentucky will become a right to work state.

[The_Doctor]

I have never hated things more than I hate labor unions…

1) Why? 2) Do you got a job?

Labor unions are a distortion of capital being connected with human resources. They inflate (artificially) what these workers are worth and they distort the market. More often than not, unions try to force membership on whole groups of people to increase their bargaining power. You can't enter some jobs without joining the local union - and paying union fees - which I find inherently anti-democratic. And lastly, by paying union dues, I'm indirectly subsidizing the Democratic Party, a Party I am most definitely not interested in supporting or subsidizing. them.

Why does the job bit matter by the way? I'm between jobs at the moment, but even if I had one, I don't want to work for a union and give union dues to one.

Employers have told me that they prefer to negotiate individually with workers so that they can reward people based upon their merits. In practice that means something very different: finding the weaknesses of negotiation of individual workers and exploiting those as much as possible. Supervisors are expected to spy upon their subordinates to find any possible vulnerabilities. At times having a vulnerability means getting a pay cut, let alone getting subpar pay.

Thus a scenario like this is possible.

Bill's wife has a baby. His boss congratulates him and then tells him that since it is in the best interest of Bill and his enlarged family that he take a pay cut on behalf of the security of his job. Oh, yes -- and do some unpaid overtime.

Collective bargaining, something that unions can offer, is well worth the union dues. Don't fool yourself: that is what Big Business hates about unions.  

The thing to remember is this.

First off people should be paid what they're worth. That's the gist of a market economy. But I'll address how employers abuse workers and how we can avoid them without the need for a union. But I want to get into a tangent a bit.

If Bill is an IT worker, Bill can command a decent salary and can have a baby and start a family, especially if Bill is important enough to his company to be paid well enough, then Bill has nothing to worry about. That's the basis of our new economy: skills based economy. That's the case for most workers. They have, are important enough, and are valuable enough to their employers that their employers won't abuse them. And I would argue we're transitioning to an economy where skills and knowledge are going to be considerable assets, enough to make sure that people like Bill can a) argue for themselves b) prosper c) and shop their skills around to competitors.
 
Now onto your arguments that employers are coercing their workers. While this is probably true on some scale, how much of the working population is being abused the way you claim they are being abused? I'm curious because you're providing anecdotal data, not empirical data. If you were right, I'd wager that a sizable majority of people are treated more or less fairly. Your line about "supervisors are expected to spy on their subordinates to find any possible vulnerabilities" seems bordering on hyperbolic.

As a note, most people stay in the jobs they have because of the health care model which attaches itself to employers and other attached benefits, not per se the wages themselves. One of the (more conservative; I should point out the Administration stole this outright from the GOP) elements of the Affordable Care Act allows you to buy health care on the insurance market, thus lessening your dependence on employers. I'm guessing as the exchanges stay in force (also a Republican idea), we'll see employers enticing their workers to stay in their jobs with more than just threats. (This is accepting your argument that employers coerce workers to accept pay cuts and unpaid overtime).

To me, labor unions argue in favor of inflating wages and the like unnecessarily. For example, Detroit's Big Three, a while ago, were being outsold because of the cheaper wages that their Japanese rivals were offering (and thus could undersell them). One major difference is that collective bargaining was in force in Michigan, and unions were winning substantial reqwards for their members. Factories were being relocated to the South (especially in right to work states) and jobs were going there, because they had right to work.

Another more pressing problems that unions have caused - especially public sector unions - they have negotiated very generous pension settlements that leave the states on the hook for billions of dollars, with little way to pay for it. One reason these settlements are so generous and the retirement conditions so favorable? Public sector unions. And who's left to pay the bill, when states must raise taxes to pay for the retirement of public sector workers? Working people, who have to pay more in taxes.

Unions, I readily acknowledge, have a place in American history and provided many positive benefits. I feel however their day has come and gone, and that we need to start moving beyond labor unions. That's why Right to Work - on the federal level - should be the final nail in the labor union movement's coffin.

[The_Doctor]

Yeah, that was a grand old time, wasn't it?

I believe these people are Democrats. Really. They are.

Seriously? I bet nobody on this site would've known that if not for you. Thanks!

It's funny because the picture has nothing to with what I'm advocating (hardly anyone would say I'm advocating a return to the days of the KKK; I'm not even white). I was advocating (in this thread) a return to economic thought as was in the days of Coolidge (sans free trade and the Federal Reserve, I'll admit).

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I missed this. I have no idea what you mean about World War II's Asian voters. But given the Civil War and Reconstruction, the African American vote was a solidly Republican one. It also helped the GOP outside the South. It wasn't token. The leading African Americans of the day were mostly or all Republican.

The Irish are white (and I think they were considered white by the turn of the 20th century). So I don't know how it's racist. Despite you trying to downplay the GOP efforts, it wasn't the GOP who couldn't pass laws banning lynching. It was the Democratic Party - particularly their Southern wing - who was intent on stopping these laws.

The Klan picture commentary is accurate. They weren't Republicans. They were Democrats. And they and their leadership supported the Democratic Party. Anyone can see that, especially by viewing any Presidential election return in the South from 1876 to 1928.

It's obviously not the modern Democratic Party but the Klan was heavily and staunchly Democratic back then.