Right to work laws.

Basically, these laws prohibit employers from making contracts with unions that require employees to join unions and mandatorily pay financial contributions. Currently, 22 states have enacted these laws into their constitutions. 1) It does not go against any law in the United States. So you cannot refute the law legally. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law. 2) Requiring unions to attract voluntary members (as opposed to forcing them to join) is a great way to insure that unions will act in the best interests of the workers. They can no longer take their membership force for granted and must actually satisfy their workers, or they will dissolve. 3) Union contracts that require membership upon employment may be regarded as a breach of civil rights. Americans should not be forced to join a union that forces them to pay monthly dues in order to work. In many places, you can't even become a teacher without first joining the union. 4) States that have right to work laws (mainly in the south and west) subsequently have fewer teachers' unions. As a result, property taxes in southern states are roughly half that of property taxes in the northern states. Because the northern states don't have right to work laws, teachers' unions exponentially increase the cost of education, thus, school tax is increased (school tax is taken out of your property tax). 5) Unions are a business, no two ways about that. And under federal law, members of unions cannot negotiate on their own behalf. Only the union can do that. Nor can members seek personal representation from another union or agency. This creates a representation monopoly in unions causing them to be less considerate and accountable to its members. This may mean that unions will provide fewer services and offer minimal care for its workers. However, under right to work laws, unions are more compliant and actually care more about the situation of their workers. If workers are not satisfied with union treatment, they can simply quit and work at the company under their own representation. 6) Dues forcibly collected by unions are spent unscrupulously and without the consent or knowledge of the people paying them. Typically, these compulsorily dues are used as endorsements to politicians that agree to support unions during their administration. Unions pay politicians, politicians act in the best interests of the union (not the members necessarily), politicians get elected again. Vicious cycle. Under RTW laws, unions cannot force their members to pay dues that they do not want to pay. 7) Income inequality is not necessarily a sign of a poor economic state. During the mid 1800's, the US experienced a booming era of economic expansion while at the same time it saw its income inequality increase. During the great depression, equal distribution of earnings increased. Anyway, from 1992 and on, RTW states had a lower income inequality rate than non-RTW states. The favorable economic climate produced by RTW laws appears to be responsible for general income growth that benefits all workers and reduces income disparity. It is evident that, overall, the economies with RTW laws grow at a more steady rate than non-RTW states. This contradicts the widely held belief that unions alleviate uneven earning distributions. This may be true for individual companies, but it holds no water in a state-wide picture. 8) According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 1970-2000, average employment growth rates for RTW states was 2.9%, leading non-RTW states (2.0%). So RTW states experience higher employment rates. Unemployment rates from 1978-2000: RTW (5.8%), non-RTW (6.3). 9) Again, from the USBLS, from 1977-1999, RTW states saw an average of 3.4% growth in Gross State Product while the non-RTW rivals had 2.9% growth. This is substantial growth expansion difference especially when you consider the fact that it's been compounded over 23 years. 10) Because of the stranglehold that unions have on the manufacturing industry, northern states (non-right to work) are seeing a significant portion of their manufacturers fleeing to RTW states. In fact, non-RTW states have seen a decrease in manufacturing employment growth of .2% compounded annually from 1970-2000. Guess how the extent of RTW manufacturing employment growth? +1.5 %. The more and more industry that leaves non-RTW states hurts the industry that remains more and more. If there are less companies there, Unions can afford to hike up prices and increase company expenses to the point where it isn't worth it to stay. Let's face it, the reason why norther states will not pass RTW laws is because the unions are in bed with the politicians. Union leaders in Boston, New York, Philadelphia would die before they let these laws pass. You think the protests in Madison were bad? Try pulling that off in New York. People would die. Buildings would be burned down.