If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Detroit Free Press)   11AM: Michigan Republicans introduce right-to-work legislation. 9PM: After locking Capitol doors, bill forced through lame-duck sessions of both state houses. Bonus: "right to work" classified as appropriations, so voters can't overturn it   (freep.com) divider line 265
    More: Asinine, capitols, Lansing, Michigan, Republican, appropriations, legislation, union shops, Senate passed  
•       •       •

2708 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2012 at 11:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



265 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-07 08:58:41 AM
Bonus: "right to work" classified as appropriations, so voters can't overturn it

Here we have an astonishing number of "emergency" laws, which go into effect immediately and are not subject to referendum.  The courts have said the governor is allowed to veto individual non-appropriation measures improperly joined in the annual budget which is supposed to be for approproations only.
 
2012-12-07 09:09:01 AM
While I'm no fan of the GOP, I find it rather amusing that State Democrats are beside themselves especially since the unions tried to pass a referendum to the state constitution that would essentially made collective bargaining mandatory.

From what I've read the reason that the doors were locked was due to people throwing things and screaming inside the Capitol building. I've been looking for video.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-07 09:22:35 AM
I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working.
 
2012-12-07 09:26:58 AM
I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.
 
2012-12-07 09:27:28 AM

vpb: I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working.


They have just enough self-awareness to realize that they have to lie to make their ideas appear to be even slightly palatable.
 
2012-12-07 09:28:30 AM

vpb: I like how they call it "right to work" like it has something to do with a right that relates to working.


They're actually calling it "Freedom to work".

Because, freedom. Or something.
 
2012-12-07 09:30:11 AM

slayer199: While I'm no fan of the GOP, I find it rather amusing that State Democrats are beside themselves especially since the unions tried to pass a referendum to the state constitution that would essentially made collective bargaining mandatory.

From what I've read the reason that the doors were locked was due to people throwing things and screaming inside the Capitol building. I've been looking for video.


It didn't make it mandatory. It said people have a constitutional right to collective bargaining. Because they knew what the Koch bros were brewing. Also? It was up for public vote, not done behind locked capitol doors. It lost, so whatever. I just wanted to correct your interpretation.
 
2012-12-07 09:35:32 AM

Ahhh_Ennui: It didn't make it mandatory. It said people have a constitutional right to collective bargaining. Because they knew what the Koch bros were brewing. Also? It was up for public vote, not done behind locked capitol doors. It lost, so whatever. I just wanted to correct your interpretation.


And politicos and pundits alike knew that RTW would be on the table when that lost. Amending the State Constitution to make it a right was a foolish ploy on the part of unions and Democrats.
 
2012-12-07 09:36:53 AM

minoridiot: What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


Freedom of choice? What country do you think this is?
 
2012-12-07 09:37:10 AM

minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.
 
2012-12-07 09:56:17 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: minoridiot: What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Freedom of choice? What country do you think this is?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-07 09:59:39 AM
Democracy!

/no, really, this is good
 
2012-12-07 10:23:29 AM

Mentat: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.


So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.
 
2012-12-07 10:38:46 AM

minoridiot: So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.


Where do you think those laws came from? And why do you think they're still on the books? And why do you think those laws will magically stay on the books if no one fights for them? Look at Wisconsin. Scott Walker is openly and blatantly trying to remove collective bargaining rights. In Wisconsin, we're seeing companies emboldened by Walker who are provoking their employees into striking so that the companies can break their unions and cut workers pay and benefits. Look at what Hostess did to their own workers. Can you honestly say that you have any faith in the law to protect workers rights when so many powerful groups are aligned to deny those rights?

As for the competition aspect, you completely ignored everything that I wrote. The ultimate goal of right-to-work is to remove competition. You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions, but once the unions are gone, there's no incentive to maintain those high standards. Without the unions serving as a stalwart, companies will simply slash benefits and pay at will. But I guess you can hire a lawyer on your $25K salary and hope that he can outlast the multimillion dollar company's teams of lawyers.
 
2012-12-07 11:00:02 AM

minoridiot: Mentat: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.

So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.



This has nothing to do with collective bargaining. It has everything to do with Union dues going to Democratic campaigns.

Voter ID laws have nothing to do with voter fraud, everything to do with voter suppression.

The Republican party is in its last dying throes. It has admitted that to remain competitive, they have to cheat the system.

That being said, I have no problem with right to work laws (I'm in a union). But if someone decides to not pay dues, they still get all the benefits and rights as a due paying member. I'd say if you don't want to pay union dues, fine... negotiate your own wages and benefits.

If that were to happen, people would come back to the union en masse.
 
2012-12-07 11:25:39 AM
I've been catching bits of this as it unfolded via my twitter feed. apparently the local GOP types are a wee tad bitter about losing to the Democrats and aren't afraid to show it.
 
2012-12-07 11:35:31 AM

Mentat: minoridiot: So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.

Where do you think those laws came from? And why do you think they're still on the books? And why do you think those laws will magically stay on the books if no one fights for them? Look at Wisconsin. Scott Walker is openly and blatantly trying to remove collective bargaining rights. In Wisconsin, we're seeing companies emboldened by Walker who are provoking their employees into striking so that the companies can break their unions and cut workers pay and benefits. Look at what Hostess did to their own workers. Can you honestly say that you have any faith in the law to protect workers rights when so many powerful groups are aligned to deny those rights?

As for the competition aspect, you completely ignored everything that I wrote. The ultimate goal of right-to-work is to remove competition. You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions, but once the unions are gone, there's no incentive to maintain those high standards. Without the unions serving as a stalwart, companies will simply slash benefits and pay at will. But I guess you can hire a lawyer on your $25K salary and hope that he can outlast the multimillion dollar company's teams of lawyers.


Collective bargaining is covered by Federal Law which is why the Wisconsin law was struck down in court. And the Hostess thing, the Baker's union should share in some of that blame as much as the company.

Unions have done a lot of good in the past, and continue to be a positive benefit for many employees. But it is misleading to claim that to claim that Right to Work laws will eliminate Unions. Unions continue to remain popular in Right to Work states today.

Ultimately, unions should help provide benefits to employees above and beyond what the company in alone can offer. But if the employee is not benefiting from a union membership, why should the employee remain a member?
 
2012-12-07 11:39:19 AM

minoridiot: Mentat: minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.

Bullshiat. Right to Work would better be described as Divide and Conquer. The initial purpose is to provide a competitive alternative to unions so that workers will voluntarily give up their collective bargaining rights and weaken the unions. What you're seeing now is the end game. If they can break unions in the Rust Belt, then they no longer have to compete with the unions and then they can do whatever they want to the workers. Don't like it? Sorry, you gave up your collective bargaining rights.

So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.


Ah yes. Employees really do have it so good because they have the backing of government.

Oh. Wait. You're talking about American employees? My god, you're a riot. That's the funniest thing I've heard all morning.
 
2012-12-07 11:40:57 AM

Weaver95: I've been catching bits of this as it unfolded via my twitter feed. apparently the local GOP types are a wee tad bitter about losing to the Democrats and aren't afraid to show it.


Meet the new Michigan : now with less democracy.
 
2012-12-07 11:44:13 AM
Republicans in my state are assholes. Not much more to say about it than that.
 
2012-12-07 11:44:22 AM
Awesome, the party of small government strikes again. This time it inserts itself into the contract between a company and a worker's Union.

Love that party of "fiscal conservatism" and "small government".
 
2012-12-07 11:45:30 AM
The right to work for less money and less benefits. It's the Republican way.

We peons need to understand that we're the ones who have to pay for the avarice of the Wealthy Elite.
 
2012-12-07 11:46:05 AM
Republicans engaging in class warfare? What a shock.
 
2012-12-07 11:46:35 AM

minoridiot: Mentat: minoridiot: So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.

Where do you think those laws came from? And why do you think they're still on the books? And why do you think those laws will magically stay on the books if no one fights for them? Look at Wisconsin. Scott Walker is openly and blatantly trying to remove collective bargaining rights. In Wisconsin, we're seeing companies emboldened by Walker who are provoking their employees into striking so that the companies can break their unions and cut workers pay and benefits. Look at what Hostess did to their own workers. Can you honestly say that you have any faith in the law to protect workers rights when so many powerful groups are aligned to deny those rights?

As for the competition aspect, you completely ignored everything that I wrote. The ultimate goal of right-to-work is to remove competition. You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions, but once the unions are gone, there's no incentive to maintain those high standards. Without the unions serving as a stalwart, companies will simply slash benefits and pay at will. But I guess you can hire a lawyer on your $25K salary and hope that he can outlast the multimillion dollar company's teams of lawyers.

Collective bargaining is covered by Federal Law which is why the Wisconsin law was struck down in court. And the Hostess thing, the Baker's union should share in some of that blame as much as the company.

Unions have done a lot of good in the past, and continue to be a positive benefit for many employees. But it is misleading to claim that to claim that Right to Work laws will eliminate Unions. Unions continue to remain popular in Right to Work states today.

Ultimately, unions should help provide benefits to employees above and beyond what the company in alone can offer. But if the employee is not benefiting from a union membership, why should the employee remain a member?


If the union is ineffective then the obvious solution is to fix the union.

It's like going to the doctor complaining of a persistent cough. If the doctor shrugs and says that he can't help you, the solution isn't to abandon medicine but merely find a better doctor.

Unions are the only mechanism we have to protect employees prior to legal clarification (which can take years).
 
2012-12-07 11:48:49 AM
www.sourcewatch.org

Well, it looks like the Michigan Republicans have fixed the problem of having the Capitol doors locked.
 
2012-12-07 11:49:06 AM

trotsky: Awesome, the party of small government strikes again. This time it inserts itself into the contract between a company and a worker's Union.

Love that party of "fiscal conservatism" and "small government".


They are small government when it applies to things they feel government needs to stay out of.

But not icky things like gays or women or worker peons.
 
2012-12-07 11:49:16 AM
It's OK with people when the AMA or another professional organization controls the labor and lobbies for it's members. But when the plebes do it it's suddenly baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

The working people in the country have really bamboozled by the bullshiat.
 
2012-12-07 11:49:40 AM

slayer199: And politicos and pundits alike knew that RTW would be on the table when that lost. Amending the State Constitution to make it a right was a foolish ploy on the part of unions and Democrats.


Oh well that makes it okay then.
 
2012-12-07 11:49:51 AM
Why didn't the democrat congress people just run away to another state like their brave Wisconsin compatriots did?
 
2012-12-07 11:49:59 AM

slayer199: Ahhh_Ennui: It didn't make it mandatory. It said people have a constitutional right to collective bargaining. Because they knew what the Koch bros were brewing. Also? It was up for public vote, not done behind locked capitol doors. It lost, so whatever. I just wanted to correct your interpretation.

And politicos and pundits alike knew that RTW would be on the table when that lost. Amending the State Constitution to make it a right was a foolish ploy on the part of unions and Democrats.


I like how you call an open vote foolish but don't spend one second condemning a vote rammed through without a second of public debate and in a locked down building.
 
2012-12-07 11:50:04 AM

minoridiot: I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment.


indeed, with 7 billion people on the planet it is so healthy you can pay someone a dollar a day for hard labor, race to the bottom FTL!
 
2012-12-07 11:51:15 AM
In addition to the "Right to Work" legislation they are pushing through in this lame duck session, they are also pushing through a number of other ugly bills, including one that allows health care providers to refuse coverage based on religious or moral convictions. As a minister, this pisses me off to no end.
 
2012-12-07 11:51:19 AM

PreMortem: If that were to happen, people would come back to the union en masse.


Until the unions get declared illegal. Then what do you do, smart guy?
 
2012-12-07 11:51:24 AM
I think this is a horrible law and people certainly have a right to be upset and voice their opinion, but at the end of the day, when the people vote in Republican majorities in both houses and the head of the executive branch, this isn't unexpected.

Using proocedural tricks like classifying non-budget items as appropriations should probably be challeneged in court though. I've always wondered if maybe we need to start doing upfront judicial review before a bill can be voted on, but I imagine that might lead to complete and utter gridlock.
 
2012-12-07 11:51:25 AM
I see that the law would exempt police and firefighter unions. Didn't a Federal judge put the kibosh on the Wisconsin law that did the same thing?

/something, something...14th
 
2012-12-07 11:52:38 AM

Bontesla: Weaver95: I've been catching bits of this as it unfolded via my twitter feed. apparently the local GOP types are a wee tad bitter about losing to the Democrats and aren't afraid to show it.

Meet the new Michigan : now with less democracy.


granted, i'm not up on all the details around what's happening here but...it seems to me that this situation was not helped by passing legislation behind closed doors. that's not wise, and it needlessly provokes an 'active' response from protesters. if my local GOP kicked everyone out of the capital building, locked the doors and then went into session....I'd suspect they were about to f*ck up royally and do something I wasn't gonna like.
 
2012-12-07 11:53:56 AM

minoridiot: Mentat: minoridiot: So what you are saying is that competition is unhealthy? I always thought that competition nurtures a healthier economic environment. Besides, right to work laws do not prohibit collective bargaining. Collective Bargaining can and does continue in Right to Work states.

In addition, the US has passed a litany of laws to protect workers from their employers. Employment law has come a long way from the sweat shops and company stores of the 19th century. And today, there are people who make their living solely by practice employment law. Unhappy about your situation, then contact a lawyer.

Where do you think those laws came from? And why do you think they're still on the books? And why do you think those laws will magically stay on the books if no one fights for them? Look at Wisconsin. Scott Walker is openly and blatantly trying to remove collective bargaining rights. In Wisconsin, we're seeing companies emboldened by Walker who are provoking their employees into striking so that the companies can break their unions and cut workers pay and benefits. Look at what Hostess did to their own workers. Can you honestly say that you have any faith in the law to protect workers rights when so many powerful groups are aligned to deny those rights?

As for the competition aspect, you completely ignored everything that I wrote. The ultimate goal of right-to-work is to remove competition. You provide an attractive alternative to unions in order to divide the workers and weaken the unions, but once the unions are gone, there's no incentive to maintain those high standards. Without the unions serving as a stalwart, companies will simply slash benefits and pay at will. But I guess you can hire a lawyer on your $25K salary and hope that he can outlast the multimillion dollar company's teams of lawyers.

Collective bargaining is covered by Federal Law which is why the Wisconsin law was struck down in court. And the Hostess thing, the Baker's union should share i ...


Union membership in America is at it's lowest point since the 1930s.

"Another factor that has pushed down unionization, he said, is that companies have grown more ideologically opposed to unions and more aggressive about resisting organizing drives."
 
2012-12-07 11:54:17 AM

cabbyman: Why didn't the democrat congress people just run away to another state like their brave Wisconsin compatriots did?


Seeing as the Michigan Republicans have been willing to simply ignore headcount and declare supermajorities that do not exist, the hell does it matter? They took the place in a goddamned coup d'etat and this is the vindictive fark-you they're giving the people of Michigan on their way out.
 
2012-12-07 11:55:08 AM
Now that Detroit is profitable again -Republicans either want to:

1) Claim responsibility for it
-or-
2) Shut it down
 
2012-12-07 11:56:01 AM
yes, it was those evil unions that created derivatives trading and mortgage backed securities, and gave out trillions in loans without verifying anything. Damn unions! And poor people!
 
2012-12-07 11:58:00 AM

pacified: yes, it was those evil unions that created derivatives trading and mortgage backed securities, and gave out trillions in loans without verifying anything. Damn unions! And poor people!


And paid out multiple millions in salary and bonuses to the executives of Hostess while blaming the failure of the company on the bakers union that they were demanding take a paycut. Oh those greedy laborers!
 
2012-12-07 11:58:11 AM

Ahhh_Ennui: slayer199: While I'm no fan of the GOP, I find it rather amusing that State Democrats are beside themselves especially since the unions tried to pass a referendum to the state constitution that would essentially made collective bargaining mandatory.

From what I've read the reason that the doors were locked was due to people throwing things and screaming inside the Capitol building. I've been looking for video.

It didn't make it mandatory. It said people have a constitutional right to collective bargaining. Because they knew what the Koch bros were brewing. Also? It was up for public vote, not done behind locked capitol doors. It lost, so whatever. I just wanted to correct your interpretation.


Don't we have Freedom of Association already?

Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.

//Yeah, my interpretation isn't exactly one backed up by case law, is it?
 
2012-12-07 11:59:30 AM
We have got to get rid of Snyder.
He'll go down for this. I hope.
 
2012-12-07 12:00:52 PM

minoridiot: I'm not entirely sure why folks are concerned about Right to Work laws. Right to Work laws don't ban unions. I'm in a Right to Work state, and I worked in a union shop in the 80's. What the Right to Work laws do is give the employee freedom of choice whether to join a union or not.


Even in a non-right-to-work state, employees have freedom of choice whether to join a union or not. Even in closed shops, nobody forces anyone to work a union job. Don't want to join the union? Go work at Wal-Mart or McDonald's where you'll be treated exactly as you want.
 
2012-12-07 12:01:55 PM

meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.


Given that right-to-work bans closed/union shops, that's what right-to-work is. As far as I can tell, right-to-work doesn't ban unions.
 
2012-12-07 12:02:17 PM

meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.


Nobody in America is ever "forced" to join a union, right-to-work, or not. There are plenty of non-union jobs to work, even in non-right-to-work states.
 
2012-12-07 12:03:43 PM

meyerkev: meat0918: Can't ban unions, but can't force you to join one either.

Given that right-to-work bans closed/union shops, that's what right-to-work is. As far as I can tell, right-to-work doesn't ban unions.


Right. So in reality, they deprive workers of the choice to bargain for closed shops. They are anti-freedom of choice.
 
2012-12-07 12:04:29 PM

Bontesla: Meet the new Michigan : now with less democracy.


As someone that actively dislikes both parties, I find these types of comments nonsensical and amusing coming from either side. Basically it amounts to one side whining about the other side taking advantage of their majority. Guess what? The democratically elected leadership gets to make the laws. The GOP has the state house, senate, state Supreme Court, and the governorship.

When HCRA was passed, the rallying cry was "Elections have consequences!" It was not popular with a majority of the population but it was rushed through as well (to much GOP whining and dismay).

To get back on topic, this isn't going to be the boon to business that the GOP claims it will be...nor will it be the end of western civilization the way the Democrats/Unions claim either. I pulled a lot of stats from the bls.gov website last night which bears that out (unfortunately I left the spreadsheet on my home computer).
 
2012-12-07 12:04:41 PM
Remember who the real unelected power brokers are in Michigan...the DeVos family...hard core Republican AND hard core evangelical. They made their fortune by creating the original pyramid scam/scheme (Amway) and are very influential in state politics. This and the other bills that are trying to be snuck through the lame duck session have their fingerprints all over them.

Follow the money....
 
2012-12-07 12:05:37 PM
From 1973 to 2007, private sector union membership in the United States declined from 34 to 8 percent for men and from 16 to 6 percent for women. During this period, inequality in hourly wages increased by over 40 percent. We report a decomposition, relating rising inequality to the union wage distribution's shrinking weight. We argue that unions helped institutionalize norms of equity, reducing the dispersion of nonunion wages in highly unionized regions and industries. Accounting for unions' effect on union and nonunion wages suggests that the decline of organized labor explains a fifth to a third of the growth in inequality-an effect comparable to the growing stratification of wages by education. Link
 
Displayed 50 of 265 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report