In a Jan. 25 Sun Journal story regarding right-to-work, there were some key errors and misinformation that could take away from the fact that RTW can greatly benefit a state’s economy.
The first quote from a union-supporting group stated that “I would doubt one in 1,000 Americans even knows what right-to-work is.” So what? The Maine Heritage Policy Center study showed that people were leaving Maine for RTW states because those states have better jobs. Does that mean that one would have to know what RTW is to motivate their leaving? No, of course not.
Also, a common-sense point made in the report was ignored. The story said that Oklahoma became a RTW state in 2001 when the legislation passed; however, as the study clearly stated, the practical effects of RTW didn’t occur until 2003, because the law was held up in court. So instead of Oklahoma losing jobs, it actually gained more than 25,000 jobs in five years after the RTW law cleared the courts.
The story also claimed that, “Under federal law, workers cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of their employment.” That is inaccurate. The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed outright “closed shops,” but: “Union shops, still permitted, require new recruits to join the union within a certain amount of time ...”
Maine could benefit greatly from a right-to-work law, but it seems that unions put their own interests ahead of improving Maine’s economy. It’s time to put Maine’s economy ahead of union interests and pass right-to-work.
Scott Moody, chief economist
Maine Heritage Policy Center, Portland
Report a correction
Mr. Moody, As an economist,
Mr. Moody,
As an economist, you know these things tend to self-correct eventually. I left the state over two decades ago to earn my riches elsewhere (i.e. where the jobs are located). I never looked back, and I never had an ounce of regret. You are correct in that I did not care, nor does one need to care, about the dynamics driving the local economy; I simply followed the jobs.
Maine has done little to improve the business situation over that time period. Due to the relatively harsher climate (i.e. winters) and rising energy costs, Maine is already disadvantaged at the starting gate, which makes it all the more challenging to attract new business. Couple that with Maine’s abrasive business climate…. Well, all that I can say is that Maine’s youth will continue to exit the state for better opportunity.
I remain optimistic that the self-correcting nature of our capitalist economy will eventually thaw out and persuade Maine policy makers to change course. Until then, I’ll continue to earn my riches elsewhere.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Some posters earlier have stated ...
... that right-to-work has very little or no influence at all over any aspect of labor.
Why then did unions howl bloody murder right through yesterday when Indiana became a RTW state? They sure wasted a lot of time, energy and money (follow it) over a trivial matter. Perhaps this issue is really just handwriting-on-the-wall that unions started ignoring decades ago. Unions have almost vanished from the private sector, along with the jobs they destroyed, and unions in the public sector are terrified.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Let me ask you this:
Let me ask you this then: If this has "little or no influence at all over any aspect of labor", why are Republicans pushing so hard for this?
Seems to me there are much better things to do than pick a fight over something that is "trival".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Not being a Republican, I
Not being a Republican, I can't speak for them. Obviously other groups care about the issue. Just speculating now, I suppose some Republicans might be using the Obama-tax-rate argument: He knows higher rates won't bring in more revenue, but he wants the hikes just in the interest of "fairness".
Beyond that, I didn't say it's a trivial matter - others said it. My belief is it is spectacularly non-trivial to public employee unions, who see their strangle-hold slipping away.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Umm, no
"He knows higher rates won't bring in more revenue"
No, I think he thinks, like many people like myself, that if there is a equilibrium point where higher taxes stifle growth to a point they don't lead to increased revenue, we are below it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.right-to-work = right to what?
Lonnie Stevans, Professor of Information Technology and Quantitative Methods at Hofstra University, compared the business formation and economic growth of right-to-work states with non-right-to-work states using recent data from the U.S. Small Business Administration. He controlled for variables like education levels, population changes, and type of employment in the states to accurately measure the relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth.
Stevans found that a state’s right-to-work law:
Has no impact on economic growth
Has no influence on employment
Has no influence on business capital formation (the ratio of firm ‘births’ to the number of firms)
Is correlated with a decrease in wages
Stevan’s analysis of right-to-work states also yielded the following observations:
The average real state GDP growth rate of right-to-work states is not significantly different than non-right-to-work states
The average per capita income in right-to-work states is lower than in non-right-to-work states
Stevans concluded his analysis with the following observation:
“…From a state’s economic standpoint, being right-to-work yields little or no gain in employment and real economic growth.”
[http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/state-battles/right-to-work/the-effect-of-endogenous-right-to-work-laws-on-business-and-economic-conditions-in-the-united-states-20090501-991-415-415.html]
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3) Disagree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Right to work ...for less.
With no benefits, sick time, paid holidays, etc., etc., etc.
The only economy this would help is the corporate bottom line..profits!
Just another right-wing ploy to destroy the middle class.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (6) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Are you suggesting that only
Are you suggesting that only union workers get sick time, holidays and other benefits?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Certainly not.
But if you get rid of unions, see how fast other jobs deteriorate to compete with China and India. In a global economy it is a fast track downward for workers.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'm not suggesting that we
I'm not suggesting that we get rid of unions, but that we recognize that they are not the panacea of job prosperity that they are made out to be. I know several people who have never belonged to unions and have made substantial incomes in the private sector; benefits and all. Negotiating with an employer one on one can often be far more effective than being among the minions who prefer to have other individuals (with their own agendas) do their negotiating for them, while having to pay a fee for the privilege.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.MHPC is a partisan joke.
Their studies are always one-sided, misleading, and defemseless.
National, independent studies confirm the obvious - the only statistically significant result of states adopting RTW laws is that workers are paid less and business owners make more income.
This is just another arrow in the Republican's quiver of measures to destroy the middle class and to enrich the 1%.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This is stupid.
All this hullabaloo over unions. It's a load of BS. Only 6.9% of all private sector jobs are union. So this won't make a lick of difference in attracting new businesses.
Nope, what they are looking to do is cut into public sector jobs, to undercut them and weaken their position. 37% of public sector jobs are union. Scott, knock it off. Trying to make this off as a jobs bill is just wrong.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4) Disagree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mr. Moody, I hate to disagree
Mr. Moody, I hate to disagree with you but if you are with the Maine Heritage Policy Center one has to wonder what your agenda is. It seems MHPC does studies that create more problems then it solves.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (6) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.There's no "Wondering" to it....
As Scott Moody is employed by the Maine Heritage Policy Center - it is his job to be anti-union. A paid mouth-piece.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3) Disagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It is amazing that the SJ
It is amazing that the SJ continues to support the MHPC, despite its track record of misinformation and destructive behavior toward this state. But I guess I'm not surprise, since I called out MS Tice on her continued 'reporting' on anything the MHPC spews.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (6) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Such are the ways of a free
Such are the ways of a free press. Would you suggest censorship?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This should be
A paid political announcement
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.