Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:38:07 -0500 (EST)
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: re:friday fightback




On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Jerald Hellemeyer wrote:

> I really don't know that "right to work" is really all that bad. When I 
> was in Minnesota, I worked at a grocery store and was forced to be a 
> member of the union.  I had to pay 400 dollars to be in a union I didn't 
> want to be in.  And I was only part time.  It isn't right to require 
> membership in a union as a prerequisite to obtain a job.

If you'd taken something valuable in college, like the geography of
poverty, you'd know that the 10 poorest states per capita are "right to
wirk" states while none of the right to wirk states are in the top 30
regarding per capita incomes.  You'd also know that due to low wages in
these states they are essentially the biggest job creators and they are
mostly southern.  What this means is that since the 1980s there's been a
net increase in migration, particularly among blacks but generally
noticable across the board, *into* these southern states and now
descendants of slaves are being wage exploited by the same families of
capital that held them in chattel.

I'd say I can see the pattern.

Also, production factories in closed shop states (non-right-to-wirk) set
what are known as "high wage islands" which means that in order to compete
for the available labor pool employers must bid higher wages for non-union
jobs in order to fill their positions.  In "right to wirk" states the
opposite is true.

Yes, unions are bloated, bureaucratic, and a lot of times in bed with
management, but where they wirk (WIRK?) they have benefits that spread far
beyond the wirkplace.

Funny you didn't notice that.



carp