Fox Gives Right-To-Work Laws A Helping Hand
Fox News displayed a graphic suggesting that unemployment was 0.8 percentage points lower in right-to-work states than the national average. This statistic is misleading, and a fairer comparison shows that Fox overstated the difference by a factor of four.
Fox Says Average Unemployment Is 0.8 Percentage Points Lower In Right-To-Work States
Fox: Right-To-Work States Have Average "Jobless Rate Of 7.7%, Compared To 8.5% Nationally." From the January 20 edition of Fox News' America Live:
[Fox News, America Live, 1/20/12]
Fox's Statistic Is Simply An Average Of Unemployment Rates In Right-To-Work States
Averaging Nov. 2011 Unemployment Rates In Right-To-Work States Yields A Rate Of 7.7 Percent. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 12/20/11; National Right To Work, 1/23/11, calculation by Media Matters (RTW-1.xlsx)]
PolitiFact: "Fairest" Way To Compare Rates Is With A "Weighted Average"
PolitiFact: The "Fairest Way To Look At The Data" Is By Looking Jobless Rates "Weighted According To State Population." From PolitiFact:
On the Feb. 24, 2011, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said that the jobs picture is better in "right to work" states -- that is, states in which workers can refuse to pay dues or fees to the union that represents them in bargaining.
"The right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do," O'Reilly said while interviewing Caroline Heldman, a political scientist at Occidental College.
[...]
To test O'Reilly's claim, we turned to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which is the official source for unemployment statistics in the United States. BLS' most recent state-by state data is for December 2010.
We consulted with Gary Burtless, a labor economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, about the fairest way to look at the data. We agreed that it was best to compare right-to-work and non-right-to-work states through data weighted according to state population. That way, California's unemployment rate would be given more weight than, say, Wyoming's. [PolitiFact.com, 2/24/11]
"Fairest" Calculation Shows Unemployment In Right-To-Work States Is Actually 0.2 Percentage Points Lower Than Nationwide
Weighting Jobless Rate For Right-To-Work States By Population Shows Their Rate In Nov. 2011 Was 8.5 Percent. This fairer calculation shows that the jobless rate in right-to-work states was 0.2 percentage points below the national average of 8.7 percent in November. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 12/20/11, 1/20/11; Census Bureau, accessed 1/23/12 (.xls); National Right To Work, 1/23/11, calculation by Media Matters (RTW-1.xlsx)]
Do they prove that right to work leads to lower employment? Do these right to work states have other factors that might contribute to these numbers? Also, they use an AVERAGE, which means in some states the reverse is true and some right to work states have a higher percentage of unemployed.
This is like taking several police reports, noting that five of seven hit and run cases involved American cars,then making the claim that American cars cause people to hit and run. It's a faulty conclusion reached on incomplete and cherry picked information.
You can blah blah blah right wing talking points all day, but any examination of this claim shows it to be inconclusive and deceptive at best.
Ever notice how working class, poor, and middle class people are always expected to make it in the world completely on their own? If you receive a lot of help from family, friends, and various programs, our culture deems you a failure if you aren't totally independent sometime by early adulthood.
On the other hand, if you are born into wealth and never lift a finger other then to cash trust fund checks or pick up the phone to call your investment broker, our culture finds that person's lifestyle perfectly acceptable.
We even have soap operas where several generations of wealth live in the same mansion and that's exciting, but if a middle class person moves in with their parents even to care for them as they age(presumably because they can't afford to hire people), they're labeled a loser.
Our popular culture is riddled with these weird double standards.
Slavery was the most secure Job in the world, right? Why don't we just go back to that. do I need to <sarc> that statement?
Sure, if you are stupid enough to think that false dichotomy is meaningful in any way instead of the REAL question to have a job with decent benifits, job security, and good wages or low wages and no benifits.
You are a LIAR as you always are when you pretend to tell the left what it thinks. My GOD but you are stupid and pathetic
So if you live in a so-called "right-to-work" state and your employer doesn't like the music you listen to, you can be fired, and he doesn't have to give reason. Or if you accidentally get pregnant (while using birth control) right after your employer finds out that his wife is barren, you can be canned.
Yay! Right-to-work!
Right to work CHEAP works too
So like California is weighted more why?
Layman's Terms please, I've been studying for MBA level Accounting test today...
Whoo boy...stop digging when you get to China...you'll recognize it because the people wear pointy little hats.
"We agreed that it was best to compare right-to-work and non-right-to-work states through data weighted according to state population. That way, California's unemployment rate would be given more weight than, say, Wyoming's."
I was reading the article and clicking on the links and I got lost. Intelligence isn't always about innate knowledge but tacit knowledge through experiential learning, hence why I asked the question.
Kind of weak that you can't respect me asking a question and you doubt my education.
Why would the education system not accept me? I had a 3.9 GPA at a relatively well known University in Boston, scored in the 75% on my GMAT, which did in fact cover the basic statistics needed to be qualified for an MBA. I'm not a statistician, nor do I claim to be, in fact, I hate math, which didn't stop me from majoring in economics, please don't question my education or ability to get one.
It's clear from his first reply that the only thing going through his mind right now is: "Lol. Dumb. Education bad. lol. Me smarter. lol"
:)
Now I know how George Bush got his MBA.
You seriously didn't know until now?
I guess that helps explain our education system if it took you until just now to figure that out.
Keep up, Wesley.
Fox news weighted the state by state numbers according to population. Why?
Logically speaking, shouldn't a state with a larger population and higher population density be averaged down rather then up?
Why not average by population per square mile?
What other factors both nationally, regionally, legislative, and judicially are at play?
If some right to work states have higher unemployment numbers, weighted or not, then non right to work states, does that negate the entire conclusion?
Does Fox news then adjust the national average to reflect the weighted numbers?
This whole thing is inconclusive, flawed in it's methodology, and stinks of typical right wing spin and deception.
You are a punk. Anyone as STUPID as you are who has made the most ignorant math mistakes I have ever seen continuing on this line makes you a hypocrite as WELL as being a moron
Dude, we've witnessed your past history of difficulty will all things numeric.
Right to work=right to get paid less than you should.
Right to work=right to get stepped on and fired for no reason.
Nah, we all know what you're saying, tommy. You're saying if American workers don't like the way they're treated, they can starve. Nice "exceptionalism" you've got there, comrade.
He's tragically out of touch with reality...again.
Why do you love inefficiency so much, Tommy?
Then don't apply for a job that has guaranteed pay as a result of union negotiations. You're free to not work wherever you want. Isn't that what you guys are always telling mistreated workers?
He or she probably won't have very many friends, but I guess that takes a backseat to principle.
Idiot.
see how stupid and naive you are? wise up.
just like some corporations.
Don't you get it, n'est-ca pas? Unions get richer and more powerful by lobbying by getting richer and more powerful by lobbying. Duh. They do this by lobbying. Duh. Because lobbying makes you rich and powerful. Duh.
Shucks.
I love how this is a variation on your typical theme of "if you need to...." which usually indicates you're out of ideas and all tuckered out from the dumb you've been burning all afternoon.
Transference: I unload my aggravation by aggravating you.
No your ignorance is monumental. You are so brainwashed it is astonishing. You are too stupid to have any idea what you are talking about and YOU calling someone else niave is hilarious. I have been in a union for about 35 years and I dont HAVE any union masters you MORON. The president of my union works for ME and he WILL take my call. I have chewed out the guy who runs our union from San Fransisco to Albequerque more than once. My GOD but you are stupid
Which is not what he said.
It's kind of perplexing how you always misunderstand everyone, always.
2) Do you think that the only lobbying of Democrats is done by unions? Are you completely stoned?! Democrats receive far more money from corporate lobbyists than union lobbyists. Might I suggest you spend some time at opensecrets.org and review the top 5 contributors to the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I believe that you will not find one member whose biggest contributor is a union.
I understand that you need boogeymen in your life to make you feel better. I understand that you resent that in some cases union employees probably get better benefits and pay than you do. Don't blame the unions for that; blame a lack of unions for that. The stagnation of wages and benefits in this country is in direct correlation to the decline in union membership. Doesn't prove a cause and effect relationship, but it is compelling.
Some of the horrible things that unions have done for YOU, james:
1) 5 day work week instead of 6
2) Health insurance
3) Safe working conditions
4) Minimum wage
5) Paid holidays
6) Workers compensation-prior to unions, if you got hurt at work and couldn't work, you got a pink slip and nothing more.
All of these are the result of unions. Learn something about the history of the country in which you live. If you think those things are not important, may I suggest that you move to North Korea, because your ideology fits better under a brutal dictatorship.
You are a MORON. The money corporations donate DWARFS what unions give. What gives unions power is their ability to get out the vote of workers and their family that understand where the best interest of the working class is. YOU on the other hand are FAR too stupid and far too brainwashed to know anything you werent told to think
I got the opposite of rich for my troubles. most union officers work a full time job in their trade or craft and work for the union on their own time. I don't think I ever made more than $800 per month from the union, even as the president of a local union.
And while I was working my full time job, I had to miss out on the overtime everyone else was working because I had to tend to union business, in effect, making less money than every single person I represented.
I once had a union hating roommate until he saw how much more money I made than he did though he was a trained electronics engineer and the benifits I got. Then he had all new respect for unions and went to Rockwell and got himself a union job
You are a LIAR. Unions do not get rich paying lobbyists.
This is how stupid you are and how brainwashed you are. You always want to straightjacket those without the power and make it easier for those WITH power to predate on them. You want to pretend it is BAD for organizations that WANT workers rights to avail themselves of the political process but it is GREAT for corporations and wealthy interests that want to SUPRESS the rights of the working class to avail themselves of that same process. You are scum james it really is that simple
Are you worried that the corporate dollars may not be able keep up with the union dollars that infect American politics?
Maybe anti-union workers like yourself from across America could pool their resources and form their own association to lobby politicians. Oh wait, that would basically mean becoming what you detest.
I find it interesting that you're desperate to make this the theme of the discussion when it clearly isn't, because you can't back up the claims that right-to-work states are better off than union states.
Your wit has been noticeably absent from here lately.
Why do you favor violating contractual agreements?
that's even more egregious.
I was given the choice of having the automatic deduction or sending a check to the union each month. It probably varies with each union and employer.
Why do you hate compliance with the terms of contracts?
There's so much big talk from the right about those who get a free ride in our society at others' expense, but the rules seem to be different for workers who have sacrificed and struggled through the years for better wages and working conditions.
No it isnt. You dont pay your electricity bill you dont get electricity. You dont PAY for the organization that provided your higher pay and better benifits why should you get them?
You are a selfish punk. I find it interesting that you think people should be able to GET the benifits of having a union job with OTHERS paying for it. The reason they WANT that job is because of the higher pay and better benifits the union provides but you just want OTHERS to pay your way
You are a liar and a punk. That money, at least in my union which makes a LOT of contributions comes from a fund seperate from the dues that we pay voluntarily. My GOD but you are stupid
As usual you are too stupid to know what you are talking about. Since the unions supply BENIFITS that cost everyone has to join the union and when they negotiate an interstate contract they SUPERCEDE state laws.
Of course a selfish punk like you think it is disgusting that you cant get a free lunch and make OTHERS pay for the benifits YOU get.
I bet you think it is disgusting that your neighbors dont have to pay your electricity bill. You narcisistic, selfish, soulless Randinistas are the most disgusting and loathsome cretins on the planet
Not necessarily. They can do that in small shops but since interstate union contracts supercede state laws in a large interstate corporation they cannot. I live and work in a Right to Work state but if you have MY job here you WILL join the union
You are so stupid and so brainwashed I feel sorry for you. As I have explained to you many times before, union contracts supercede state laws so if you want MY job even in the right to work state I live in you WILL be in the union. If you dont like unions dont get a union job.
You are a selfish transparent punk. People like you WANT the benifits a union job brings but dont want to pay or make the sacrifices of being IN a union. People like you are scum
Right to work is a euphemism for "right to fire without cause."
See, tommy, here's what you responded to:
Somehow "fire without cause" became "wrongful termination" when you restated it. No, union employees aren't the only people protected against wrongful termination. But nobody but the idiot voices in your head ever made that claim. What jarossiter said was "fire without cause," which includes a whole host of unreasonable, but legal, terminations. Union employees are, in fact, the only people protected against being fired without cause.
You are an idiot.
I often wonder: is it really a strawman construction, or is it just plain stupidity? Since both can result in the same type of course-change, I guess we'll never really know.
and you accuse me of being an idiot full of strawman arguments. your whopping lie above move you to the head of the class on that front. all it does is tell me the weakness of your position if you have to invent that lie to make your case. once again, you are your own worst enemy - and too simple and stupid to realize it. this happens to you alot.
I think we just established that jimmy doesn't know what a strawman argument is.
And, uh, you might just want to do a little search about contracts and "just-cause" termination and how they relate to each other.
To further your understanding, you might want to look up the differences between "just cause termination", "without cause termination", and "wrongful termination".
It's embarrassingly clear that you don't understand this at all.
Okay, I'm declaring victory on this one.
In the absence of union representation, you can go hire a lawyer on your own from the outset. Good luck paying for that with your non-union wage should you not get the outcome you want.
</sarc>
I do not favor firing people without cause, but I do favor firing someone for not meeting the terms of a contract. You either agree to the contract, or you don't and seek other opportunities.
If you're not OK with such provisions being allowed in labor agreements, then it means you want to make them illegal. Some states have. I recommend you relocate to one or at the very least support local politicians campaigning or legislating on a right-to-work platform. Ain't democracy great?
"No-cause" is different than "wrongful cause".
Almost all states operate under the "employment at will" doctrine, which is most simply described as the right of an employer to fire an employee for no reason and the right of an employee to quit for no reason. Despite the fact that most U.S. states operate under this "at will" employment doctrine, there are circumstances in which employees have legal recourse for being terminated by showing that the termination was wrongful due to a violation of their legal rights. Though, a common misconception is that an employee can sue for wrongful termination simply because he/she was treated unfairly, this alone, is not sufficient cause.
Which is funny, because no one was talking about wrongful termination until you stumbled in here with your inability to tell the difference between without-cause termination and wrongful termination and started ranting about unions and wrongful termination, and also, too.
You did? Let's scroll up and take a look...
Try again you lying pos.
You are a liar and you are a punk. It really is just that simple
You are a PUNK. More rightwing ignorance. Being fired for NOT contributing to the organization that provides the higher wages and better benifits that made them want the job in the first place. Being fired for wanting to get a free ride from your fellow workers so that THEY pay for the benifits YOU get is not being fired without cause.
YOU are phony, dishonest and you are a LIAR.
You didn't know what you were talking about.
You were wrong, jamesB.
To which idiot lying pos responds to with......which jimbob now wants people to believe was in relation to the florida part of the post which seems to have been added as proof jimbob doesn't know what he's talking about. What a hoot he is!
AGAIN you prove without a doubt that you are ignorant beyond belief and never know what you are talking about. Except for civil righst protections all workers who do not work under a contract in the US is an at will worker and can be fired for ANY reason. If the boss wants to give the job to his nephew, if he doesnt like the color of your tie, if he thinks you are a hippy, anything for virtually ANY reason
So, yeah, right to work laws do, in fact, destroy a union's ability to organize. And as we've seen, it also degrades the compensation of American workers.
A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found[22]
• Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
• The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
• The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.
The decision to certify or de-certify is a democratic one made by the workers.
pete is right and you are a punk. More like FORCED to pay for the benifits that made them want that job in the first place or else get another job
Our union has negotiated contracts with companies that have large anti-union policies in some of their other properties but have found that we provide an well trained workforce, we provide workers 24/7 in the live entertainment (concert and theatre), hotel/convention, film, and television industry. We operate our own training system to keep our members current on the latest equipment used in the ever changing industry. We are in a very expensive market yet we have been able to keep up the quality of life during this economic downturn due to our united stand. If right to work states were so good why are the states that are right to work not kicking our butts and taking the work away from us here in this union town.
You are too STUPID to know what you are talking about. I live in a Right to Work state it you get MY job in this state you
WILL join the union or you quit. There is no choice.
What selfish punks like YOU want is for OTHER people to pay for the benifits of having a union job while YOU take a free lunch on THIER sacrifice
Top honor goes to Nevada... a Right-to-Work state.
How do we explain that?
Even with union dues a worker in a union makes more than same worker in similar setting without union representation or without unions setting the standard rate for the work.
That I live in a state of mostly good-hearted but small-minded idiots?
<and we elected Fallin (grumble, grumble)>
Nice folks who are easily gamed by the sociopaths.
He just destroyed any shread of credibility she might have had - little as it was before, of course. There's just nothing left now.
Remember folks: Fair AND Balanced!
(And ignorant of how to compute per-capita statistics apparently!)
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
In the end only 20% of the affected union members voted (the rest likely tossed out the vote thinking it was junk mail.)
Since you are a PROVEN LIAR please cite your sources. Otherwise I dont believe a word you post. Your tendency to spin, twist, and outright lie mean I would be a MORON to take anything you say seriously