The ABC Debate. Short version: Rough-and-tumble.
The ABC Debate.Read More »
Here’s the reality:
Nevertheless, with teeth gnashing and fists flying, union bosses and their union-bought politicians insist that Right-to-Work laws mean Right-to-Work for less.
While it makes for a great sound byte, the union claim requires a deeper examination. In doing so, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy blows away the unions’ sound byte:
Scores of right-to-work critics ranging from politicians to economists have cited lower per-capita incomes in right-to-work states as why the new law is not good for Michigan.
However, not factoring in cost-of-living exposes a flaw in that analysis, said Mackinac Center for Public Policy Fiscal Analyst James Hohman. Once that is considered, Hohman said the per-capita income is higher in right-to-work states than non-right-to-work states.
For example, Texas per-capita income was $37,098 but would have a purchasing power of $49,700 in the state of New York in 2007, according to Hohman’s analysis. New York’s per-capita income was $47,852.
Hohman found that in terms of Michigan dollars in 2000, right-to-work states had 4.1 percent higher per-capita personal incomes than non-right-to-work states when factoring in cost of living. Michigan was considered a non-right-to-work state because the law was passed in late December 2012. Hohman said the right-work-states didn’t surpass non-right-to-work states until 2003. [Emphasis added.]
shocking not surprising that union bosses would stoop to such levels in order to maintain the amount of money coming into their cofferes that forced unionism brings in Non-Right-to-Work states.
Related: Facts On Right to Work vs. Forced Unionization States.
"Truth isn't mean. It's truth."
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)