613
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 61 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Right to work states (alphabetical):

  1. Alabama
  2. Arizona
  3. Arkansas
  4. Florida
  5. Georgia
  6. Idaho
  7. Indiana
  8. Iowa
  9. Kansas
  10. Kentucky
  11. Louisiana
  12. Michigan
  13. Mississippi
  14. Nebraska
  15. Nevada
  16. North Carolina
  17. North Dakota
  18. Oklahoma
  19. South Carolina
  20. South Dakota
  21. Tennessee
  22. Texas
  23. Utah
  24. Virginia
  25. West Virginia
  26. Wisconsin
  27. Wyoming

Lowest 10 state GDP per capita (2023):

51: Mississippi

50: West Virginia

49: Arkansas

48: Alabama

47: South Carolina

46: New Mexico

45: Idaho

44: Montana

43: Kentucky

42: Oklahoma

New Mexico and Montana are apparently not right to work but rank low in GDP per capita. The highest GDP per capita right to work state is North Dakota, ranked 6th in GDP per capita after California (5th) and before Connecticut (7th). Nebraska is the only other right to work state in the top 10 GDP per capita coming in at number 10.

Apologies for formatting, etc. I did this on mobile from my bed.

[-] [email protected] 36 points 2 years ago

this is a good run down, with one nit, probably caused by availability of data. Gdp per capita is not a good metric, because its a mean, so verp vulnerable to outliers, and because it represents generation of wealth regardless of if that money stays in the state.

North Dakota is an oil state.

It has a median household income of $68,000, meaning half of all households bring in less than that.

It has a mean income per capita of $37,343

11.5% of people in north dakota live in poverty

north dakota ranks 39th for poverty, which is better than middle.

This is an example of how different stats will have different results. When looking at poverty rates, out of the ten worst, only New Mexico is not a right-to-work state.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

This is great qualifying information and I think this shows that you can't just take the back of a tee shirt at face value. Who knows what the wearer meant by "poorest states."

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

They don't know either.

[-] [email protected] 26 points 2 years ago

Michigan is the first state ever to repeal their "right to work" laws and it will end next March

[-] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago

Michigan is taking wonderful steps to protect the rights of its people. It's not perfect, but I am so proud of my state and the people who are helping to put these protections in place!

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

It's the who's who of shithole states!

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

That’s a great summary!

[-] [email protected] 41 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Here's the Wikipedia article on "right to work" for those who, like me (non-americano), didn't know about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

[-] [email protected] 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In the context of labor law in the United States, the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation.

That's so fucking confusing...

Unlike the right to work definition as a human right in international law, U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but rather guarantee an employee's right to refrain from paying or being a member of a labor union.

Okay, little less muddier now. The whole vibe is quintessential USA—some dodgy law with a misleading name.

English (US)

English (International)

Ton (US)

Tonne (International)

Right-to-work (US)

Right to Work (International)

This is where we find out Aluminum is trademarked and royalties given whenever used and that's how Aluminium phased out...

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

I was going to say. I know most of those states have at-will employment and thus I was so confused!

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Ahhhh thank you, I was confusing the two. I thought my state was a “right to work” state but it wasn’t on the list; I was thinking an at-will state, which my state is (which means employers can terminate without noticed and without reason, for those who don’t know the phrase).

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think every state in the U.S. has at-will employment except for one, last time I check.

Edit: yup. Montana.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I did not know that, very strange but bill of Montana. Thanks

[-] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago

It's as if unions benefitted workers and by extension, the society they lived in. Who would've thunk.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Yes, but think of billionaires! Why won't anyone think of the poor billionaires!?

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

Huh. It's almost like that was the point.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

There's actually nuance here, this is a GDP per capita metric which means not that people are poorer in these states but the people actually produce LESS even for the stakeholders and the shareholders in these states.

So (1) the workers are poorer no fucking surprise there but crucially (2) the companies are poorer and the shareholders are poorer for it as well

Now correlation is not the same as causation for sure, but it certainly seems that their greed is actually counterproductive. That's the lesson here

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

right to be slaves more like

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

And none of the top 9 states with the highest median income are right to work.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago
[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

My anecdote doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme being my own personal experience, but I was really grateful when Indiana passed this law. I was at Kroger at the time and they forced us into a union that was run by store management and did not side with employees on any given subject. The fees were taking a pretty good amount of my already miniscule paychecks. I'd rather see a law that prohibits this abusive use of unions by companies more than anything.

I assume downvotes are from people who think I'm lying, but I would love to hear from those downvoting what exactly their problem with this comment is? It was a store in Indiana, I'm not making anything up, and I'm not saying unions are all bad, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to be another strong arm run by the company.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

What the hell kind of Union is that?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

A horrible one, Kroger in Indiana. Whatever they were a part of.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

Union that's run by management.... That's not a union my guy, that's an extortion outfit.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I don't disagree at all. It was so fucked.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

It wasn't the company running it, it was because they signed a labor agreement so at that point you had to join the union as per the contract. Kroger may have informed you but it wasn't a "company union" which makes no sense.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Managers of Kroger were in the decision making positions of the union. Call that whatever the hell you like.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago
[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

It's been a decade or more, but that name sounds familiar.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's not a union if it's run by the company, that's just management board but with an accent.

And any law what allows such a thing is anti-union by default, it's just an internal misuse of the words meaning (plus it lowers the chances of an actual/additional union to form and on top of that it collects fees from the paychecks it itself gives to the workers for their work? lulwtf). I don't know if any EU county where such thing is remotely allowed, however unions are (mostly) not enforced in the private sector, even in some cases where the law actually predicts one to be in place (so, company in such a situation is technically breaking the law but at the same time also can't force or do anything towards starting a union since that would just make it their puppet & regulators would act immediately).

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

By which mechanism are those laws keeping the states poor? Are profits simply siphoned away and spend elsewhere? Or is it more complex and unions would lead to more profitable companies but the citizens are resistant to improvements?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Depressing.

[-] [email protected] -4 points 2 years ago

The top ten piece of shit are all humans!

this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
613 points (97.4% liked)

unions

1999 readers
72 users here now

a community focused on union news, info, discussion, etc

Friends:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS