The Rand Formula

[Guest eureka]

We now have the tools to avoid depressions. All we need is to stop the excesses of the neo-libs who would take us back to the bad old days of boom and bust.

[ceemes]

think you seem to be gathering you Union information for watching the news and a bunch of strikes but I would be willing to wager a bit more goes on behind the scenes that we don't hear about. It would be simply ridiculous to base your opinions on everything forom what you hear on the news.

I deal with unions every day.

The inflexibility of union contract prevents me from making work environments better. I can not reward someone for doing things not in the contract. I can not reward people for merit when seniority take precedence. I can not give people the flexibility to deal with family issues because of contracts. I have to call a union person just to move a desk. I get to see grievances filed just so people can take time off with pay outside of contract. A few unions in BC have managed over the years to get senior staff 9 weeks holiday a year. Honestly how on earth can anyone accomplish anything with all this stuff? The horrible irony is that it ends up hurting employees or as some like to call them working people. (like I don’t work)

the government cannot afford to micromanage canada, it would cause them to focus to much attention on some areas and make other areas weak, not the kind of canada we need.

Do the police monitor your every move or do they act only when crime is being committed.

Unions are about unions. The justice system should be about justice.

If that is the case then you are either a poor manager or a poor negotiator.

I have worked in both union and non-union evironments as both a grunt worker and later as a manager.

Unions are by and large a business unto themselves, and yes at times they are a necessary evil, especially when a firm treats their employees like crap.

When you are dealing with unions, especially when it comes to contract renegotiating time, I found it best to trest them like a business partner rather then as an adversary.

Treat them and their members as the enemy and you will be forced to fight them for every clause and point. Treat them as a partner in your business endevour, allowing for full participation in planning and you will find most will bend over backwards to ensure your business is a roaring success......if only because it is in their own best interest (read as greedy interest) to do so.

Have you ever heard of the TQM princiiples of business? If not, I suggest you look into them.

[ceemes]

snip

Oh, by the way, that was a union job. Pay was $1.63/hr when I started and was still $1.63/hr. when I left 5 1/2 years later. Labour unions were tame then. Today they try to run our country

Bullshit, unions do not nor have they ever run this country.

In the early 80's I left the Armed Forces and went back to school (yes, I admit I was foolish and studied a liberal art.....years later I corrected that mistake by attending the BCIT School of Business) and worked as a unionized Security Guard......after I left school and the security job, I was making the top rate of $8.45 per hour and living fairly well at that.

Today, twenty years later a unionized security guard has to pay to attend a training programme to get his papers and when he or she is on the job, will only be making between $8.50 to $10 per hour if they are lucky.

In those twenty years, the cost of living has gone up at least doubles or tripled, and yet wages have remained the same.

When I was doing security work, a friend of mine worked at a non-union warehouse as a shipper/receiver earning $15 per hour (Union shops were earning around $20 per hour at the time). Today if you check the papers help wanted ads, you will find that the average pay for a shipper/receiver is $9 per hour at a non-union shop and $12 per hour at a union shop.

To say that unions are dragging down our economy or are ruling our nations is bullshit of the highest caliber. multi-nationals and other corporations have the ear of our politician along with a firm grasp of their fiscal goolies.

[ceemes]

Here's one for you to digest .... sort of par for the course with labour unions here in Canada.

A ship has just arrived and the port needs 10 additional workers. This of course is the Longshoremans Union and the employer must hire through the union hiring hall. They send 10 workers immediately but one of them is stone drunk and hardly able to stand on his feet. They carried on until noon, then paid the drunk who had done absolutely no work, and told him to leave. The other 9 union workers down tools and leave with him. The employer phones back to the union hall, explains the situation, and requests another 10 workers. Within half an hour 10 men were there.... the same 10 that were there before, including the drunk.

Not hard to read the message there.... When you have union workers you must hire and pay 10 to get 9.

Suggest you check out who dispatches (or at their website, dEspatches) workcrews to the docks....its not the union halls, but an organization call BC Maritime Employers Association.....which represents the Employer and not the employees...it is they who decide what and who is needed.

BCMEA Link

[Slavik44]

A while ago it was stated that union membership has declined indicating the world has woken up tot he dangers of unions, but I woudl like to wake you up to the dangers of a declining Union membership.

1. Acontinued increase in cost of living, about 15 cents per dollar per year.

2. A 76% drop in wealth for the poorest 40% of the american population

3. a 5% drop in wealth for the poorest 20% of the American population

4. The richest 1% saw their wealth increase by 42%

5. The top 5 percent of the American population saw their wages increase by 64%

A pre-schooler can look at those numbers and say that wait there is a problem, during a proclaimed decrease in union membership we have not seen a correlation in decreased cost of living but have seen a correlation to a decrease in wages and a decrease in wealth for the poor, I fail to see where the loss of union's has helped these people. I fail to see somethign that gives the poor a reason to say if we take a paycut we will be better off, what I do see is that if the poor take a pay cut the Rich take a pay hike. what I do see is the poor take a loss to their wealth and the rich take an increase to their wealth. infact as a look at the charts and data i am looking at what I do so is a picture being painted of the rich benifieting at the expense of the poor, while union membership declines, certainly not the answer to the problems of the majority of the population.

[Hjalmar]

A Higher Standard of Living in "Right to Work" States

By James T Bennet Ph.D

Professor of economics

George Mason University

Money income varies widely across states, regions, and cities, but so does tax burden which reduces family income, as do the prices of goods and services which are purchased with after-tax income.

Before adjusting for taxes and cost of living, typical family income for the 129 SMSAs in states with RTW laws is $46,883, $6,747 less than the average for the 182 SMSAs located in states without RTW laws, $53,630. However, on average, families that reside in SMSAs in RTW states pay only $1,779 in state and local taxes, while families in non-RTW states pay $3,005. Thus, there is less difference in after-tax average family income between RTW and non-RTW states; average annual after-tax family income in states with RTW laws is $45,104, only $5,521 less than the average annual

after-tax income of $50,625 of families in states without RTW laws.

It is important to emphasize that these data include only state and local taxes; federal taxes also reduce the income that families have available for purchasing goods and services. Federal taxes are based on money income and are progressive, i.e., the tax rate rises with income. Thus, since average income is greater in non-RTW states than in RTW states, the federal tax bite should be greater in non-RTW states than in RTW states, and this would further narrow the difference in after-tax income between RTW and non-RTW states. Put another way, if it were possible to adjust for federal taxes, the difference in after-tax family income between RTW and non-RTW states would be smaller than $5,521.

But the real difference comes after adjusting for cost of living.

After-tax income buys much more in states with RTW laws because the cost of living is considerably higher in SMSAs in non-RTW states than for those located in RTW states. The average cost-of-living index for the 129 SMSAs in RTW states is 123.8 in comparison with 154.1 for the 182 SMSAs in non-RTW states.

Stated in money terms, the same package of goods and services that can be purchased on average for $123.80 in RTW states would cost $154.10 in non-RTW states. Thus, on average, residents in SMSAs in states without RTW laws pay 24.5 percent more for food, housing, health care transportation, utilities, property taxes, and college tuition than residents in RTW states.

After adjusting for the cost of living and the state and local tax burden, average after-tax income is then $36,540 in RTW states versus only $33,688 in non-RTW states. Thus, a typical urban family in a RTW state has $2,852 more in after-tax purchasing power than the same family would have in a non-RTW state -- a statistically significant difference.

[Hjalmar]

A while ago it was stated that union membership has declined indicating the world has woken up tot he dangers of unions, but I woudl like to wake you up to the dangers of a declining Union membership.

So what you are saying about the dangers of declining union membership is true -- but it is a danger for union workers only while all the rest of the population benefits. That could be perhaps 85% of the population when you factor in all non-union workers plus all the people that don't work, such as retirees etc. A plus for the majority as I see it.

[August1991]

Today if you check the papers help wanted ads, you will find that the average pay for a shipper/receiver is $9 per hour at a non-union shop and $12 per hour at a union shop.

Factor in the time it takes to be a union member (apprentice, part-time) and I'll bet it works out on average to be about the same. There's no free lunch. (Unless you look like Orlando Bloom or Isabelle Adjani.)

From 1720 to 1772 ----- 52 years

From 1772 to 1825 ----- 53 years

From 1825 to 1873 ----- 48 years

From 1873 to 1929 ----- 56 years

From 1929 to 1990 ----- 61 years

Are we due for another depression soon?

Correlation doesn't mean causation. And if you look without scepticism, you can find any correlation.

But hjalmar, I suggest you bet the farm on your projected depression. If you win, you'll get rich, and do a good deed by preventing the next depression.

(I suspect someone around 1825 or 1873 already figured that one out. Consistency? Financial markets? I somehow doubt that. The consistency ain't gonna last long with the likes of Ken Lay around.)

We now have the tools to avoid depressions. All we need is to stop the excesses of the neo-libs who would take us back to the bad old days of boom and bust.

Avoid depressions? Dream on. All we have is an idea about how to avoid making them worse. Alan Greenspan has Ayn Rand on his bookshelf, and he appears to be still alive.

To say that unions are dragging down our economy or are ruling our nations is bullshit of the highest caliber.

ceemus, please explain why the only unions remaining in Canada are in the public sector. Private sector unions are far and few between.

[ceemes]

Today if you check the papers help wanted ads, you will find that the average pay for a shipper/receiver is $9 per hour at a non-union shop and $12 per hour at a union shop.

Factor in the time it takes to be a union member (apprentice, part-time) and I'll bet it works out on average to be about the same. There's no free lunch. (Unless you look like Orlando Bloom or Isabelle Adjani.)

You didn't include a total quote of my paragraph or statement, nor did you address the point I was making, that wages for that job, be it union or non-union have decreased over the past twenty years. Very dishonest of you.

Many unions also run training programmes, especially in the trades. These training programmes are developed with equal input from the industry and government. A tradesman goes through numerous steps as his skills increase, trainee, apprentice, journeyman and finally mastercraftman.

But not all unions have these designation, mainly because they do not exist within their industry or trade. However, as a person gains experience, he or she becomes move valuable for his or her employer and thus deserves greater renumeration.

[Hjalmar]

What is a "Right to Work" Law?

Section 14 of the Taft-Hartley Act, passed by Congress in 1947, reaffirmed the right of states to pass Right to Work laws. Under Right to Work laws, employees cannot be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Since compulsory dues are their life blood, unions fight ferociously to stop the passage of Right to Work laws. In Oklahoma, for example, unions spent $8 million on a media campaign to mislead the public about the merits of voluntary unionism.. One union went as far as questioning the constitutionality of Right to Work laws, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled more than 50 years ago that the laws are absolutely constitutional.

Studies by economists show that living costs are lower and, consequently, real incomes are higher in Right to Work states when compared to states that don't currently protect employees from federally imposed forced unionism. Data released by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1998 showed that:

Right to Work jurisdictions have had lower unemployment rates than non-Right to Work states in every year but four since 1978.... Since 1977, Right to Work jurisdictions have created non-farm jobs at a pace twice that of non-Right to Work states.

In the heavily unionized construction industry, Right to Work states have created jobs at a rate almost one-third greater than non-Right to Work states since 1977.

In the manufacturing sector, Right to Work states have gained over 800,000 jobs since 1977, while the compulsory unionism states lost almost 2 million jobs.

Why does the right-to-work issue generate so much controversy? In part, because Americans still think of unions as they were in the 1930s -- a necessary weapon employees needed to protect themselves from abusive employers.

[Hjalmar]

Over the last 20 years, smart employers and corrupt union leaders have made unions irrelevant.

Still today, unions enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities created by legislatures and the courts... Unions claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers, yet they clamor to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down employees for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees.

Here is a list of special privileges that reveals the extent to which unions have rigged our nation's labor laws in their favor:

1. Exemption from prosecution for union violence... The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision... In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion.... As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone

unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.

2. Exemption from anti-monopoly laws. The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.

3. Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.... Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts.... For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.

4. Power to collect forced union dues. Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially.... In 28 states under the NLRA (those that do not have Right-to-Work laws), on "exclusive federal enclaves," (something the folks at Raytheon will have to cope with -- Guam's right-to-work law doesn't apply there) like them and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.

5. Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering... The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements.... Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects.

For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!

6. Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations. Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them.... The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.

7. Right to trespass on an employer's private property.... The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer's property.

8. Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work. Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike -- to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some cases, it is illegal for employers to hire replacement workers, even to avert bankruptcy.

Meanwhile, union officials demonize replacement workers as "scabs" to set them up for retaliation.

9. Union-only cartels on construction projects.... Under so-called project labor agreements, governments (local, state, or federal) award contracts for construction on major projects such as highways, airports, and stadiums exclusively to unionized firms.... These practices effectively lock-out qualified contractors and employees who refuse to submit to exclusive union bargaining, forced union dues, and wasteful union work rules.... So far, just three states have outlawed these discriminatory and costly union-only pacts.

10. Government funding of forced unionism. On top of all of the special powers and immunities granted to unions, politicians even pour taxpayer money straight into union coffers.... Union groups receive upwards of $160 million annually in direct federal grants. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.In 2001, the federal Department of Labor doled out $148 million for "international labor programs" overwhelmingly controlled by an AFL-CIO front group.... Federal bureaucrats spend approximately $2.6 billion per year on "job training programs" that, under the Workforce Investment Act, must be administered by boards filled with union officials.

That kind of power and priviledge has made many unions vulnerable to infiltration and corruption by organized crime.

[Hjalmar]

Closed-Shop Provisions Violate Canadian and Provincial Charters of Rights and Freedoms

Roger J. Bedard

Canada and Australia are now the only two developed countries that have not yet outlawed the closed-shop and mandatory union dues.... Every province in Canada has laws that authorize closed-shop unions and / or mandatory union dues and, under all provincial labour codes, exclusive representation means that workers are not free to decide as individuals whether or not to be represented by a union; nor can competing unions offer representative services to minorities.

In this Foreword, I shall first describe briefly the 17 interrelated cases that we are currently arguing before the Superior Court,

Hull Division.... We are contending that the "freedom of association" of section 2(d) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the freedom not to be forced to join a union, and that the practice of private union "taxers" of collecting mandatory union dues are a violation of the rights of Canadian citizens.... Second, I shall describe the way in which 101 countries around the world have outlawed closed-shop provisions altogether through legislation, court decisions, or international agreements... Finally, I shall raise a few questions about the silence of Canadian academics and journalists about the flagrant abuses of the closed-shop and of compulsory union dues.

[Hjalmar]

Closed-shop and Charters of Rights and Freedoms

[The Theriault and other interrelated cases]

With respect to the legal aspects of closed-shop and Rand formula practices, the legal contention in the 17 cases pending before Superior Court, Hull Division, is very specific and quite straight forward.... Closed-shop provisions and the Rand formula violate the rights of employees regimented in unions against their will and "taxed" privately by the unions... The cases presented argue that these practices are blatant violations of the rights guaranteed to all Canadian citizens by the federal and provincial charters of rights and freedom.

Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of association as a "Fundamental Freedom." Further, the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedom provides the following basic rights:

Sec. 10: Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedom without distinction, exclusion, or preference.

Sec. 13: No one may in a judicial act stipulate a clause involving discrimination.... Such a clause is deemed without effect.

It is important to recognize that the "freedom of association" of section 2(d) includes the freedom from compulsion to join a

particular union on pain of losing one's job.... It is also important to recognize that the closed-shop involves the "discrimination, distinction, exclusion, [or] preference" prohibited by the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedom. There have been several decisions in which the Canadian courts have clearly considered the freedom of the individual more important than collective rights.

[Hjalmar]

CASE LAWS AROUND THE WORLD

The evidence from around the world also suggests that freedom of association should be construed to include the freedom not to join a union; courts of law from many countries have issued decisions to this effect.

United States

As early as 1947, the Congress of the United States adopted the Taft-Hartley Act. Section 14( )of this Act reads:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by state or territorial Law.

The Supreme Court of the United States declared the Taft-Hartley Act constitutional in 1949, when it heard Lincoln Federated Union v. Northwestern I and M; and in AFL v. American Sash Door Company... Since the 1940s, 22 states have adopted right-to-work laws and these are still in force today.... These states are now among the most prosperous in the United States and have some of the lowest rates of unemployment in the country.... Since 1949, hundreds of court decisions under the Taft-Hartley Act have confirmed that the freedom of association includes freedom from coercion to join a union and the freedom to pay or not to pay union dues, even in states that have not enacted right-to-work laws.

Great Britain

The British Parliament, when it adopted the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, included a provision for closed-shop unions... Seventy years later the closed-shop union was challenged in the famous case of Young, James, and Webster v. British Rail. In 1976, Young, James, and Webster, employees of British Rail, cancelled their membership in the Trades Union Congress and refused to pay union dues... They were promptly dismissed by British Rail and a court battle ensued... Five years later, in August 1981, the European Court in Strasbourg issued a judgment in which it ordered British Rail to reinstate the three claimants in their jobs and to pay them £145,000 in compensation for the damage they had suffered.

This decision was a first step towards eliminating closed-shop union provisions in Great Britain... Employment Acts adopted by the British Parliament in 1982, 1988 and 1990 gradually outlawed the provision of closed-shop and mandatory union dues in Great Britain.

Section 1 (1) of the Employment Act of 1990 states:

1 (1) It is unlawful to refuse a person employment:

(a) because he is or is not a member of a trade union or

() because he is unwilling to accept a requirement

(i) to take steps to become or to remain or not to become a member of a trade union;

(ii) to make payments or suffer deductions in the event of his not being a member of a trade union.

Switzerland

Section 356(1)(a) of the Code of Obligations adopted in 1911 and further amended in 1956 reads:

The provisions of a collective agreement or of a private agreement that coerce employers or laborers to join an association are null and void.

Belgium

The closed-shop was outlawed in Belgium by a law adopted on May 24, 1921 and still in force. It reads:

Sec. 1: The freedom of association is guaranteed. No employee will be forced to join a union nor hindered from joining a union.

France

Statute No. 56-416 enacted on April 27, 1956 reads:

1. No employer shall consider the fact that a candidate is a member or is not a member of a union nor that the candidate takespart or takes no part in the union in decisions pertaining to hiring, assignment of work, social benefits, disciplinary action nor dismissal.

2. Closed-shop provisions to coerce an employer to hire or maintain in employment only union members are null and void.

Japan

Neither the Labor Relations Act of Japan of 1946 nor any labour law adopted since by the Diete has authorized the

closed-shop (International Labor Office 1980). The freedom to join a union is guaranteed by section 28 of the Constitution of

Japan-1946 (Blaustein and Franz 1993: 15-22). Since 1946, the Japanese courts have consistently ruled that the freedom of association under section 28 includes the freedom from coercion to join a trade union.

New Zealand

Section 99.1 of the Industrial Relations Act of New Zealand reads:

99.1 Nothing in any award or any collective agreement or in any other agreement between one or more workers and an

employer or employers or a union of employers or an organization of employers shall require a person:

(a) to become or remain a member of any union . . .

Eire

The sections of the Constitution adopted by Ireland in 1937 that deal with freedom of association read:

Sec. 40.3 The State guarantees in its laws to respect and, as far as practicable, by the laws to defend and vindicate the personal right of the citizens.

Sec. 40.6 1o The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights subject to public order and morality:

(iii) the right of citizens to form associations and unions.

International charters

South American Convention on Human Rights

This convention (also called the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica) was signed by Mexico, the countries of Central America, South

America and states in the Caribbean-30 countries overall. Section 8.3 reads:

8.3 No one may be compelled to belong to a trade union.

African Charter on Human and People Rights

The African Charter on Human and People Rights was signed by 49 African countries in Liberia on July 20, 1979.

Sec. 10(1): Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law.

Sec. 10(2): No one may be compelled to join an association

[Hjalmar]

Synopsis of the evidence on Right-To-Work laws

The so-called British Disease was imported into Canada and remains with us today... While Canada is still plagued with the disease, Britain reformed its labour legislation and is now enjoying the benefits of having introduced Right-to-Work laws. The research evidence gathered by the authors in this volume indicates that jurisdictions with Right-to-Work laws have outperformed jurisdictions without such laws by a significant margin... Following is a synopsis of the evidence.

•In the United States, between 1947 and 1992, manufacturing employment increased by 148 percent in states with Right-to-Work laws. Over the same period, growth in manufacturing jobs was almost zero in states without Right-to-Work laws.

•On average, manufacturing employment increases by one-third when one steps over the border from a state without Right-to-Work laws to a state with Right-to-Work laws.

•Between 1986 and 1993, in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, states with Right-to-Work laws-Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming-saw their average manufacturing job growth rise by 26 percent, while states without Right-to-Work laws-Washington, Oregon, Montana and Colorado-saw an average growth rate of 7 percent.

•Among the 20 states ranked as having the best climate for business, according to a major survey 19 of them are states with Right-to-Work laws.

•Surveys show that half of all companies in the United States wanting to relocate will not consider a state without Right-to-Work laws.

•Six years prior to the enactment of the Right-to-Work law, Idaho saw its manufacturing employment decline by 2.1 percent. In contrast, after the law was passed, between 1987 and 1995 Idaho's manufacturing employment grew by 36.2 percent.

•While the number of construction jobs in non-Right-to-Work states increased by 5.5 percent between 1986 and 1994, construction jobs in Idaho increased by 105 percent.

•While manufacturing productivity in Idaho grew by almost 5 percent between 1987 and 1992, in the neighbouring non-Right-to-Work state of Montana manufacturing productivity declined by 4.4 percent.

•In the case of New Zealand, after the enactment of Right-to-Work laws in 1991, the unemployment rate fell from 10.0 percent in September 1991 to 5.9 percent in March 1996.

•Between 1984 and 1991, annual labour productivity growth was 1.1 percent in New Zealand. Between 1991 and 1995, productivity has increased by 1.8 percent on an annual basis.

•In New Zealand, GDP grew by 15 percent in the three years after it enacted Right-to-Work laws in 1991. This is as much as the economy grew in the whole decade between 1974 and 1984.

•Working days lost due to strike activity in New Zealand have declined from 99,032 in 1991 to 23,770 by 1993.

•Firms in Britain that rid themselves of the closed shop have higher levels of growth in productivity.

•While Britain also saw its corporate profitability improve, profits continued to be lower in unionized workplaces.

•After major labour reforms, Britain's unemployment rate has declined from 11.2 percent in 1983 to 6.9 percent in November 1996.

•In Britain, there were 2,125 work stoppages in 1979. Since labour reforms were introduced, the number of work stoppages has declined to 205 in 1994.

[Hjalmar]

Passing Right-to-Work legislation: the start of the economic boom

Idaho became the nation's twenty-first Right-to-Work state in 1985, when the state Senate and the state House of Representatives overrode then-Governor John V. Evans's veto of House Bill 2. Idaho's status as a Right-to-Work state was immediately challenged by the state's labour unions, which obtained enough signatures to place the law on the 1986 general election ballot.

Having run the gauntlet of numerous committee hearings, votes in both houses of the legislature, second votes in the legislature on overriding the Governor's veto, the idea of Right-to-Work was clearly popular. However, union officials in Idaho had US $1.3 million in forced union dues handed to them by the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) in Washington, DC, to spend on their drive to repeal the law. All in all, opponents of Right-to-Work had nearly twice as much money to spend as the supporters of the Right-to-Work law.

By election day, last minute polls seemed to indicate a photo finish, but the Right-to-Work law was upheld by Idaho voters on November 4, 1986 by a surprisingly strong 54 to 46 percent margin. Since then, Idaho has enjoyed sustained economic growth-so much so that a recent publication by the Idaho Department of Commerce describes "six consecutive years of growth and stability that is the envy of many," beginning in 1987, the year Right-to-Work legislation finally took effect (Idaho Dep't of Commerce 1993). It is no exaggeration to say that the enactment of Right-to-Work laws has done more for the Idaho economy than has any other legislative measure in the last decade.

[Hjalmar]

I hereby declare victory. Total silence means that what I have had to say here is obviously irrefutable. Time for this thread to die -- and on a high note at that. For the people onside here I say -- spread the message to our politicians and wake them up. Bye all.

[Black Dog]

That's pretty simplistic -- So government employees pay taxes too and their paycheques get as many deductions as everyone elses. Therefore, with your reasoning, they are paying for their own medical premiums-- is that correct? Now could you explain to me why my paycheque should be contributing to their medical premiums? Think that over carefully before responding. And you're stuck for an answer, right??

Oh please.

Can you first explain how it is that you pay their premiums. In fact show me the line on your deductions saying "public service medical premiums" and I'll bite. Otherwise, your argument boils down to the usal gibber-jabber about "My taxes pay their salary blah blah blah."

You pay taxes, taxes pay for a lot of services, including public employees' paycheques and benefits...big deal. If you have a heart attack, my taxes pay for your medical treatment. How's that fair. Same logic, different application. At the root is a narrow, selfish doctrine.

I should also point out that the public sector is miniscule in both relative size and economic impact on the economy. Government is smaller now than in the past, which punches yet another hole in your blame unions for everything philosophy.

Then explain how the the price of so many products continue to drop. I'll name a few -- Television sets, computers, Stereo sets, clothing, and even automobiles that are made ofshore. For instance, compare prices of Honda or Toyota [made in North America] with comparable models of Hyundai or Kia [made in South Korea]. Many, or most of the products mentioned above, with the exception of clothing, that we see in the stores are now manufactured offshore. You can save over $3,000 by purchasing a Kia instead of a Honda or Toyota. And you want to convince me that consumers don't benefit from this?

The Consumer Price Index is the indicator I use, not anecdotes.

And behold:

CPI 1946-1998

I suspect that upward trend has not dropped significantly, if at all, in the last 5 years.

hereby declare victory. Total silence means that what I have had to say here is obviously irrefutable. Time for this thread to die -- and on a high note at that. For the people onside here I say -- spread the message to our politicians and wake them up. Bye all

Or total silence means most of us are just tired of your hot air.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, everything that you are poesting of your "Right Wing" mentors has already been refuted. I have asked you to consider the relative economic situations of those states you trumpet as economic miracles> if you would do that, you will find all the factors I suggested come into play.

Further, the answer that unions have not yet found is that the non-union employees in unionised plants benefir from the efforts of their more socially conscious brethren. Your idols do not contribute their time and money to the benefite they gain.

You should also look into the increasing numbers of those without benefits such as health insurance. They figure largely in your moochers. They have lost far more than they gained as they now pay for their own medical care.

There is a whole host of variables that you do not wish to look at in the simple minded obsession with outdated "market" economic theories. You might also consider why other areas of the world that do not, and will never have the misnamed "right to work" are rapidly catching up to the USA in economic performance while advancing a civilised social agenda.

[Cartman]

I hereby declare victory. Total silence means that what I have had to say here is obviously irrefutable. Time for this thread to die -- and on a high note at that. For the people onside here I say -- spread the message to our politicians and wake them up. Bye all.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

[Hjalmar]

Union Corruption

Purple Haze Union

The Link:

Go to google and type in "Interview with H J Finnamore"

[Hjalmar]

Sorry about that .. The above change is an easier way to get in