NationStates

UNION STATES vs RIGHT TO WORK STATES
RTW: 22 STATES vs UNION: 28 STATES

This is a compilement of facts I have gathered, you decide and add your own facts to the pool. The ultimate duel between Unions and RTW states shall be decided PROVEN FACTS ONLY. Are forced Union states fair to workers? Do unions really care about workers? Do teachers unions benefit students? Have Unions served their purpose already? Are companies hijacked by unions (Hostess)? And many more questions can be asked and discussed here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welfare States: States that pay less than they get from the government
Forced Union Welfare States- Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Philidelphia, Vermont, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Alaska, Hawaii- 14 STATES
Right to Work Welfare States- Georgia, Alabama, Mississipi, Louisiana, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tenesee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia- 19 STATES

Unemployment Rate: The percent of people unemployed
National Average: 7.7%
Forced Union States Above Average:
Rhode Island: 10.4%
California: 9.8%
New Jersey: 9.6%
Michigan: 8.9% (I did not list Michigan as a RTW state because the reforms were only enacted a month ago)
Conneticut: 8.8%
Illinois: 8.7%
Washington DC: 8.4%
Oregon: 8.4%
New York: 8.3%
Kentucky: 8.2%
Indiana: 8%
Pensyllvania: 7.8%
STATES: 12

RTW States Above Average:
Nevada: 10.8%
North Carolina: 9.1%
Georgia: 8.5%
Mississipi: 8.5%
Florida: 8.1%
Arizona: 7.8%
STATES: 6

GDP: Amount of Money a state makes:
Union States above average GDP:
California: 1.9 Trillion Dollars
New York: 1.1 Trillion Dollars
Illinois: 644 Billion Dollars
Pensyllvania: 575 Billion Dollars
New Jersey: 497 Billion Dollars
Ohio: 483 Billion Dollars
Massachuttsets: 377 Billion Dollars
Michigan: 372 Billion Dollars (I did not put this under RTW since the reforms only took place 2mo ago)
Washington: 351,000 Billion Dollars
Maryland: 300 Billion Dollars
Indiana: 267 Billion Dollars
Minnesota: 267 Billion Dollars
Colorado: 259 Billion Dollars
Wisconsin: 251 Billion Dollars
Conneticut: 233 Billion Dollars
STATES: 15

RTW States above average GDP:
Texas: 1.3 Trillion Dollars
Florida: 754 Billion Dollars
Virginia: 427 Billion Dollars
North Carolina: 407 Billion Dollars
Georgia: 403 Billion Dollars
Arizona: 261 Billion Dollars
Tennesee: 250 Billion Dollars
Missouri: 246 Billion Dollars
Louisiana: 213 Billion Dollars
Alabama: 174 Billion Dollars
STATES: 10



B-A+ Small Business Rating: States that have been rated highly by small business owners on surveys by the Kaufman foundation
Union States:
New Hampshire: A
Oregon: A-
Indiana: B+
Colorado: B+
Montana: B
Washington: B-
Minnesota: B-
STATES: 7

RTW States:
Arkansas: A+
Oklahoma: A+
Utah: A+
Idaho: A+
Texas: A
Louisiana: A
Georgia: A
South Carolina: A-
Virginia: A-
Kansas: A-
Alabama: B+
Nebraska: B+
Nevada: B
Tenessee: B
Arizona: B-
STATES: 15

I have no problem with unions. I have a problem when you try to force workers into unions or when you try to prevent them from joining/forming one. Let the laborer decide.

That's not how an Opening Post works. You need to give us topics to discuss and your opinion. Otherwise, get a blog.

Mike the Progressive wrote:I have no problem with unions. I have a problem when you try to force workers into unions or when you try to prevent them from joining/forming one. Let the laborer decide.

Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

Nationalist Eminral Republic wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:I have no problem with unions. I have a problem when you try to force workers into unions or when you try to prevent them from joining/forming one. Let the laborer decide.

Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

I believe there is this thing called minimum wage.

Nidaria wrote:

Nationalist Eminral Republic wrote:Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

I believe there is this thing called minimum wage.

Even if there is, they can still be abused.

Nidaria wrote:

Nationalist Eminral Republic wrote:Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

I believe there is this thing called minimum wage.

Now, sure.

Nidaria wrote:

Nationalist Eminral Republic wrote:Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

I believe there is this thing called minimum wage.

Ever tried living on it before?

Nidaria wrote:

Nationalist Eminral Republic wrote:Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

I believe there is this thing called minimum wage.

One of the greatest victories of unionization in the United States, to be sure.

Nationalist Eminral Republic wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:I have no problem with unions. I have a problem when you try to force workers into unions or when you try to prevent them from joining/forming one. Let the laborer decide.

Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

Absolutely. Unions have done good and as long as you can voluntarily join them or choose to not be a member, I'm OK. I do have a problem though when certain states mandate it.

That said, it's also good business to pay your workers better and to treat them better, even without the influence of government or unions. Ford most certainly did. The happier your workers are, the better they will work to make your shit.

Kengburg wrote: Are companies hijacked by unions (Hostess)?

Unions didn't kill Hostess.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Kengburg wrote: Are companies hijacked by unions (Hostess)?

Unions didn't kill Hostess.

Do you mean to tell me that a company who exclusively produces and sells products in excess of 500 calories per serving in a country facing an obesity epidemic had problems with their business model beyond the fact that they were unionized?

I thought this was an IC thread for a second, where a new civil war between the Union States and Right to Work States erupts.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:Unions didn't kill Hostess.

Do you mean to tell me that a company who exclusively produces and sells products in excess of 500 calories per serving in a country facing an obesity epidemic had problems with their business model beyond the fact that they were unionized?

It doesn't matter if their food was unhealthy. Nobody was stopping people from buying their products.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Nationalist Eminral Republic wrote:Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

Absolutely. Unions have done good and as long as you can voluntarily join them or choose to not be a member, I'm OK. I do have a problem though when certain states mandate it.

That said, it's also good business to pay your workers better and to treat them better, even without the influence of government or unions. Ford most certainly did. The happier your workers are, the better they will work to make your shit.

Exactly, ever wonder why chinese products are low quality? they are paid $ 3.00 maximum per hour.
"If you demand products that don't cost anything, people will make them out of poison, mud and shit"
-Bill Maher

Sdaeriji wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:Unions didn't kill Hostess.

Do you mean to tell me that a company who exclusively produces and sells products in excess of 500 calories per serving in a country facing an obesity epidemic had problems with their business model beyond the fact that they were unionized?

And kept taking executive bonuses, raiding employee paid pensions that they then declared bankruptcy to avoid repaying, and asked for salary cuts that amounted to half their wages...madness.

Libertarian California wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:
Do you mean to tell me that a company who exclusively produces and sells products in excess of 500 calories per serving in a country facing an obesity epidemic had problems with their business model beyond the fact that they were unionized?

It doesn't matter if their food was unhealthy. Nobody was stopping people from buying their products.

Except themselves.

Libertarian California wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:
Do you mean to tell me that a company who exclusively produces and sells products in excess of 500 calories per serving in a country facing an obesity epidemic had problems with their business model beyond the fact that they were unionized?

It doesn't matter if their food was unhealthy. Nobody was stopping people from buying their products.

That's rather the point. Nobody was stopping people from buying their products, except the people who were no longer buying their products. Somehow that is the union's fault.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Libertarian California wrote:
It doesn't matter if their food was unhealthy. Nobody was stopping people from buying their products.

That's rather the point. Nobody was stopping people from buying their products, except the people who were no longer buying their products. Somehow that is the union's fault.

Actually Hostess went bankrupt because no one was working, not because they were not selling, they could have stayed open.
The average employee made 43,000 a year

Kengburg wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:
That's rather the point. Nobody was stopping people from buying their products, except the people who were no longer buying their products. Somehow that is the union's fault.

Actually Hostess went bankrupt because no one was working, not because they were not selling, they could have stayed open.

And kept handing out bonuses of 80% of their salary to management. Sure.

Kengburg wrote:UNION STATES vs RIGHT TO WORK STATES
RTW: 22 STATES vs UNION: 28 STATES

This is a compilement of facts I have gathered, you decide and add your own facts to the pool. The ultimate duel between Unions and RTW states shall be decided PROVEN FACTS ONLY.

You must be new here.

Ifreann wrote:You must be new here.

Not to mention literally Hitler.

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Absolutely. Unions have done good and as long as you can voluntarily join them or choose to not be a member, I'm OK. I do have a problem though when certain states mandate it.

Here's the problem with that: You don't pay dues to the union or participate in the union, but you still get the union benefits. That's a pretty sweet deal for you, but not for the union or the people working on your behalf for decent working conditions and a fair wage.

If you can sort that out, fine. But it seems like a great way to benefit off the sacrifices of others.

An average Hostess employee made anywhere from 27,000 to 43,000 per year, how is that unfair? And you have to pay union fees even if you do not want to be in a union. That is literally forcing someone to pay an orginization that they do not want to be apart of. Also if you look non-union states are more business friendly, have less unemployment, and have less debt.

Kengburg wrote:An average Hostess employee made anywhere from 27,000 to 43,000 per year, how is that unfair? And you have to pay union fees even if you do not want to be in a union. That is literally forcing someone to pay an orginization that they do not want to be apart of.

Management was having an even better time of it, how is that fair?

They get the benefits of union membership without contributing to the union. How is that fair?