🚀 go-pugleaf

When it comes to getting the truth about anything these days, it 
is hard to even consider today�s unions as a source. As usual, 
when examining a union�s claim, one must always dig deeper. Such 
is the case when it comes to the union claim that Right-to-Work 
means Right-to-Work for less.
Here�s the reality:

So-called Right-to-Work laws mean only one thing: Union (income) 
Security agreements that give unions the ability to have workers 
fired for refusing to pay union dues (or fees) are illegal. That 
is all.
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.]

It is 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.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/28/so-unions-lie-about-income-
effects-of-right-to-work-states-shocking/

--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed 
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the 
outlaw Obama administration?

No.  Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in 
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a 
controlled rate of aimed fire.  ��

��