Differences Between Right to Work and Non-Right to Work States

Contrary to what the labor union leaders, activists, and fleebaggers say about how good labor unions are for ‘the middle class,’ the statistics tell an entirely different story. You have to excuse them for using class warfare though. They can’t help it. They were born that way.

Right to work states create more private sector jobs, enjoy lower poverty rates, experience more technology development, realize more personal income growth, and increase the number of people covered by employment-based private health insurance.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, right-to-work states added 1.5 million private-sector jobs from 1999 to 2009 for a 3.7% increase; states that are not right-to-work lost 1.8 million jobs over the same decade, a decline of 2.3%.

The numbers really isolate where labor unions and President Obama stand when it comes to the American taxpayer. It’s all about them, and Democrats’ re-election. It’s not about ‘the workers,’ the middle class, jobs, or the economy.

Links: Differences Between Right to Work and Non-Right to Work States |   Right to Work StatisticsUnions And The Right To Work

How The Wisconsin Education Association Gouges Taxpayers

Digging a little deeper into just one of the reasons that Wisconsin needs to reform their collective bargaining posture with the public labor union, has to do with the labor union’s monopoly as the health insurance provider. Costing the taxpayers thousands more per year per employee than they have to pay.

[T]he big stake that the Wisconsin Education Association has in forcing individual school districts to negotiate benefits — because they can demand that their own WEA Trust have a monopoly on health insurance.

Link: One reason why Wisconsin needed union reform: captive benefits