Home | About | Donate

Missourians See 'Right-to-Work' for What It Is: An Assault on Workers


#1

Missourians See 'Right-to-Work' for What It Is: An Assault on Workers

Heidi Shierholz

By a two-to-one margin, Missouri voters voted down a so-called “right-to-work” (RTW) law on Tuesday. This is great news for working Missourians and the unions that represent them, as well as anyone whose living depends on the money Missourians spend in their local economy.

Despite the name, RTW laws do not confer the right to employment on anyone; nor do they make it so you can’t be required to join a union—the law already says that no one can be made to join a union as a condition of employment.


#2

“Thankfully, for the working people of Missouri, voters saw through the corporate propaganda and rejected this assault on workers. When given the choice, voters consistently choose to support and empower working people.”

It’s about time that Missouri lived up to its “Show Me State” primary nickname. I never saw much of that spirit when I lived there for fourteen years in the '60s and '70s, when it seemed content to honor its secondary nickname, “The Cave State”.


#3

After winning his case and screwing over unions, I sure hope Mark Janus is happy at his new job at the Illinois Policy Institute, the right wing think tank (ha,ha), that bankrolled his lawsuit. Hey Janus, FU., you prick.

Great job Missouri, good on ya.


#4

Well who would have thought it possible. Good job Missouri, but watch your back. Once these fascists decide they want something…like power over the people, they stop at nothing to get it. They don’t know defeat, they have unlimited resources, and they are viciously persistent.


#5

This is one of those truly hopeful events. The overwhelming nature of this vote gives this cynic new hope.


#6

“Right to work” is a euphemism for RIGHT TO STARVE…precisely what the 1% wants for us, as soon as they have wrung the best years of our lives out of us.


#7

Right To Work laws should be called Right To Work For Less Pay and Fewer Benefits, because that’s their goal and end result.


#8

You democrats are so retarded. The afscme is the same and why should I give my money to them to support democrats. Go Janus! Thank God for your win


#9

Interesting that somehow, in 2016, roughly 80% of South Dakota voters opted to uphold their Right to Work law. Do the people of South Dakota really think that differently from the people of Missouri? Or was what happened in Missouri the result of a successful, lavishly funded Big Labor fear mongering campaign that could only succeed because the Right to Work law had never been implemented there, and thus many citizens could be misled into thinking the outlandish claims of the likes of Heidi S about the economic impact of Right to Work might possibly be true. I vote for option 2.


#10

Retarded


#11

Retarded Shit


#12

Considering that right to work states have lower wages, people are voting to cut their wages, which is foolish.
But then again, it is why the red states are takers since they are the right to work states. And red states take tax money from the liberal states that have unions. But then again red states seem to enjoy poverty, the worst health care, the worst education, the worst in every standard of living. All while living on our dime.
S. Dakota has the top 3 counties in the states for poverty.
S. Dakota’s economy is .3% of the US economy. Now compared to a blue state like NY which is 8.1%. Income per capita is higher than other red states, but lower than any blue state.
Quite frankly the red states should continue to do the same things that make them poverty areas and the worst in standards of living. That only makes blue states more attractive. The only thing I would change is that we should stop subsidizing the red states and let them get by on their own. See how they can get by w/o our money. Because they are doing so poorly with our money, they will sink to new lows w/o it.

And considering how red states complain about takers, then they should be willing to cease to be takers. I fully agree, why should we subsidize the takers from the red states?


#13

I don’t suppose that you realize that political donations from unions was separated form the bargaining part. What was asked from Janus was dues to help with collective bargaining.
But what really gets me is the irony of it. Conservatives always complain about free rides and yet here, Janus is getting a free ride. He pays no dues at all, yet gets all the benefits that the union gets for the workers. That is a free ride. So Janus is happy to be a taker, a freeloader off the money of others.
Though that fits with the conservative mindset, since every conservative state is a taker, a freeloader who lives off the taxes from liberal states. Blue states give a dollar to the federal government and get about 80 cents on the back. Red states give a dollar to the federal government and get back anywhere from 2-3 for every dollar they give.
This makes red states takers from the rest of us. And another irony is that even with the blue states subsidizing the red states, they still are the poorest state, they have the worst poverty, the worst healthcare, the worst education. In every standard of living red states are last.
What would happen if the blue states decided that none of their tax $ goes to red states anymore? I suppose they could go downhill faster than they already are. I would really like to see the takers like Janus and red states have to live on their own dime. W/o the rest of us paying for them.