What would happen if things had to be named truthfully?

[Andrew D]

What if, for example, so-called "right to work" laws were named truthfully?

They would be called "right to freeload on the backs of dues-paying union members" laws. Or "right to work longer hours in less safe conditions for less money" laws.

How much support would they get then?

What if the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" were named truthfully?

It would be called the "Deprivation of Equality for Homosexual People Act". Or the "Anti-Gay Bigotry Enshrinement Act".

How much support would it get then?

[MajGenl.Meade]

How about 'homosexual' instead of 'gay' and 'lesbian'? Funny how propaganda works, innit?

[Andrew D]

As you can see, I used the term "homosexual" above.

I do not recall any of my gay friends ever having objected to being referred to as "homosexual".

The crucial difference is that neither "gay" nor "lesbian" is a lie. "Gay" originated (modernly) as a code word necessitated by the bigotry which made it dangerous -- as, lamentably, it sometimes still is -- to identify oneself as homosexual. "Lesbian" is a somewhat older term derived from the name of the island domicile of the allegedly homosexual poet Sappho.

"Defense of Marriage Act," in contrast, is a lie. Not one heterosexual marriage has ever been threatened by the existence of any homosexual marriage. The deceitfully named "Defense of Marriage Act" does not actually defend anyone's marriage against anything.

"Right to work law" is also a lie. Compulsory union membership does not deprive anyone of the right to work. The deceitfully named "right to work" laws do not actually defend anyone's right to work against any threat to that right.

For that matter, "defense budget" is a lie, albeit a lie with a kernel of truth buried in it. A huge chunk -- almost certainly at least half, and probably a great deal more than that -- of the so-called "defense budget" is not actually used to defend the US against anything.

Whatever one might think of the terms "gay" and "lesbian," at least they are not lies. Which is more than can honestly be said about "right to work laws," the "Defense of Marriage Act," and the "defense budget".

[dales]

"New and improved...."

[Sue U]

"Patriot Act."

"Military Intelligence."

[Gob]

"political correctness"

[rubato]

They would have to call them "lower wages, worse health care, and reduced pension" laws.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Studies of economic impact

A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:[25]

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state. The study goes on to say "How much of this difference can be attributed to RTW status itself? There is an inherent “endogeneity” problem in any attempt to answer that question, namely that RTW and non-RTW states differ on a wide variety of measures that are also related to compensation, making it difficult to isolate the impact of RTW status."[25]
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.
In 2009, the state unemployment rate was significantly lower in the RTW states (8.6%) versus the non-RTW states (9.6%).

Comparisons

The United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2011 Occupational Employment and Wages Estimates,[26] shows median hourly wages of all 22 Right to Work States (RTW) and all 28 Collective-Bargaining States (CBS) as follows:
Occupation .................Median wages in Right-to-work states ... Median wages in Collective-bargaining states ... Difference*
All occupations .................. $15.31/hour ................................... $16.89/hour .................. -$1.58/hour (-9.4%)
Middle school teacher ......... $49,306/year ................................... $55,863/year .................. -$6557/year (-11.7%)
Computer support specialist.. $46,306/year .................................. . $50,641/year .................. -$4335/year (-8.6%)

Collective-Bargaining States third-quarter 2011 COLI (cost-of-living index) was 117.03
Right to Work third-quarter 2011 COLI was 94.46 (-19.3%)

* The above data does not factor in the COLI for each state. According to the Council for Community and Economic Research the cost of living index for California in 2009 was 132% of the national average while Texas was 90.2%. This pattern holds true between the right-to-work states in the South and Midwest and the non-right-to-work states in the higher cost regions. Adjusting pay for these regional cost differences results in higher real buying power in most of the right-to-work states.[27][28]

The United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics shows unemployment rates for states as of April 2012, seasonally adjusted,[29] to average as follows:

Collective-Bargaining States average unemployment rate 7.5%
Right to Work average unemployment rate 6.9%

_____________________________________-

[rubato]

Or they could call them "higher poverty" laws


Rank State Poverty Rate
…….. ……..……..…….. (by Household Income)
…….. ……..……..……..
…….. …….. United States ……..……..…….. 12.60%
1 …….. New Hampshire ……..……..…….. 5.60%
2 …….. New Jersey ……..……..…….. 6.80%
3 …….. Vermont ……..……..…….. 7.60%
4 …….. Minnesota ……..……..…….. 8.10%
5 …….. Hawaii ……..……..…….. 8.60%
6 …….. Delaware ……..……..…….. 9.20%
7 …….. Utah ……..……..…….. 9.20% RTW
8 …….. Virginia ……..……..…….. 9.20% RTW
9 …….. Connecticut ……..……..…….. 9.70%
10 …….. Nebraska ……..……..…….. 9.50% RTW
11 …….. Maryland ……..……..…….. 9.70%
12 …….. Idaho ……..……..…….. 9.90% RTW
13 …….. Alaska ……..……..…….. 10.00%
14 …….. Massachusetts ……..……..…….. 10.10%
15 …….. Washington ……..……..…….. 10.20%
16 …….. Wisconsin ……..……..…….. 10.20%
17 …….. Nevada ……..……..…….. 10.60% RTW
18 …….. Wyoming ……..……..…….. 10.60% RTW
19 …….. Florida ……..……..…….. 11.10% RTW
20 …….. North Dakota ……..……..…….. 11.20% RTW
21 …….. Pennsylvania ……..……..…….. 11.20%
22 …….. Iowa ……..……..…….. 11.30% RTW
23 …….. Colorado ……..……..…….. 11.40%
24 …….. Illinois ……..……..…….. 11.50%
25 …….. Missouri ……..……..…….. 11.60%
26 …….. South Dakota ……..……..…….. 11.80%
27 …….. Michigan ……..……..…….. 12.00% RTW
28 …….. Oregon ……..……..…….. 12.00%
29 …….. Rhode Island ……..……..…….. 12.10%
30 …….. Ohio ……..……..…….. 12.30%
31 …….. Kansas ……..……..…….. 12.50% RTW
32 …….. Indiana ……..……..…….. 12.60% RTW
33 …….. Maine ……..……..…….. 12.60%
34 …….. North Carolina ……..……..…….. 13.10% RTW
35 …….. California ……..……..…….. 13.20%
36 …….. Montana ……..……..…….. 13.80%
37 …….. Georgia ……..……..…….. 14.40% RTW
38 …….. New York ……..……..…….. 14.50%
39 …….. Kentucky ……..……..…….. 14.80%
40 …….. Tennessee ……..……..…….. 15.00% RTW
41 …….. South Carolina ……..……..…….. 15.00% RTW
42 …….. Arizona ……..……..…….. 15.20% RTW
43 …….. West Virginia ……..……..…….. 15.40%
44 …….. Oklahoma ……..……..…….. 15.60% RTW
45 …….. Arkansas ……..……..…….. 15.90% RTW
46 …….. Texas ……..……..…….. 16.20% RTW
47 …….. Alabama ……..……..…….. 16.70% RTW
48 …….. New Mexico ……..……..…….. 17.90%
49 …….. Louisiana ……..……..…….. 18.30% RTW
50 …….. Mississippi ……..……..…….. 20.10% RTW

[Joe Guy]

"Right to Work" (rtw) means Repubicans wanting to destroy Unions so they can destroy the opposition & have much more political influence".

Rtw means Republicans Trashing Workers.

Unfortunately, they are good at deceiving many workers into thinking rtw actually gives the individual more power.

Bullterds.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Compulsory union membership does not deprive anyone of the right to work.

No it does not, but it does force one to pay part of their salary to a union. I can't go into that union shop and bargain my own contract. I have to accept what contract was bargained, one I had no say in. To me that is not the way to go. If I can do some task better and cheaper and still make a god living, why shouldn't I be able to bring that skill to that factory/business and make my own deal?

Unions have been good for the workers and their benefits and middle class living, but having a "take it or leave it" attitude is not good for many workers.

[Andrew D]

If I can do some task better and cheaper and still make a god living, why shouldn't I be able to bring that skill to that factory/business and make my own deal?

That has nothing to do with so-called "right to work" laws.

In so-called "right to work" States, non-union workers do not come into unionized workplaces and make their own contracts. Non-union workers come into unionized workplaces and take advantage of the wages, benefits, and working conditions which the unions have fought for, but the non-uionized workers don't have to support the unions which got them those wages, benefits, and working conditions.

So-called "right to work" laws simply enable non-unionized workers to freeload on the backs of the unionized workers whose union dues made possible the wages, benefits, and working conditions that the non-unionized workers enjoy.

Unions have been good for the workers and their benefits and middle class living ....

Which is exactly why the corporate interests behind so-called "right to work" laws want to destroy unions.

To the corporate megapowers who buy and sell right-wing legislators like pork bellies on the commodities market working people exist only to be used up and discarded.

[Sue U]

I can't go into that union shop and bargain my own contract. I have to accept what contract was bargained, one I had no say in. To me that is not the way to go. If I can do some task better and cheaper and still make a god living, why shouldn't I be able to bring that skill to that factory/business and make my own deal?

Unions have been good for the workers and their benefits and middle class living, but having a "take it or leave it" attitude is not good for many workers.

Then let the union bargain for a contract for its members only, and let everyone who doesn't join see what kind of deal they can make individually. You don' want to join the union? Fine, but why should you get the benefit of the union contract? Negotiate your own indiidual wages, hours, seniority, grievance procedure, healthcare plan and pension. As they say, good luck with that. "Take it or leave it" is what you get from employers; that's why there are unions in the first place.

[Guinevere]

Sue has it exactly right - union get much better deals from employers than non-union employees get.

A specific example from a municipality I may or may not represent: In the last contract round, it shifted to a new, less-expensive health-care plan, which was a subject of mandatory bargaining. It took almost two years of bargaining to get the 10+ bargaining units to agree, and the unions got some wage increased and other bennies. The non-union employees were shifted over to the new plan a year earlier than union employees because they had no say in the process, and received no additional wages or other benefits. This current contract round, the municipality needed to change the percentage of the cost paid by the employer. Union employees went from 90/10 split to 80/20, and received additional wages. Non-union employees went to 75/25, no wage increases.

The teeth behind the unions strength are are strong collective bargaining laws, and state agencies that tend to be union-friendly. Employers who fight, spend lots of money and have no guarantee of success. In the face of a long-drawn out legal fight, and still paying the increases, versus paying the increases and maintaining a positive relationship with the union (and hoping you can work well together), employers often take the shorter road.

[oldr_n_wsr]

SueU
Then let the union bargain for a contract for its members only, and let everyone who doesn't join see what kind of deal they can make individually. You don' want to join the union? Fine, but why should you get the benefit of the union contract? Negotiate your own indiidual wages, hours, seniority, grievance procedure, healthcare plan and pension. As they say, good luck with that. "Take it or leave it" is what you get from employers; that's why there are unions in the first place.

I don't disagree with that philosophy. Don't join "the" union, don't get the benefits. MAke your own deal. But when the only game in town is to join the union or stay unemployed, what is one to do? Sounds like a monopoly on your employment picture/needs/wants. Now I do understand where the "lower offer" will undercut the union to some point. But then maybe competing unions need to be implemented.

All I know is what I know. I sell my brain power and knowledge rather than my back and braun. (as my back hurts and my muscle mass ahs gone down in the last 20 years) At one time a buddy and mine tried to start a roofing business. Lower wages (paid to illegal aliens) made us non-competitive (of course some of the people who went with the lower bid did call us later on trying to get us to fix the screw ups as they couldn't find the guys who did the roof for them)

I don't want my future determined by some bargain that a bunch of other people made and still a larger number of people voted for. I stand on my own. But hey, that's just me.

[Crackpot]

Do you get a say in if you pay taxes or not?

(you do get a vote on your union contracts after all)

[Crackpot]

adn as for if things were names truthfully:

Mediator

[oldr_n_wsr]

Do you get a say in if you pay taxes or not?

(you do get a vote on your union contracts after all)

No, but I can contest my property assesment (been there, done that, got mine lowered unlike my neighbors, aka got my own deal).

And the union is not the government.

[Sue U]

And the union is not the government.

No, but if you want that analogy, then the employer is the "government" -- and a dictatorial one at that: the company has the money, and if you want some to survive you will do what it tells you, when it tells you, and for how long it tells you. You as an individual have no choice but to take it or leave it. The employer doesn't give a shit about any individual employee; someone else will be desperate enough to do the job and toe the company line.

[dgs49]

Apparently, most of the people posting above were born a couple weeks ago, so I'll enlighten you to a bit of history.

There was a time when the argument could have been convincingly made that "collective bargaining" and the NLRA were responsible for tremendous benefits to America's middle class, and specifically, those American men who did not have college degrees or specialized skills or education. In my "neck of the woods," it was possible for a high school graduate to get a job at the local mill, and by age 25 have a house, a non-working wife, a couple of healthy kids, and a new car in the driveway. He may have been in considerable debt, but he "knew" that his job was guaranteed through his expected date of retirement at age 55 or so, and he would be getting raises every year that would eventually make that mortgage payment little more than pocket change.

Those days are gone forever. We are cursed with a "world economy" in which such workers are competing against counterparts in parts of the world where $5/hr is a princely wage, and where people EXPECT to work HARD every day, all day, to earn that wage.

The ONLY thing that keeps good wages coming for the "working man" in the private sector is technology. Technology that makes it possible for a single person to EARN a hundred bucks an hour, so that his employer can pay him that much in combined wages and benefits, and make a reasonable profit on top of that.

People who are unaware of this reality like to cite statistics that "prove" that people who work union jobs, or in non-"right-to-work: states make more than their opposites. But what they don't recognize is that Unions' recent "accomplishments" have been to eliminate millions of jobs due to phenomena associated with the following question: Would you rather be employed at $10/hr (in Alabama), or an unemployed coal miner, or auto worker or construction worker at $25/hr? Which one is better off?

It is astounding that people who claim to be "educated" fail to grasp the simple point that if workers demand more in wages and benefits than they can reasonably expect to earn, then their employer will inevitably go bankrupt. Look at the numbers at GM: their workforce is down by more than 75% in the last couple decades. Are "they" better off? Depends on who you mean by "they," doesn't it? The 75% of workers who are now sweeping floors might not consider themsleves beneficiaries of the Unions' hard work.

The unions brought this on themsleves. It does not cost a lot of money to do what the unions ligitimately ought to be doing. They can represent their members without the multi-million dollar staffs and the lobbyists and the palatial headquarters.

The greatest job growth in this country is in states that are "hostile to unions." This is not a coincidence. Michiganders would do well to notice that the U.S. has a thriving non-union auto industry, where the workers have pay and benefits that are comparable to what they are in the Big Three, but not the work rules, the ruinous pension obligations, or the thuggery.

[Crackpot]

I'd hate to say this but Rube is going to have to increase his output to keep the balance.