Posted on 03/10/2015 2:38:55 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
..Tamara Kay, a professor in the sociology department at the University of New Mexico, criticized right-to-work laws as "kindergarten math."
Much of the focus on fights over right-to-work laws has been on Rust Belt states like Michigan, Indiana, and now Wisconsin, as its governor and likely presidential candidate Scott Walker signed a right-to-work bill Monday.
But there's also a high stakes showdown underway in New Mexico. Late last month, the state's House of Representatives passed a right-to-work bill, setting up a face-off with the Senate, which could raise the profile of Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, positioning her as a Walker-esque rising star for the GOP who is unafraid of challenging big labor.
Right-to-work laws prevent unions and employers from requiring that employees join a union or pay dues for representation. On the surface, the debate in New Mexico seems peculiar. In 2014, only 5.7 percent of workers in the state were members of a union and only 7.4 percent were represented by one, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But for the first time in more than sixty years, Republicans took control of the state's House of Representatives last year, and they re-elected Martinez. In her state of the state address, Martinez sold the policy as a matter of fairness and as a way to save money.
"The Governor supports allowing workers to decide for themselves whether to join a union or financially contribute to one, and doesn't believe anyone should be forced to join a union or contribute to one as a condition of employment," a spokesperson for Martinez said in an email.
On Tuesday, the state's Senate Public Affairs Committee is slated to debate and vote on the subject. But Majority Floor Leader Sen. Michael Sanchez said he does not think it has much likelihood of passing or even making it out of committee.
Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation—which has written policy papers in support of right-to-work—said he feels the bill is something that could start to bring much-needed economic development into the state.
"This was one idea that Republicans have that is politically popular, not costing taxpayers anything, and is right for workers," Gessing said. Gessing has testified before New Mexico's House Business and Employment Committee on how right-to-work laws have led employers to relocate to those states.
But the policy, and the supposed benefits its supporters are quick to highlight, are highly contested. Tamara Kay, a professor in the sociology department at the University of New Mexico, criticized right-to-work laws as "kindergarten math."
"I basically found that the best statistical studies suggest right-to-work will do nothing for economic growth," she told National Journal, adding that passing the law likely would lower employees' wages and reduce the likelihood of workers getting pensions or health benefits.
Gessing, meanwhile, pointed out that when electric carmaker Tesla Motors was looking for a state to place a factory, New Mexico was passed over in favor of Nevada, a right-to-work state.
"Certainly the experience with Tesla and the desire to make New Mexico competitive is another aspect," he said.
When you’ve amassed 25 or 30 years with a company
But you said you were there “dozens of years”. That’s at least 24 years.
You are on the wrong forum if you are “against RTW.
Who is looking for sympathy? You’re on the wrong thread. I simply stated my experience with RTW in Florida. Did I attack you personally? But like a typical corporate socialist fascist you turn the discussion into a personal attack. Go find another website to attack other posters. I don’t want your sympathy. And never asked for it. What is wrong with your cognitive skill set?
And I’ll bet you believe in diversity. The person who is the liberal/tyrant/fascist is the person who fondly believes governments passing laws like RTW (which is the only function of government—besides income redistribution) can truly control human behavior. And don’t you dare call me a liberal. You can’t argue yourself out of a paper bag. You don’t even have the nerve to try. One more time. The only thing RTW does is to turn an employee with constitutional rights into a non-legal entity. Take your blinders off. Didn’t I just tell you the employer demanded I divest myself of my first amendment right to redress of grievances in a court of law as a condition of employment? How does that make me a liberal? And you argue for the employer’s rights to do these things? Shame on you.
Sorry to disappoint you. I’m not going anywhere. And don’t you think you’re a bit too old to be calling people scholyard names? Boy are the piranhas out tonight. Seems I’ve touched a nerve. It’s too bad you never learned how to argue a point of view instead of attacking the person holding it. Used to be that was the way a conservative recognized a liberal. The liberal would name-call and attack you personally. They would NEVER engage the point of view. That’s why liberalism is a mental disease. Sound familiar?
He's still at it.
I wondered too about that "mind set". I retired after 30+ years as a union member, Not a voluntary member either, nobody can tell me anything about unions that I don't already know.
Who could possibly object to RTW? If a union is good for you, go ahead, voluntarily join it. It's called freedom. Mandatory membership is tyranny.
If you are against RTW, as you said you were, you are against workers being free to choose whether to join a union or not and I repeat, you’re on the wrong forum.
You are not stable - off your meds. To make such an absurd statement, one has to assume that mandatory union membership is the natural state of nature. How foolish. How bass ackwards. It was governments who passed that disaster in the first place. You are no conservative. Period.
Yeah, his post 23 is ridiculous.
Yep, the nerve you touched is the nerve that gets irritated at pro union liberal activism. You outed yourself as a liberal. I don't like litmus test kind of thinking normally, but being against RTW is a pretty big indication that ones mental processor doesn't operate properly with regard to liberty.
So what’s your plan?
Sorry! but I think your whole basis of your argument is totally wrong and not base on law, logic, or basic principles of capitalism. You are speaking for yourself but you wish to force me into a union, which I do not wish to join. Right to work does not mean you cannot have a union, it means that all employees are not REQUIRED to join. So form a union with your like minded fellow workers.
Also it is illegal and has been since the 1930 to try and force people to sign away any of their legal rights. Can’t do it and if tried not enforceable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.