Hello again! I meant to include this with my previous post but there was already a lot in it….this needed to stand alone. Can you tell I’m retired?! I make no apologies. With my retirement I do things that the working masses are too busy to do! Peek underneath the “cover” of this dimension we are sharing! Even though Dune is a science fiction world, as many of us fans of science fiction know, science fiction often becomes or already IS science fact.
http://www.dunenovels.com/novel/dune-butlerian-jihad – (page I found for dune novels this morning!)
Throughout the Dune novels, Frank Herbert frequently referred to the war in which humans wrested their freedom from “thinking machines.”
In DUNE: THE BUTLERIAN JIHAD, Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson bring to life the story of that war, a tale previously seen only in tantalizing hints and clues. Finally, we see how Serena Butler’s passionate grief ignites the struggle that will liberate humans from their machine masters; here is the amazing tale of the Zensunni Wanderers, who escape bondage to flee to the desert world where they will declare themselves the Free Men of Dune. And here is the backward, nearly forgotten planet of Arrakis, where traders have discovered the remarkable properties of the spice melange….
Picked by Publishers Weekly as one the two bestselling Science Fiction novels of 2002, DUNE: THE BUTLERIAN JIHAD reached the top ten bestseller lists across the country and became a nationwide bestseller.
Macmillan Audio released an unabridged CD on September 24, 2002. Narrator Scott Brick won the coveted “Audie” award for best recorded book in the science fiction category. Brian and Jan Herbert, Kevin J. Anderson and Rebecca Moesta all attended the awards ceremony, and Brian and Kevin also presented an Audie to Neil Gaiman in another category.
Dune, Butlerian Jihad: Page 519 “Most traditional governments divide people, setting them against each other to weaken society and make it governable.” TLALOC Weaknesses of the Empire
I think this is from the extended version of the original Dune (which we want a copy of!) Patrick Stewart as Gurney playing the Baliset
The tactic of dividing and conquering to make people more governable has been an ongoing US government strategy even though it would claim to be the opposite. Sadly, in my opinion, it’s not always the people in office who even want to employ this tactic, it’s the corporations and lobbies they serve that are behind this strategy.
My pet peeve for some time has been the Right to Work State model. Living in the epitome of a Right to Work State, Texas, has shown me that it’s good for the corporates and NOT good for the employees. I have witnessed what this model “does” to people and their families….my husband, my brother-in-law, my neighbors and friends have all been subjected to what it means to live and work in a Right to Work State. The biggest indicator of how we’ve witnessed the big a fail this “business model” is has been watching the high turn over in home sales and or the increase in multiple families occupying single family homes. We’ve noticed that the housing market, at least in our area, has been very unstable – homes are literally a revolving door. We watch people come here with promised employment and will buy homes, move their spouses and children and then get laid off shortly after they arrive! An employer can use any excuse to fire someone and what we’ve noticed is it usually happens in the industrial sector when an employee is almost to the point of qualifying for health benefits! How convenient!
Mayor Tom Barrett joins Chris Matthews on Friday, May 11 to discuss the newly-released video of Governor Walker telling his largest donor about his strategy to “divide and conquer” Wisconsin workers.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/work-law/story?id=17945956 – please use this link, there is video and other info I don’t have here!
What Is a Right-to-Work Law?
By Elizabeth Hartfield
·Dec. 13, 2012
This week Michigan became the 24th state in the country to adopt a right-to-work law. The passage of the bill by the state legislature, and eventual signing by Rick Snyder, the state’s Republican governor, brought a huge wave of protests in a state with deep union roots.
Right-to-work laws have garnered a lot of national attention in recent years as more states have implemented this legislation that prohibits unions from requiring workers to pay dues as a condition of their employment. The laws are meant to regulate agreements between employers and labor unions that would prohibit the employer from hiring non-union workers.
The laws are particularly divisive–proponents argue that businesses will be more likely to set up shop in the state, while opponents argue that weakening union power will lead to lower wages. Because each state has a variety of factors that must be considered individually when assessing its overall economic standing, it’s difficult to fully assess the validity of each side’s argument, since you can’t isolate the direct effect of these laws on the state’s economy.
However, a study conducted in 2007 by Lonnie Stevans of Hofstra University suggested that both sides of the argument are, to some degree, accurate.
“Findings are that the number of businesses and self-employed are greater on average in right-to-work states, but employment, wages, and per-capita personal income are all lower on average in right-to-work states,” Stevans wrote.
But he noted that there was little “trickle down” from the business owners to the workers–the laws benefitted the business owners who did not have to contend with union contracts, but business employees didn’t get those same positive effects–as evidenced by the lower salaries on average.
An analysis by ABC News of the most recent seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in states with right-to-work laws vs. those without such laws found that on average, the unemployment rate in states with right to work laws was slightly lower than those without. The average unemployment rate in the 24 states with right-to-work laws was 7 percent, while the average rate in the 26 states plus D.C. that do not have right-to-work laws was just under 7.6 percent–a difference of just under .6 percent.
The state with the lowest unemployment rate in the country–Nebraska at just 3.8 percent unemployment–has such a law in place, as does the state with the highest unemployment rate, Nevada at 11.5 percent.
Support for the laws has often tended to fall along party lines, with Democrats opposing and Republicans supporting. The vast majority of states with right-to-work laws are Republican led, the majority of states without are led by Democrats.
Below is the list of the 24 states with right-to-work laws.
Right to Work
Extremist groups, right-wing politicians and their corporate backers want to weaken the power of workers and their unions through “right to work” laws. Their efforts are a partisan political ploy that undermines the basic rights of workers. By making unions weaker, these laws lower wages and living standards for all workers in the state. In fact, workers in states with these laws earn an average of $5,971 less a year than workers in other states. Because of the higher wages, working families in states without these laws also benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.
States with Right to Work Laws Have:1
Lower Wages and Incomes
The average worker in states with right to work laws makes $5,971 (12.2 percent) less annually than workers in states without right to when all other factors are removed than workers in other states.
Median household income in states with these laws is $6,568 (11.8 percent) less than in other states ($49,220 vs. $55,788).3
In states with right to work laws, 25.9 percent of jobs are in low-wage occupations, compared with 18.0 percent of jobs in other states.
Lower Rates of Health Insurance Coverage
People under the age of 65 in states with right to work laws are more likely to be uninsured (16.3 percent, compared with 12.4 percent in free-bargaining states).
They’re less likely to have job-based health insurance than people in other states (53.9 percent, compared with 57.1 percent)6 and pay a larger share of their health insurance premiums (29.9 percent compared with 26.1 percent).7
Only 46.8 percent of private-sector employers in states with these laws offer insurance coverage to their employees, compared with 52.6 percent in other states. That difference is even more pronounced among small employers (with fewer than 50 workers)—only 30.3 percent offer workers health insurance, compared with 38.8 percent of small employers in other states.8
Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates
Poverty rates are higher in states with right to work laws (14.8 percent overall and 20.2 percent for children), compared with poverty rates of 13.1 percent overall and 18.3 percent for children in states without these laws.9
The infant mortality rate is 14.2 percent higher in states with these laws.10
Less Investment in Education
States with right to work laws spend 31.3 percent less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than other states.11
Higher Workplace Fatalities
The rate of workplace deaths is 54.4 percent higher in states with these laws, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1 With the exception of the infant mortality rate and low-wage jobs data, the state data included here do not include data from Indiana and Michigan. These states are not included in the 2012 and 2013 data because they passed right to work laws in 2012; the impact of right to work policies on their economies would not have been fully experienced in 2012 and 2013. They have been excluded from the free-bargaining states versus right to work state analysis for the 2012 and 2013 data.
2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages, Average Annual Pay for 2013, accessed 12/9/14.
3 U.S. Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2013.
4 CFED, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, Low Wage Jobs, 2011.
5 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Insurance Coverage of Nonelderly 0-64, 2012.
6 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, 2012.
7 CFED, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, Employee Share of Premium, 2012.
8 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, by Firm Size, 2012.
9 U.S. Census Bureau, POV46: Poverty Status by State: 2013 Below 100% and 50% of Poverty — People Under 18 Years of Age, WEIGHTED PERSON COUNT.
10 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Infant Mortality Rate (Deaths per 1,000 Live Births), 2007-2009.
11 National Education Association, Rankings & Estimates–Rankings of the States 2013 and Estimates of School Statistics 2014, H-11. Current Expenditures for Public K-12 Schools per Student in Fall Enrollment, 2012-2013, March 2014.
12 AFL-CIO, Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect, April 2014.
I thought it was interesting to look at unemployment numbers, particularly in Right to Work States. If I were to consider going a couple steps further, I would also want to look at current population numbers in these states, geographics (state locations) and demographics (break-down of population dynamics in each state). These further steps would take us to the other issues that are involved when considering the pro’s and con’s of the Right to Work State model. If you take a glance at where the unemployment numbers are low, versus those that are higher, I’d venture to say that the geographic and demographic numbers would have something to say.
For example, South Dakota (my state of origin) , as of the 1 July 2015 census, (http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/46) had a population of 858,469, with a White alone population of 85.5% and 1.8% black alone! Now we go to Louisiana….4,670,724 people, with a 63.2% white alone population and 32.5% black alone! How about my current state of residence, Texas? Texas, as of 1 July 2015’s census had a population of 27,469,114. The White alone population came in at 79.7%, blacks at 12.5% and I’m going to add Hispanic and Latino….38.8%! I almost want to do unemployment statistics this for every single Right to Work State! What is underneath this Right to Work is “demographics” and it’s not being talked about!
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm – unemployment statistics
Unemployment Rates for States
1 SOUTH DAKOTA 2.7
2 NEW HAMPSHIRE 2.8
3 NEBRASKA 3.0
4 NORTH DAKOTA 3.2
4 VERMONT 3.2
6 HAWAII 3.3
7 COLORADO 3.7
7 IDAHO 3.7
7 MAINE 3.7
7 VIRGINIA 3.7
11 ARKANSAS 3.8
11 KANSAS 3.8
11 MINNESOTA 3.8
14 IOWA 4.0
14 UTAH 4.0
16 TENNESSEE 4.1
17 DELAWARE 4.2
17 MASSACHUSETTS 4.2
17 MONTANA 4.2
17 WISCONSIN 4.2
21 MARYLAND 4.3
22 MISSOURI 4.5
22 TEXAS 4.5
24 MICHIGAN 4.6
25 FLORIDA 4.7
25 NEW YORK 4.7
27 INDIANA 4.8
27 OKLAHOMA 4.8
27 OREGON 4.8
30 NORTH CAROLINA 4.9
31 KENTUCKY 5.0
31 OHIO 5.0
33 GEORGIA 5.1
33 NEW JERSEY 5.1
35 CALIFORNIA 5.4
35 SOUTH CAROLINA 5.4
37 RHODE ISLAND 5.5
38 PENNSYLVANIA 5.6
39 WYOMING 5.7
40 ARIZONA 5.8
40 CONNECTICUT 5.8
40 WASHINGTON 5.8
43 MISSISSIPPI 5.9
44 ALABAMA 6.0
44 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 6.0
44 WEST VIRGINIA 6.0
47 ILLINOIS 6.2
47 LOUISIANA 6.2
47 NEW MEXICO 6.2
50 NEVADA 6.4
51 ALASKA 6.7
p = preliminary.
NOTE: Rates shown are a percentage of the labor force. Data refer to place of residence. Estimates for the current month are subject to revision the following month.
Last Modified Date: July 22, 2016
http://www.nea.org/home/52880.htm – The National Education Association
Poverty, Productivity, and Public Health: The Effects of “Right to Work” Laws on Key Standards of Living
by Darrell Minor
On February 1, 2012, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed a “right to work” (RTW) provision in the state’s labor laws, making Indiana the 23rd RTW state in the nation. In addition to becoming the 23rd RTW state in the nation, Indiana is the first in more than a decade to pass a law undermining the ability of unions to organize and represent their members. As I write this, at least half-a-dozen additional states are attempting to follow their example and further limit the rights of unions across the nation.
In RTW states, unions are prohibited from including “union security clauses” in their contracts, which are those clauses that require all employees in the bargaining unit to either join the union or pay a portion of its dues as a condition of employment. Thus, RTW laws are generally believed to weaken unions. Worker-friendly states (those states without RTW laws), on the other hand, allow provisions for the union to be the exclusive bargaining agent for those workers who are eligible for membership, and also require all eligible employees to pay at least a portion of the union dues. Indiana was the first state to enact RTW laws since Oklahoma enacted a similar measure in 2001.
Supporters of RTW have cited a number of reasons for enacting such laws, but mostly they rely on non-existent research and false conclusions. For example, the sponsor of the measure in Indiana, Republican State Representative Gerald Torr said “when you average all of the right-to-work states and make comparisons, their average unemployment rate is a full point lower than the rate of the states that don’t have right to work.” When Torr’s office was contacted to provide the source of this information, a staff member indicated that it was from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website. However, after reviewing the information available at the BLS website, the claim could not be verified.
State Representative Sue Ellspermann, who also voted in favor of the Indiana legislation, cited her experience as a worker moving from Flint, Michigan, to Texas. “In Texas, the productivity was higher and the worker morale was higher,” she claimed. Even aside from its anecdotal nature, her statement does imply that productivity and morale are higher in RTW states in general, and worker productivity is one measure that we will explore in this paper.
The day after Daniels signed the legislation into law in Indiana, Ohio’s Attorney General Mike DeWine certified a petition for a constitutional amendment that would also make neighboring Ohio another RTW state. Now, just months after defeating the anti-union, state-ballot Issue 2 (by the rather wide margin of 61 to 39 percent), union leaders in Ohio are preparing for another lengthy, drawn-out battle to protect the collective bargaining rights of their members. Efforts are also underway to pass RTW laws in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oregon.
STATES WITH RTW LAWS
*Note: Alaska and Hawaii are NOT to scale.
There are undoubtedly several non-economic reasons for people to support RTW laws. Some oppose unions for political reasons: unions tend to support Democrats over Republicans, because Democrat lawmakers tend to support the kinds of legislation like pension-protection laws and raising the minimum wage that are important to union leadership. Others support RTW laws for philosophical reasons, arguing that no one should be forced to pay dues to an organization against their will. Union supporters counter that all employees who are in a bargaining unit benefit from the contracts that are negotiated on their behalf, and should therefore pay their “fair share” of union dues to help offset the cost of representation and prevent “free riders.” Those who support RTW laws often claim that individuals could negotiate their own contracts, and that those contracts would guarantee higher salaries and benefits than the contracts negotiated by a union on their behalf. Those who oppose such RTW laws dispute such claims, and often disparagingly refer to such laws as “right to work (for less)” laws.
But the question of whether RTW laws benefit a state economically has remained largely unanswered. Most studies have focused on employee compensation, attempting to compare average salaries (either per household, or per capita) in RTW states vs. worker-friendly states. When this is done, the worker-friendly states have consistently come out with higher compensation averages. The RTW advocates then (correctly) counter that comparing average compensation isn’t a sufficient measure, because the cost of living varies from state to state, and an income of $50,000 in California or New York may not go as far as an income of $50,000 in Kentucky or Tennessee. When statewide cost-of-living indices are accounted for, the RTW states surge ahead of the worker-friendly states, to which the RTW opponents (correctly again) point out that accounting for a statewide cost-of-living index also isn’t sufficient, because those indices can vary widely even within a state. The cost-of-living index for Boulder, Colorado, in 2010 was a relatively high 124, while in Pueblo, Colorado, it was quite low at 83, where a score of 100 is normal.
Clearly, compensation is a questionable measure for comparing standards of living between different states. So, in this paper, using the most recent data available from the U.S. Census, the BLS, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and other public sources, I have instead analyzed a spectrum of seven measures for standard of living, and determined whether there are differences in these measures between the 22 RTW states (not including Indiana, which joined them after this data was collected) and the 28 worker-friendly states (including Indiana).
Those seven measures are:
1) Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or the total amount of goods and services produced in a year; 2) poverty rates, specifically the percentage of a state’s residents who are living below the poverty level; 3) the percentage of state citizens who have basic health insurance; 4) employment rates; 5) home ownership rates; 6) life expectancy rates; and 7) income gap, which, as its name suggests, is a measure of how wide the spread is between those with the highest incomes vs. those with the lowest incomes.
There are other measures for standard of living, but many of them (such as inflation rates) are more appropriate for comparing differences between countries that have different political systems in place. It is also worth noting that “standard of living” measures tend to focus on economic standards, and are different from “quality of life” measures, which would include leisurely activities, social interactions, access to cultural and educational experiences, assessment of job security, and the like. For example, some have claimed that incidents of workplace fatalities are higher in RTW states, but because this is not a measure of standard of living it has not been analyzed here.
To create more useful comparison, across each of the relevant measures, I applied each measure to the 50 states, ranking them from best to worst for each measure. The Mann-Whitney Rank Sums statistical test was then applied to determine whether worker-friendly states were more likely to “best” RTW states in these standards of living. The data do account for differences in population for each states, as necessary.
An analysis of the data
Gross Domestic Product (GDP): The GDP is probably the most accessible single measure of standard of living. A high GDP positively correlates with a high standard of living, and changes in living standards can be swiftly observed in corresponding changes in the GDP.
According to 2009 Bureau of Economic Analysis data (all data used throughout this article is the most recent available), the GDP per capita for the 28 worker-friendly states collectively was $43,899 that year, while the GDP per capita for the 22 RTW states collectively was $38,755. The difference of $5,144 represents a per capita GDP that is 13.3 percent higher in the worker-friendly states than the RTW states. It is worth emphasizing that GDP represents the amount of goods and services produced in a year, and is not the same as per capita income. Thus, the initial analysis of this measure indicates that the worker-friendly states appear to be significantly “more productive” than the RTW states.
Furthermore, a listing of the 50 states in decreasing order of GDP per capita (i.e., best to worst) reinforces this fact (see Table 1, next page). Indeed, 12 of the 14 most productive states are worker-friendly states, while five of the six least productive states are RTW states. The median GDP per capita for the worker-friendly states is $41,529.50, compared to $38,745.50 in RTW states, and an application of the Mann-Whitney test shows significance at the 0.05 level.
Poverty rates: Obviously a state with a high standard of living would be expected to have fewer residents living below the poverty level. Using U.S. Census income data, and applying it to the two groups of states, we find again that RTW states have a lower standard of living. Eleven of the 15 states with the highest poverty rates are RTW, while nine of the 11 states with the lowest poverty rates are worker-friendly (see Table 2, on the opposite page.) The median poverty rate in worker-friendly states is 11.9 percent, while in RTW states it is 13.9 percent. The Mann-Whitney test indicates significance at the 0.025 level.
Furthermore, the percentage of the 2008 population living in poverty in RTW states was 14.4 percent, while the percentage in worker-friendly states was 12.4 percent. To put this difference in perspective, if the rate of poverty in RTW states was extended across the nation, an additional 3,670,000 American men, women, and children would be living in poverty today.
Health insurance: One would expect that a state with a high standard of living would have more of its citizens covered by basic health insurance, giving them access to preventative care and swift medical treatment. And, indeed, the data from the U.S. Census Bureau show that the worker-friendly states have a higher standard of living. Fully 11 of the 13 states with the lowest uninsured rates are worker-friendly states (see Table 3, above), while 11 of the 15 states with the highest uninsured rates are RTW states. The median uninsured rate for worker-friendly states is 12.6 percent, while for RTW it is 15.7 percent.
Furthermore, we find that 18.6 percent of people in RTW states are uninsured, while only 13.9 percent of people in worker-friendly states are uninsured. The sharp increase in overall percentages of uninsured compared to the median percentages for each group is largely due to the fact that some highly-populated states (California and Texas) also have high rates of uninsured people (18.9 percent and 25.5 percent, respectively). Again, to put this in perspective, if the rates of non-insured citizens in RTW states were spread across the country, then an additional 8,640,480 Americans would be uninsured and suffer a lack of access to affordable health care.
Joblessness: The fourth measure is unemployment rates, with lower rates associated with a higher standard of living. In this case, an ordered listing of the 50 states, ranked in order of joblessness according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, does not appear to show a strong tendency one way or the other. Only four of the 10 states with the best (or lowest) unemployment rates are worker-friendly states, while the 12 states with the worst (or highest) unemployment rates are evenly split between the two groups.
Home ownership: The Census also provides information about home ownership rates for each state and, as with unemployment rates, no clear pattern around home ownership could be found between the two groups of states. Of the eight states with the highest levels of home ownership, five are worker-friendly states; of the 11 with the lowest levels of home ownership, eight are worker-friendly states. And, again, the Mann-Whitney test doesn’t show any significant differences.
Life expectancy: While there may seem to be little reason for a correlation to exist between RTW laws and the life expectancy of citizens in those states, life expectancy data from the Harvard School of Public Health was included here because it is a very common measure of standard of living. And, as it turns out, the data reveal a possibly-surprising trend. Of the 13 states with the highest life expectancy rates, 10 are worker-friendly states. Conversely, of the 12 states with the lowest life expectancy rates, only two are worker-friendly states. In worker-friendly states, citizens can expect to live 77.6 years (the median), while citizens in RTW states can expect to die at 76.7 (see Table 4, next page.) These are significant results, according to the Mann-Whitney test.
Income gap: The final measure is “income gap,” which is a measure of the spread between those with the highest incomes vs. those with the lowest. The currently widening income gap is believed to compound societal challenges such as crime rates, an increased reliance on welfare and other safety nets, and substandard education opportunities, and is a development that former U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan called a “very disturbing trend.” Using data from the U.S. Census, this study determines whether the income gap in RTW states is larger than in worker-friendly states—a larger income gap would indicate a lower standard of living—and again it ranks our states from best to worst. This listing does not give a strong indication that there is much of a difference between the two groups of states. Specifically, the top three states are all RTW states, but 10 of the top 15 are worker-friendly; meanwhile, the 12 states with the most inequitable income gaps are evenly split.
What we know about RTW
To sum up, this study has found that worker-friendly states are significantly healthier, are more productive, have less poverty, and with citizens who enjoy longer life spans. In four of the seven measures (GDP per capita, poverty, insurance and life expectancy rates) so-called “right-to-work” states come out significantly (and statistically) worse.
These findings have broad policy implications in those states where lawmakers are wrongly considering RTW measures, and should inform the good efforts of union members and allies to quell those efforts. Instead of pursuing laws that actually lower the standard of living in their states, policy makers should look for ways to elevate everyone’s standard of living. Enacting RTW laws is not only misguided, but in fact counterproductive to achieving such ends. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right to work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works’. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining.” The evidence suggests that Dr. King was correct in this belief, and that those who would advocate for a state to enact RTW laws would also be lowering the standard of living for that state’s residents.
1. Davey, “Indiana Governor Signs a Law Creating a ‘Right to Work’ State.”
2. Spencer, “Indiana House Passes Right-to-Work Bill — Measure To Become Law Soon.”
3. Phone conversation with “Grant.” (February 14), 2012.
4. Spencer, op cit.
5. Eggert, “DeWine Certifies Petition for Right-to-Work Amendment.”
6. Editors, “How Does Your City Stack Up?”, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, July 2010.
7. Studies also may not account for differences in population and, thus, are subject to questions about validity due to a failure to weight the data accordingly. For example, if one group had a population of nine people, each earning $50,000, and a second group had a population of one person earning $100,000, it would be incorrect to say that the “average income” of these two groups is $75,000 [obtained by computing ($50,000 + $100,000)/2]. Rather, if one accounts for the differences in population, we find that the “average income” for the two groups would be $55,000. Other studies have attempted to account for differences in the cost of living and the population in each state. [See Poulson, “The Standard of Living in Right to Work States” and Bennett, “Right to Work—Prescription for Prosperity and Opportunity,” for example]. However, they are often done by sampling metropolitan areas within each state, omitting large swaths of less-densely populated regions found within most states.
8. See DeGroat, “Researcher: Right to Work Laws Endanger Workers.”
9. The Mann-Whitney Rank Sums statistical test is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test for determining whether one of two samples of independent observations tends to have either larger or smaller values than the other.
10. For example, rather than adding up the poverty rates of each right to work state, and dividing by the number of right to work states (which would give a skewed “average of averages” number), as some studies have done, we instead use the poverty rates and the state’s population from the 2010 census to determine the number of people in each right to work state that live in poverty. We then add the number of people living in poverty, and divide by the total population of right to work states, to get a true poverty rate for all right to work states. Similar steps are taken for each of the seven measures studied in this paper, for both the right to work states and the worker-friendly states.
11. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Gross Domestic Product by State.” GDP per capita is used since the populations of the states, and the two groups of states, are not all the same. All data used in this article are the most recent available.
12. Applying the Mann-Whitney test to the data gives us a value of z = 1.69, indicating significance at the 0.05 level (P = 0.0455).
13. U.S. Census Bureau, “Persons Below Poverty Level.”
14. Conducting a Mann-Whitney test to determine if the distribution of poverty rates in the worker-friendly states is lower than in the right to work states yields a z value of z = 2.05, indicating significance at the 0.025 level (P = 0.0202).
15. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: Tables and Figures.”
16. Conducting a Mann-Whitney test to determine if the distribution of uninsured rates is lower in the worker-friendly states than in the right to work states produces a z value of z = 2.60, indicating significance at the 0.005 level (P = 0.0047).
17. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.”
18. If anything, there appears to be a slight edge to the RTW states in this measure, but a Mann-Whitney test shows that this difference is not significant at any acceptable level (z = 0.49, P = 0.3121).
19. U.S. Census Bureau, “Housing Units.”
20. An analysis to see if the right to work states have higher rates of home ownership than worker-friendly states using the Mann-Whitney test indicates that the differences in home ownership rates are not significant at any acceptable level, with a z value of z = 0.47 (P = 0.3192).
21. Business Week, “Table: U.S. States Ranked by Life Expectancy.”
22. Testing to see if the distribution of life expectancy is higher in worker-friendly states than in right to work states using Mann-Whitney, we find that z = 2.16, which is significant at the 0.025 level (P = 0.0154).
23. The Washington Times, “Tying skills to wages.”
24. U.S. Census Bureau, “Household Income for States.” The income gap is most commonly measured using a “Gini coefficient”, which measures the inequality of a distribution. The Gini coefficient takes on a value between 0 and 1, with 0 meaning total equality (all households have the same income) and 1 meaning that one household has all the income and all other households have no income (maximum inequality). An ordered listing of all 50 states from lowest Gini coefficient to highest Gini coefficient does not give a strong indication that there is a difference between the two groups of states.
25. A Mann-Whitney test also does not indicate a significance difference. on whether there is a difference reveals a z-value of z = 0.46, which is not significant at any acceptable level (P = 0.3228).
26. Quoted in William Clay and Reed Larson, “Does America Need a National Right-to-Work Law?”
Bender, K. A. and J.S. Heywood. Out of Balance? Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation over 20 Years. Washington, DC: Center for State and Local Government Excellence, 2010.
Bennett, J.T. “Right to Work—Prescription for Prosperity and Opportunity,” Springfield, VA: National Institute for Labor Relations Research, 2000.
Business Week. “Table: U.S. States Ranked by Life Expectancy.” 2006.
Clay, William L., and Reed Larson. “Does America Need a National Right-to-Work Law? (Pro and Con Arguments).” Insight on the News (August 17), 1998.
Davey, Monica. “Indiana Governor Signs a Law Creating a ‘Right to Work’ State.” The New York Times. (February 1), 2012.
DeGroat, B. “Researcher: Right-to-Work Laws Endanger Workers.” The University Record Online, University of Michigan, (April 15), 2011.
Eggert, David. “DeWine Certifies Petition for Right-to-Work Amendment.” The Columbus Dispatch. (February 1), 2012.
Fields, R. “Public Employees Who Strike Should be Fired, Kasich says.” The Plain Dealer (December 13), 2010, B1, B3.
Fischer, B. (Executive Producer). “Meet the Press.” Washington, DC: National Broadcasting Company, (December 13), 2009.
Greenhouse, S. “Strained States Turning to Laws to Curb Labor Unions.” The New York Times, (January 4), 2011, p. A1.
Keefe, Jeffrey. “Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee: The Evidence.” Briefing Paper #276. Economic Policy Institute. (September 15), 2010.
Kiplingers. “How Does Your City Stack Up?” (July), 2010. Kiplinger’s Personal Finance. (July), 2010. Poulson, B. W. “The Standard of Living in Right to Work States,” Springfield, VA: National Institute for Labor Relations Research, 2005.
Rowland, D. “Points of Division: Jobs Dominate, but ‘Hot Button’ Issues Remain Important in Governor’s Race.” The Columbus Dispatch. (September 26), 2010. H1-H2.
Schmitt, J. “The Wage Penalty for State and Local Government Employees.” Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, (May), 2010.
Spencer, Jack. “Indiana House Passes Right-to-Work Bill — Measure To Become Law Soon.” Free Republic. (January 27), 2012.
“Tying Skills to Wages.” The Washington Times. (August 27), 2005.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product by State.” 2009.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.” 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. “Household Income for States.” 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. “Housing Units.” 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau. “Housing Vacancies and Home Ownership.” Table 15. 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau. “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: Tables and Figures.” 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau. “Persons Below Poverty Level.” 2008.