Michigan has been the hell-hole of ALEC policy.
Every nasty possible thing that ALEC offers has been
pushed and pushed and implemented in Michigan.
ALEC-ers are determined to make Michigan the horror story
of ALEC policy implementation.
The extremely sad thing is that the entire ALEC experiment is based on a free-market philosophy that has NOT been successfully implemented anywhere in the world. Even knowing that, ALEC state legislators just push ALEC legislation and policy - knowing that they are doing irreparable harm to their states.
The latest is this:
LANSING, Mich. — Republican slammed right-to-work legislation through the Michigan House and Senate
Thursday, drawing raucous protests from throngs of stunned union supporters,
whose outnumbered Democratic allies were powerless to stop it.
Just hours after they were
introduced, both chambers approved measures prohibiting private unions from
requiring that nonunion employees pay fees. The Senate quickly followed by
voting to impose the same requirement on most public unions.
SLAMMED is a correct analogy to use.
They are trying to ramrod this legislation through with no input!!!!
They are trying to ramrod this legislation through with no input!!!!
Shove it down the throats of Michiganders
Force it on the
Michiganders
Don’t have a
democratic process – just slam that ALEC philosophy into Michigan
Again – demand change of Michiganders
– because we are in control,
you have no say,
this is an ALEC led dictatorship.
becausetheycan
And then so that the “wrongies” don’t get misled by the infamous
liberal MSM – the Wall Street Journal published an article in support of the
right to work for less legislation in Michigan.
But – I am sure they didn’t acknowledge some disturbing relationships
in the article.
ALEC-er Stephen Moore had to immediately step forward to promote the ALEC philosophy being pushed down the throats of Michiganders.
From the WSJ (behind a paywall – so only this snip)
Michigan’s Right to Choose
Republicans are poised to move
forward on right-to-work legislation, and the unions are fighting back.
By Stephen Moore
“Michigan would be the 24th state
to institute a right-to-work law. Studies by Richard Vedder of Ohio University
and the American Legislative Exchange Council have found major job gains in
right-to-work states and losses in the northeastern and midwestern forced-union
states. Right-to-work laws don’t ban unions; they simply give workers the
choice whether to join. Economist Arthur Laffer, who has also studied the
issue, says: “This is the best thing Michigan could do for an economic
rebound.”
Moore
Vedder
Laffer
Well – it appears that ALEC philosophy is so bad
– that the
only people that they can quote to support ALEC philosophy
– is other ALEC-ers.
ALEC’s Board of Scholars Program honors those whose distinguished
work and dedication to market-based policy innovations have been, and continue
to be, invaluable to ALEC and its membership. This convergence of ALEC with the
great policy thinkers will further ALEC’s mission of expanding free markets,
limited government, and individual liberty. The following are members of the
ALEC Board of Scholars:
Arthur B. Laffer
Stephen Moore
Dr. Richard Vedder
And then you have this:
Rich States, Poor States
5th Edition – By Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore and Jonathan Williams
Where the ALEC philosophy on right
to work for less is
Status as a “right-to-work” state
(yes is best)
Those three definitely share the ALEC secret handshake.
BUT when you go outside the inner circle of ALEC, you
find other opinions:
As in these snips from:
Did the ALEC-Laffer variables
reflecting state policy influence the rate at which states grew, holding
constant the composition of the state economy? They did not. Neither
variable—total taxes or “right-to-work”—had a statistically significant effect
on growth in state GDP, growth in non-farm employment, or growth in per capita
income.
The path to prosperity is paved
with so called “right-to-work” (RTW) laws, according to Laffer and company. Such
laws do not create a right to a job, of course. Instead they take away the
right of labor unions to negotiate a contract provision requiring all workers
covered by and benefiting from a union contract with a private company to contribute
to the cost of negotiating and maintaining that contract. While Laffer and
company insist on referring to states without a “right-to-work” law as “forced
union” states, they must know that this is not true: no one is forced to join a
union (which would be counter to federal law).
RTW states would more accurately
be dubbed “Right to Freeload” states. The real intent of such laws, of course,
is to weaken unions, which in turn weakens their ability to win higher wages
and better benefits. The real objective is to suppress wages.
It has been demonstrated
conclusively that wages are lower and benefits more meager in RTW states. In a
study that examined the effect of a state’s RTW status, controlling for
differences in the cost of living, demographics, job characteristics, education
of the workforce, and other factors, it was found that in RTW states, compared
to free-bargaining (non-RTW) states, wages are 3.2 percent lower, a smaller
percentage of workers (by 2.6 percentage points) have employer-sponsored health
insurance, and the percent of workers with employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8
percentage points lower.
Perhaps, as Laffer would have us
believe, employers prefer RTW states and weak unions to such a degree that
those states experience greater growth in GDP and employment. This turns out
not to be the case.
A serious attempt to research the
impact of RTW status on state growth would have to control for these other
factors—state economic structure, climate, workforce demographics, and
others—in order to isolate the RTW effect. Two recent studies have done just
that. One concluded: “…right to work laws … seem to have no effect on economic
activity.”36 The other found that right-to-work laws have no significant impact
on job growth or the rate of new business formation, but do result in lower
wages and lower per capita income.37
When you ALEC members supporting other ALEC members to promote
and advance their own work and the philosophy of other ALEC-ers – you are
looking at a very myopic and closed society type of thinking.
When you open up the discussion to other voices, you
create a dialogue.
It is evident that Michigan ALEC legislators do not want
a dialogue – they just want to shove the narrow-minded philosophy of the American
Legislative Exchange Council down the throats of Michiganders.
becausetheycan
No comments:
Post a Comment