XPost: dc.urban-planning, wa.politics   
   From: impeach_obama@yahoo.com   
      
   When it comes to getting the truth about anything these days, it   
   is hard to even consider today’s unions as a source. As usual,   
   when examining a union’s claim, one must always dig deeper. Such   
   is the case when it comes to the union claim that Right-to-Work   
   means Right-to-Work for less.   
   Here’s the reality:   
      
   So-called Right-to-Work laws mean only one thing: Union (income)   
   Security agreements that give unions the ability to have workers   
   fired for refusing to pay union dues (or fees) are illegal. That   
   is all.   
   Nevertheless, with teeth gnashing and fists flying, union bosses   
   and their union-bought politicians insist that Right-to-Work   
   laws mean Right-to-Work for less.   
      
   While it makes for a great sound byte, the union claim requires   
   a deeper examination. In doing so, the Mackinac Center for   
   Public Policy blows away the unions’ sound byte:   
      
   Scores of right-to-work critics ranging from politicians to   
   economists have cited lower per-capita incomes in right-to-work   
   states as why the new law is not good for Michigan.   
      
   However, not factoring in cost-of-living exposes a flaw in that   
   analysis, said Mackinac Center for Public Policy Fiscal Analyst   
   James Hohman. Once that is considered, Hohman said the per-   
   capita income is higher in right-to-work states than non-right-   
   to-work states.   
      
   For example, Texas per-capita income was $37,098 but would have   
   a purchasing power of $49,700 in the state of New York in 2007,   
   according to Hohman’s analysis. New York’s per-capita income was   
   $47,852.   
      
   Hohman found that in terms of Michigan dollars in 2000, right-to-   
   work states had 4.1 percent higher per-capita personal incomes   
   than non-right-to-work states when factoring in cost of living.   
   Michigan was considered a non-right-to-work state because the   
   law was passed in late December 2012. Hohman said the right-work-   
   states didn’t surpass non-right-to-work states until 2003.   
   [Emphasis added.]   
      
   It is shocking not surprising that union bosses would stoop to   
   such levels in order to maintain the amount of money coming into   
   their cofferes that forced unionism brings in Non-Right-to-Work   
   states.   
      
   http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/28/so-unions-lie-about-income-   
   effects-of-right-to-work-states-shocking/   
      
   --   
   Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed   
   liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the   
   outlaw Obama administration?   
      
   No.  Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in   
   the back while you are defending yourself, then return a   
   controlled rate of aimed fire.       
      
        
      
        
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)