Right-to-Work in Oregon: 50,000 new jobs in 5 years

Oregon Transformation

Here in Oregon, if you are employed by a company or an organization that uses union labor, you will be forced to join the union and/or pay dues. Right-to-work states do not require workers to join unions and pay dues.

According to a new study by Cascade Policy Institute, if Oregon were to allow workers the freedom to choose to be a member of a union and allow businesses to hire non-union workers, it would lead to 50,000 new jobs in five years.  The high cost of employing union workers drives many businesses away from forced-union states.

A right-to-work Oregon would also lead to 14 percent more taxpaying families moving to Oregon each year and $2.7 billion more in wages and salaries for Oregonians.

The best part:  It costs taxpayers nothing.

Copyright © 2012 The National Right to Work Committee. Used with permission.

In fact, if you applied the average Oregon income tax rate to the state personal income gains identified in this report, Oregon state government would take in $233 million in new taxes each year. That is revenue relief many state legislators might look forward to, considering the current budget gap of over $200 million this session.

visit Oregon Transformation

Sources:

http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/govtfinance/govtfinance03.htm
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
http://cascadepolicy.org/news/2012/02/02/press-release-cascade-policy-institute-report-predicts-110000-jobs-for-oregon-with-enactment-of-a-right-to-work-law/

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Right-to-Work, State Budget | 61 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • UnionBoss

    When will you right to workers figure it out??? Without being forced to join the union and have the state collect the dues, the unions would run out of money as the workers will not voluntarily pay them. Especially teachers, as they are pretty well known for being cheap.
    Thus, Oregon will NEVER become a right to work state. Ever.

    • Cowelk1

      I doubt that the unions would run out of money.  They might, however, have less money to support lobbying and politicians.  Wouldn’t THAT be a shame?

      • David Appell

        What would be a shame is there’d be no counteracting force to the vast lobbying and support of politicians done by the business and corporate class….

        • JoelinPDX

          Spoken like a true Liberal (purposely capitalized) David. I’m sure the unions in closed shop states find ways to put money into their favorite campaigns. For instance, people dumb enough to pay union dues obviously have a good chunk of those dues put into Democrat campaigns.

          • David Appell

            I certainly hope the unions find ways to fund their favorite campaigns, since their members have interests too and since a strong counterforce is needed to meet all the funding being done by capital, corporate, and monied interests. 

          • Nodnedlaw

             Please find something more helpful to say, David.

  • Bob Clark

    I hear Indiana just became the 23d state to adopt Right-to-work; and less than a month or so later, Caterpillar Company announced it was moving more of its work from Canada to Indiana. 

     Hop’n the Right-to-work and School Choice trains keep on motoring, bustin us loose from the union shackles used to prop up the Demoncats. 

    • David Appell

      And do you have a source for this claim? Because I “hear” that RTW states have generally lagged behind the job growth curve (e.g. Oklahoma), and that the jobs are less likely to have health or retirement benefits.

      Who do you think, Bob, pays the costs of medical treatment when someone doesn’t have insurance? Companies who do not provide insurance are socializing that expense.

      • Michael Orman, esq.

         You haven’t heard that, Dave. You haven’t heard anything. You made it up in the basement of your St. Helens home. Which, BTW, you may want to move out of.

        I’m about to foreclose on it.

  • valley person

    Of the 10 states with the lowest per capita incomes in the US, 7 are so called “right to work” states. This idea must be sponsored by Americans For Reduced Prosperity. 

    • Scott

      Of course that whatever report your quoting doesn’t include how they get too KEEP more of that money cause the Mafia/Union ain’t getting it’s Dues/Protection money. I have that are haing $100 p/month stolen from thier paycheck, that could instead pay for their much more needed prescritions.

      It IS insulting too me that our New Teachers, with a huge load of College Debt they must pay back & Babies too feed, also have too pay off the Mafia/Union AND they are therein FORCED to donate to only Democrat campaigns, even if they are an Independent or Republican or have high moral standards via their religous beliefs.

      Yes, our Teachers and Gov’t workers, may NOT think that the Democrat Agneda – Abortions, sodomites getting married & raising children, mandatory med. ins.  or paying for the Education, Health Care, Food, Housing, incarceration/lawyers, etc. for Illegal Aliens, is really what they support. Too bad cause the Democrats/Gov’t/Unions knows better then YOU.

      A Democrat – JFK’s Brother – Robert, used to put these type of people in Fed Prison, what happened?

      • 3H

        Think of those poor investors, who are liberal, seeing money that could have gone to them as a shareholder being spent on issues like repealing regulations that keep the air and water clean. Or go to support social conservatives who want to force religion down the throat of everyone and dictate who they can marry.

        • JoelinPDX

          Paying union dues and investing in stocks are really two different things. 

          We really have to have some way of making a living…even if that means paying extortion to the union goons.  This is especially true in the Obozo economy where he doesn’t place much importance on people having jobs. (And 3H, please spare me the list of left wing, liberal web sites.)

          You can always invest in another corporation if you don’t like the policies of the one where you are currently invested.

          • 3H

            We’re talking about what is right and fair.  Not just what is necessary.  Sometimes the two intersect, sometimes they don’t.

            I don’t think it is fair that I get less of a return on my Mutual Funds because corporations that the fund invests in take some of the money that could have gone to shareholders, and decided to spend it on political issues with which I disagree.

            Does that seem fair?  Why should I be penalized?  I think it would be a very simple affair of requiring that shareholders opt in.  Is there anything wrong with that?  Then the corporation can spend the money on a campaign with funds from people who are willing to make a little less return but who wish to support specific issues that the corporation wishes to support.

            The thing is, frequently they will make a decision to give to a campaign… and the investor may not have time to change his investment.  By the time he/she has found out, it is too late.

            But, why not have an opt-in requirement?  Why isn’t that fair?   Why should a corporation be allowed to play with my share of the profits without my permission?

          • Ardbeg

            I think any reasonable person would want to get the money from both Unions and Corporations out of the political process but it seams republicans only want union money out and liberals the corporate money.  I fail to see the logic in only wanting one side to be at the disadvantage.  Why re there never any articles on corporate money in politics on the OC.  It’s always one sided.

          • JoelinPDX

            But that isn’t the problem Ardberg. Citizens United leveled the playing field. It gave corps the same rules to play by that applied to the union goons.

            If you want to remove the unions ability to raise money for the Ds, then I’m sure the Rs would be happy to remove the ability from the corps.

          • David Appell

            Sorry to be blunt, but if you think the Republicans would agree to remove corporate money from the process if union money were removed, you are a blinking idiot. 

          • Ardbeg

            Unfortunately both sides are perfectly happy with the current system. Plenty of $$ and control 1/2 of the time.

          • 3H

             They always had the same playing field Joel.  I’m not sure where you got the idea that they didn’t.  Unions never had an advantage on spending on campaigns over corporations.  They both had the same restrictions, etc..  What Citizens United said was that both can now spend amounts limited only to the amount of money they have.  Campaign finance laws that were struck down had limited both corporations and unions.

          • Ardbeg

            Joel-first I don’t want to argue ‘who’ had an advantage before C.U. Unions collecting “dues” and using it to fund political campaigns flies in the face of a free democracy.  Do you feel better with corporations controlling things or are you in agreement that BOTH should be taken out?  Not that it really matters what you and I think, both sides are perfectly happy to keep the $$ rolling in to their side and will do anything to limit the other side. Personally, I think the whole RTW is a joke.  It has little to do with unions and everything to do with ‘who’ unions support. Weakening Unions is the goal of conservatives so they can control the $$ going into politics.  Liberals likewise would get rid of corporate money.

          • JoelinPDX

            Nice sidestep 3H. You totally ignore the point I made…but then that is your style, isn’t it?

            In case you hadn’t noticed (but I think you have noticed) there are mutual funds and other investments available that make a great point of not investing in the “wrong” corporations. So, if you don’t want your money spent on Republican campaigns, just invest in one of the lefty, pinko funds. Simple solution.

          • 3H

            No.. I got the point… and please read my response again.  Sometimes that is an option, sometimes it’s not.  Just like sometimes working in a union shop is an option, and sometimes it’s not.  

            But, talking of avoiding the point – what is wrong with requiring corporations to have an opt-in system Joel?  Why shouldn’t they only take money from the willing?

          • JoelinPDX

            You need to read my posts 3 (may I call you 3?) I’ve explained twice why you’re thinking (well, it isn’t thinking but it isn’t reasoning either) is totally convoluted.

          • 3H

             You have never answered the question I’m asking – Why should corporations have to have an opt-in system for spending money that would go to shareholders.

          • valley person

             So what you are saying is that people have the freedom to not put their money in corporations they don’t like, but we shouldn’t be able to tell workers they have the freedom to work somewhere other than a union shop?

          • 3H

            I think of all us who have money invested should band together, and fight the theft of our profits – I’m starting a “Right to Profit” movement.  We can do this at both the State and Federal level.  If a corporation wants to do business in the State of Oregon, they should be required to only take the money from investors who Opt-in.

      • valley person

         You lost me on sodomites.

  • JoelinPDX

    Like the union goons are ever going to let Oregon become a right to work state. The union goons will keep paying to make sure their buddies in the Democrap Party continue to get elected to make sure hey can keep collecting their outrageous protection money.

    Really it’s pretty much a self perpetuating deal. The union goons put money into the Democrap campaigns and the Democraps make laws to insure that the union goons will be able to keep on collecting the protection money so they can pay for the advertising to keep the Democraps in office so they can keep on passing the laws to make sure the union goons can keep on collecting the protection money…well, you get the point.

    And answer this one for me: Why is it when the mob demands money from a business owner to keep him from having bad things happen to his business, it is illegal but when the unions extort money from people who only want a job it is perfectly legal? Yet both are basically the same thing.

    And yes, I’m engaging in petty name calling by referring to them as the Democraps…but it is just so appropriate.

    • valley person

       “And yes, I’m engaging in petty name calling by referring to them as the Democraps.”

      Well joel, when have you ever engaged in anything else? If you didn’t engage in petty name calling you would be mute.

      • JoelinPDX

        Oh, now I understand why you have such a tough time understanding my points. It’s because you’re so dim that you can’t even read them. I’ll try to write at a first grade primer level so you can follow me from now on.

        • 3H

          You’re going to improve your writing?  Good for you!   It’s never too late to improve yourself.

        • valley person

           “I’ll try to write at a first grade primer level so you can follow me from now on.”

          That would certainly be an improvement. Maybe you can take a night course.

          • David Appell

            Touche!

      • Michael Orman, esq.

         And if your mother aborted you, we’d all be feeling much better right now.

        • valley person

           Maybe so, but I doubt it. Your argument is with progress and social justice. If I wasn’t here making counter arguments then someone else would be and you would be just as unhappy.

          • David Appell

            Touche again!

  • Maxinel

    A goon is a goon regardless of what anyone thinks. Why not call it like it is???

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33()

  • Pingback: tv online, online tv()

  • Pingback: watch movies online free()

  • Pingback: free movie downloads()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: DIRECTV vs Cable()

  • Pingback: Cable for business owners()

  • Pingback: youporn()

  • Pingback: parking()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: electricians tools for sale()

  • Pingback: z bond plumbers bedding putty()

  • Pingback: plumbers clarksville tenn restaurants()

  • Pingback: pay per day loan plans()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: hop over to here()

  • Pingback: useful reference()

  • Pingback: ionizer payment plan()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loans()

  • Pingback: pay plan()

  • Pingback: electricity()

  • Pingback: https://webkingz.camkingz.com/()

  • Pingback: learn more()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)