The Numbers Support Patricia Arquette, Not Her Critics (And They Indicate a Truth about “Right to Work” as Well)
Patricia Arquette is being slammed from both the Left and the Right for her comments during and after her acceptance speech for the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role.
From the Left, the criticism has come largely from other disadvantaged groups who feel that her focus was too narrowly on women’s issues, especially in a year in which the nominees for the Academy Awards included almost no people of color.
But from the Right, the criticism was directed more at the basic validity of what she was saying. An item in the Los Angeles Times includes this illustration of that criticism: “On “Fox & Friends” on Monday morning, the actress and pundit Stacey Dash slammed Arquette for the issue, saying she was ‘appalled’ by the moment and admonished her for not ‘do[ing] her history’ on the 1963 Equal Pay Act.’” [The full article is available at: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-oscars-patricia-arquette-speech-equal-pay-20150223-story.html
View original post 157 more words
The recently inaugurated Republican governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner, has signed an executive order banning public-employee unions from collecting fair-share contributions from those employees who choose not to belong to the unions that represent them.
I very recently did a post on the very skewed logic behind “right to work” legislation—see http://academeblog.org/2015/02/07/right-to-work-provides-workers-with-many-rights/
Rauner, previously the CEO of a private-equity firm, would like to see Illinois become a “right to work” state and has advocated that local communities pass right-to-work ordinances that apply all public and private unions since the Democratic control of both houses of the legislature makes the passage of such legislation seemingly impossible on a statewide level.
Rauner has presented three main arguments for imposition of “right to work,” all of which have become as commonplace as they are misleading.
The first of Rauner’s arguments is that workers should not have to be represented by unions to which…
View original post 856 more words
“Right to work” provides workers on the losing side in a vote to unionize a workplace with the right to decide that the results of that democratic vote do not apply to them.
“Right to work” provides workers with the right to benefit from unions to which they do not pay any dues.
“Right to work” provides workers in a unionized workplace with the right to receive the same negotiated wage increases and benefits as their colleagues who are paying union dues.
“Right to work” provides workers in a unionized workplace with the right to receive the same protections, grievance rights, and union representation as their colleagues who are paying union dues.
“Right to work” provides workers in a unionized workplace with the right to sue the union for inadequate representation even if they have refused to pay dues to that union.
“Right to work” provides individual workers with the…
View original post 504 more words