Michigan now Right to Work state.

[Lt. Fred]

As has been pointed out, unions drive up wages more than they drive up prices. They redistribute income away from capital and towards wages. De-unionisation has redistributed income in the opposite direction, the intended effect.

[m52nickerson]

As has been pointed out, unions drive up wages more than they drive up prices. They redistribute income away from capital and towards wages. De-unionisation has redistributed income in the opposite direction, the intended effect.

Citation needed.

[The Illusive Man]

There is a difference between busting up a Union and preventing it from growing, but what ever I'm not interested in arguing semantics.

If you cannot demonstrate how and why than you, once again, have no argument. This is becoming predictable.

So, forced union states don't have higher average wages?  Perhaps you should read what I'm writing.

Are you seriously still trying to shift the burden of proof? I mean come on, not even a contrapositive test?

But here is the funny part, do you know why a clam derived from those statics still falls flat on its face? Even claiming something along the lines of if / if not X then Y still fails because what represents X needs to be accurate first and foremost.

If we are ignoring the citation that my only argument is that Right to Work laws give people a choice which they should have.

What citation?

Saying I don't care about the intent is not willful ignorance.  If you are going to throw insults around at least try and come up with something that makes sense.

You really should care about the intent, after all you acknowledged it first and foremost.

I understand that the GOP is not concerned about individual right and that their pushing this legislation is to take money away from Unions.

By ignoring the intent, you selectively ignore your own statement.

Not shifting anything, just asking you to defend your position.  What's wrong can't do it? 
This is a direct question, why is the intent of Right to Work laws more important than a person's freedom to choose?

This is a false argument and another attempt to shift the burden of proof. My original position still that the statics which you use a proof are beyond inaccurate, thus you claim has no grounds.

[m52nickerson]

Are you seriously still trying to shift the burden of proof? I mean come on, not even a contrapositive test?

But here is the funny part, do you know why a clam derived from those statics still falls flat on its face? Even claiming something along the lines of if / if not X then Y still fails because what represents X needs to be accurate first and foremost.

First, go back and read again what I wrote.  Do not think Forced Unions states have a higher average wage?  At this point I think you are confused about the arguments. 

What citation?

The statistics I posted.

S
You really should care about the intent, after all you acknowledged it first and foremost.

I should care about intent because I acknowledged it?  Not a very compelling argument.

By ignoring the intent, you selectively ignore your own statement.

No, I can not care about the intent and still understand what it is.

This is a false argument and another attempt to shift the burden of proof. My original position still that the statics which you use a proof are beyond inaccurate, thus you claim has no grounds.

I already said we can ignore the statistics.  That mean I concede all my arguments save one.  That Right to Work laws giver workers a choice they should have.  So you don't have to mention the statistics again, okay!

Now with that done please answer my question...

Why is the intent of Right to Work laws more important than a person's freedom to choose?

[Lt. Fred]

As has been pointed out, unions drive up wages more than they drive up prices. They redistribute income away from capital and towards wages. De-unionisation has redistributed income in the opposite direction, the intended effect.

Citation needed.

Look at the United States. Income swung towards labour in the aftermath of WW2, with the very high wages created by trade unions, along with the pro-wage policy of that era they defended. In the 70s, the government started deliberately destroying worker organisation, moving that income back.

Note that the cost of living continued increasing even with deflating wages, and that the cost of living did not increase as much as the difference between union-wages and what would have been without them during the wage period.

The intended purpose of RTW is to continue this process. Capital, after all, is inherited wheras labour is far more equal.

[m52nickerson]

That sound all well and good, but it is not a citation nor any type of proof.  It also does not speak to the issue of Right to Work states.

[The Illusive Man]

Because you have withdrew all of your other arguments.

Now with that done please answer my question...
Why is the intent of Right to Work laws more important than a person's freedom to choose?

This is a false comparison because the Right to Work laws in question were never about choice, as you had admitted previously.
 
Secondly, your statement assumes a false absolute. Either ALL people join a union or NOT.

[m52nickerson]

Because you have withdrew all of your other arguments.

Now with that done please answer my question...
Why is the intent of Right to Work laws more important than a person's freedom to choose?

This is a false comparison because the Right to Work laws in question were never about choice, as you had admitted previously.
 
Secondly, your statement assumes a false absolute. Either ALL people join a union or NOT.

I never said it was not about choice.  I said the GOP's intend is to weaken Unions with this legislation.  The legislation however is about giving workers the right to not pay fees to a Union they do not wish to. 

So no matter how many mental contortions you try and make in the end it is about choice, regardless if the GOP cares about that or not.  I think you know this and just dodged the question because you are afraid to give a straight answer.