Will Indiana pass a new right-to-work-for-less law?

The same party that gave us another worthless POS law is the same one that is for restricting voting rights and anything else they don't like. Thanks to all the lazy ass Hoosiers who don't bother to vote you made this possible. It was over turned before and it will be done again. I'd like to know why the dems didn't stay out to keep this crap from passing. They were so close to putting this in the trash where it belongs.

What does the party of regressive repugnuts have against the working class? Everything these idiots do screws them.

As I understand it, most of the state is republican, and only the North West region, which is immediately across the Indiana/Illinois border to Chicago, has any Democratic power.  The biggest city in that area is Gary, which has experienced tremendous poverty, as has much of the region, due to the closing down of most of its formerly huge industry in the past two decades. The people are tragically demoralized and there wasn't a Micheal Moore Hoosier to turn it into a documentary.

Sorry Thom, a business is not in existance to provide employment for it's employees, but to make money for its owners.  Period, end of discussion.

I'm not that familair with the law that is about to be passed.  I assume that the steel mills in northwest Indiana are union right now.  What happens to them?  Does this mean that the company is not forced to with hold union dues from paychecks?  Is the only way the union can get its money is to soliciate it from potential members?  Does this mean that anyone who works at  US Steel in Gary (for example) is not forced to join the union?

I have some other comments, but I'll hold off until I know all the facts.  But there is one fact that drive people like you crazy.  When a union negotiates a higher wage, the number of jobs at that higher wage go down.  It may not happen right away, but the fact of the matter is that there would be more UAW auto workers and union steel workers at $25 an hour as opposed to $40 a hour (numbers are for iillistartion purposes only, I have no idea how much those guys actualy get paid).  Higher wages drive up the price that their employer has to charge for the product that they sell.  And that will drive down the number of units sold, thus reducing the number of jobs for the union involved.

So yes unions have driven up wages at the cost of the number of jobs available.  However it is easy to understand why if you are in a union right now, this is REALLY bad news for you.  Your paycheck could very well go down.  And if you are an elected official that gets elected with union votes, you would be screaming bloody murder right now (and they are).

But I bet that the state of Indiana will have a lot more jobs in 10 years than what they would have had if this thing did not pass.  However if you are a current union member, that means nothing to you.  All you will see is a reduced paycheck.  And that is VERY tough to swallow for anyone.

Your knowledge of economics sucks.  Your understanding of political economy is also cultish and not honest.  The argument for free commerce is that it will produce the best social result.  The State has a primary interest in seeing that Commerce serves the national interest and does not become the de facto government.  In the ideology of Corporatism and its bastard child libertarian economics, the idea that social responsibility and being a positive player for society is ruled out by 'fiduciary responsibility.'

The theology of money is absurd when you examine it.  Symbol over substance, for god's sake!

But the economics are absurd too.  Unless you "spread the wealth," you get bad results and periodic panics where the game has to reset and people suffer for the crimes of the economy.  It is the law, Say's Law, about unproductive capital being needed where it can be productive.  The rich are not philosopher/financers who know better than we where the money needs to go.  The idea that they have earned the right to screw up a society ought to be seen as absurd.

Relative economic equality and democracy go together.  Great differences make any pretence of democracy irrelevant.  Unless the average citizen can count on an economic foundation of security, there is no ability to take risks without fear of death.  Capitalism says that risks ought to be subsidized by bankruptcy laws, now made unavailable to average citizens and homeowners.

If the Right could be honest about economics, it would be a great start to quality public discourse.  Mitch Daniels is an idiot and his record as Bush's Budget guy says it all.  Or how are those toll roads working out?  I lived in Indiana long enough to appreciate that this is a very strange place.

If the people in my state had a chance to vote for or against it  it would have failed like the one in Ohio did and by a very large margin like the one in Ohio did. Those sneaky bastard republicans won't listen to the people only to what their donor base wants. We'll see if people get up off their asses and vote this november. It's a damn shame you have one frickin party that wants to take this country 100 years back in time state by state. Like I asked before WTF does the republican party have against the working class? The only thing they have done is deepen the divide in this state and throughout this country. I retired last year from the Road Sprinkler Fitters Union Local 669 which covers most of the US except for the major cities and I can tell you our union would not consider allowing anyone a free ride on the backs of it's other due paying members. When people don't vote it allows idiots like those in Indy to do what they want. Many NFL players have already made their objections known to what this state was trying to do to workers so it's a shame they couldn't move the Super Bowl to a more friendly labor market and see all those millions of dollars go with them. It would serve those SOB's right.

Sorry, history has shown that having elected officials "spread the wealth" results in nothing but disaster.  See Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare as our examples.  Also look at Spain, that bought your line of reasoning about 6 years ago and brought in a leftist goverment.  In those six years, that philosphy just about ruined their entire economy.  The voters wised up and threw the leftists out, and it will be many years before that damage can be reversed. 

You may have missed this but the bankers have brought the whole planet economies down. It will take many years to fix the damage the regressive idiots(R) in this country have done to our economy especially when they fillibuster every frickin thing that comes to the senate. Why do you people hate this country so much? Your policies of the past 30 years have screwed so many so the least you idiots could do is get out of the frickin way and let the grownups fix the mess your party created.

Kudos Sprinklefitter!

Hear! Hear!

Mauiman58, I actually want to understand what a person's inner philosophy and principles are when they become sold on the repunlican strategies.

In my teens, the first time that I travelled from the US suburbs where I was raised, to a third-world nation, I was enjoying the luxury of the beach-front hotel where we were staying when I saw, also for the first time, beggars coming up to the edges of the hotel's property, crying, begging, clearly sick and starving.

The rest of the vacation was shot to hell for me. After that, my enjoyment of any luxuries that might be in my life was never the same, and ever since, my interest has been to see democracy, justice & truth being spread throughout the world. When I got home, instead of donating my Ayn Rand books somewhere, they went directly into the trash. I wanted to make sure that I didn't pass that crap on to another idiot as naive as I had been.

Now that democracy, justice, and truth, have been minimalized and are on their way out here in our glorious USA, I truly want to know—do you really think that you will be enjoying luxuries and a fun life, as people around you are sick, starving, suffering, and dying?

No I don't want any starving people either. But I want private charities help the poor, not elected officials.

Follow me here.  What is the number one goal of an elected official (or at least 80% of them)?  It is to get re elected.  And that is all parties, all countries, Republicans and Democrats in this country.  If you disagree with me, read Tip O'Neill's book on his years as speaker of the house.  In it he clearly states that when he was counciling young congressman, he impressed upon them that their number one job was to get re elected.

With that in mind, there are a lot of Democrats who simply use tax dollars to buy themselves votes.  Get as many people dependant on the federal goverment because those people turn into votes for he Democrats.  Would you vote for a Republican if you were getting money from the federal goverment?  I certainly wouldn't either.

I don't mind it when people use their own money to buy themselves votes.  But I get really upset when they use my money to buy themselves votes.  And it is really bad when they use borrowed money to buy themselves votes, which is what is happeneing now.

So sorry, I do not buy the notion that the Democrats actually care about anybody but themselves, they are just in the business of buying votes.  Yes the Republicans are also only out for themselves also, but at least they are more open and up front about it.

If you really want to help the poor, elect Republicans, lower the tax rates, and give your extra money to charities.  A private charity has pure motives, they actually care about the people they are helping and are not looking for anything in return.

I know I'll get some vicious replies to this mesage, but trust me when I say that this is why a lot of us "99 percenters" vote Republican.  They are sick and tired of the Democrats and their scheme of buying themselves votes with tax money.  I'm sure you disagree with that opinion, but obviously there are a WHOLE BUNCH of Americans that feel as I do.  That's why the Republicans hold the house now, wil probably control both houses next January, and have about a 50/50 shot at the white house at this point. 

You can rail at me all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the Dems have a huge sales job to do in a very short period of time if they want control of either house in Washington come next January. Like it or not, European style socialism just will not fly in this country!

The ridiculous idea that private charity removes the state's responsibility or that those who "care" do not want to establish social justice in law and government because doing it personally and privately is more effective is hardly persuasive of good intent.

Care all you want, if you support policies that increase the levels of poverty and need, you are being hypocritical and short-sighted.  Newt calling Obama the "food stamp President" is typical class and race baiting nonsense.  I want children fed, and if food stamps help, lets have more until there is no hungry child in America.  If there is waste and fraud at the bottom, it does me far less harm than the waste and fraud on Wall St. and the Pentagon.  If there are people at the bottom who find ways to get what they need because what we offer is inadequate, it is really not that big a problem.  The extra money they chisel out of the system gets returned to the productive economy while the top cats drain it off to the Caymans.  That really hurts!

Who cares if Democrats use social issues to buy votes.  How is that different than Republicans using pro-business issues to buy votes?  I don't care how either reaches for votes as long as either gets this country prosperous FOR ALL again.  As far as I can tell the Republicans have had 20 out of the last 30 years or so to make America better for ALL OF US and they've totally failed.  They need to get the hell out of the way and let other side try it for 20 out of the next 30 years.  3 frickin years into a new administration full of fillibusters and gauntlets is supposed to forecast the future results?  Give me a break and just get out of the way.

OK, if Dems "buy" the votes of the poor by advocating policies Jesus would approve, and if GOPimps work to keep the rich from sharing or caring, something Jesus would not like, I guess I can go with their side without being a hypocrite about how politics works.

Had any of the Neocon, supply side or low tax policies demonstrated the ability to create a good society, why would Liberals waste time on social reform?  Believe me, I hoped Reagonomics could turn greed into good and make my life as easy as could be.  I just knew better because alchemy is always too good to be true.  Turn my lead into gold?  Now, there is a great idea, if it could work.  Will people try it?  Of course.  Will it ever work?  Of course not.

JUST HOW FRICKIN LOW DO YOU WANT TAXES TO GO?

 I'm all for lower taxes like everyone else is BUT first you need to eliminate every frickin tax loop hole known to mankind and get the tax cheats to finally pay their fair share. Then if possible lower the rates NOT the way you suggested to do first. I read some where the other day that around 365 billion was owed in back taxes from 2006 not counting the years since. Go after and if needed jail&fine the tax cheaters while eliminating loop holes then consider lowering the rate last after the first two are on solid ground.

I won't be "railing" at you Mauiman, simply because the issues don't really matter. The bottom line is —what are the principles, what is the philosophy?

When I say that I want to see democracy spreading thoughout the entire globe, I am saying that all people should be free, should have equal rights, should have civil rights including safety, shelter, education, food and health care, whether they are wealthy or are in crisis, and should have a way of being directly involved with the development of the nation and the world. Otherwise there is no reason to even have a government.

Of course there are career politicians, just like there are career-focused people in any profession or industry. But the bottom line is to keep them, and whatever sincerely-minded politician might appear or not appear, working to maintain the principles that democracy was based on.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. FDR & JFK were Democrats. If Lincoln was running in November, I would certainly vote for him. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of these three guys, nor anyone like them, so far.

If we can believe that M's posts are sincere, I still want to understand why being disappointed with the Democrats for not being pure trumps the fulfilled expectations of the GOPimps for being totally owned by Wall St.  The system requires the pursuit of cash to win.  Progressives cannot change this from within.  My rep for the past two decades has suffered under Republicans, but is also not part of the in group for the Dems.  I think he is a professional politician in the best sense.  I want more Peter DeFazios in there, representing their districts and speaking truth to power, but also knowing how to be more than a protester.

He used to be able to find moderate and reasonable Republicans to work with, but not for some time, and particularly not as the Tea Party idiots have come on board.  He gets tons of money thrown at his opponents and has to protect himself by getting some himself.  I have never seen him compromise conscience, but I do know that he tried to work with "the other side" whenever it was possible because he cares about getting things done more than being a celebrity.

Getting elected is important.  It is what you do with being elected that matters, and the GOPimps serve their masters with slavish devotion while my professional politician has learned how to be effective in dysfunction.  One can hate the system and condemn its evils without ignoring the difference between a considerable number of Democrats and all the remaining GOPimps after the last moderate Republican became extinct.

I think Mauiman, like many Republican members of our 99%, is upset that everybody in the 99% who isn't angry that a portion of his or her taxes might be used to help someone in crisis of whom he or she disapproves, and that everyone in the 99% who is currently in crisis and needs help—will all be voting for democrats. These 99% Republicans want all of the political goodies the government will hand out to be for them, i.e. for those who do not believe they will ever be in crisis, and certainly, not ever in poverty, but who do expect eventually to be one of Forbes 400 richest people in the USA. All however-many millions of them there are. All soon to be on the Forbes 400 list...

The thing is, if people focus on the fact that democracy is a tremendous evolutionary jump forward for human beings, they can realize and see that it is an honor to be here now to protect democracy at this time of world-wide crisis. The only way out of this global situation will be that either oligarchical rule on all levels is going to have to go, or else democracy is going to have to go. Everyone alive is going to have to choose which underlying ideology and principles do they want to fight for. Do they want oligarchical rule, which gives respect & freedom to a few people? Or democracy, which gives respect & freedom to everybody—to every single person?

In case you have any doubts that my posts are sincere, read this article.  Here is a black female that grew up in Chicago.  In case you don't realize this, everyone who grows up in Chicago is a Democrat.  She outlines her problems with the current Democratic party.  Sounds a little like me!  She has her problems with the Republicans also, but if someone with her background has these kinds of problems with the Democrats, imangine the reservations the rest of us have with the Dems?  If the Dems don't want to get skunked in November, they have a lot of work to do to convince a lot of people that bigger goverment is better goverment.

Here is the link: http://www.chicagonow.com/pimps-preachers-politicians/2012/01/why-im-a-r...

This link is to a blog site run by our local conservative leaning newspaper (the Tribune).  This paper has been been biased towards the right for over 150 years.  I'd be more than skeptical of a blog they offer up by a disgruntled black woman who chooses the Republicans over the Democrats.  Even if this women is 100% sincere, she is no bellweather of black folks in Chicago by any stretch.  Believe me, the Democratic Party needs a major overhaul, but you need to find some more credible material to support your hypothesis.

Oklahoma was the most recent state before Indiana to pass a Right to Work law.  That state, it has been reported, experienced a gain in jobs since it became right to work, but other non-right to work states had even greater increases in jobs than did Oklahoma, invalidating the claim that right to work had anything to do with it, and Oklahoma had two or three companies which closed down plants, possibly in Oklahoma City. 

Indiana has lost manufacturing jobs and facilities, but in the name of accuracy, Northwest Indiana remains a steel producing giant, ranked alternatively at different times as being second or first in U.S. steel production.  The steel mills underwent buyouts by new investors a number of years ago and were reborn with new financing and ownership.  U.S. Steel in Gary was once the largest steel mill in the world and had at its peek 25,000 employees. Today, largely due to automation and perhaps also due in part to foreign competition, especially from China, the plant has about 7000 workers.  It still is probably the largest steel-producing facility in the U.S.  The poverty in the urban centers of Lake County has existed for many years.  The whole area of the state also has many suburan and rural areas where jobs are hard to come by outside of professions such as teaching, health care, or law.  The Gary library board is being sued because they plan to close down the main public library branch to save money and turn it into a museum.  The state has inadequate housing programs to provide a solution to homelessness.  A few days before the State of the Union message, an area newspaper reported that a non-profit housing organization is looking for volunteers to help conduct a count of the homeless population in Lake County, particularly in the urban areas.   Down in Indianapolis, the city would prefer if the homeless would temporarly vacate downtown during the Superbowl weekend so they won't be seen by visitors or by T.V. cameras.  That is the pattern in other cities that have hosted the event. 

It was also reported that a number of years ago, Daniels indicated that he didn't think Indiana needed any Right to Work legislation, and he told that to a labor leader who now says that Daniels has gone back on his word.  The state was once a right to work state until the previous law was repealed when the Democrats gained control of the state legislature during the Johnson Administration.  Indiana had the first WPA project in the country under Democratic Governor Paul V. McNutt, a Harvard Law School graduate, who was a leading follower and exponent of Roosevelt's jobs program, but who was also a Democratic rivial for the nomination. 

Many of the citizens of Indiana in my opinion are too poorly educated to understand what might be wrong with the public school system.  The media lacks a voice to counter right wing commentators, and the Democrats lack the strength to adequately make their case.  Northwest Indiana remains a leading industrial area and does not receive the national coverage that it deserves.  Progressives within the state don't seem to be able to effectively communicate with one another.  There are enough reasonable and educated people that the situation here could be turned around if only the resources existed.

I don't think you are being insincere, because you told the truth right up front:

And you said that many more 99%ers will be voting because they are angry that democrats are self-seving bastards, and it is unfair that they easily get the votes of every person who feels insecure about their future, or who wants to make their future secure with available government hand-outs that will be able to keep them on this side of death:

We are at a time right now where every body (literally) in the world, including the USA, is in danger of very shortly struggling to stay on this side of death.

The Chicago Tribune, a right leaning newspaper?????  Surely you jest. 

I hope you picked up that both sides are just in it for themselves as far as I am concerned.  I'm convinced that if Jesus showed up at the State of the Union address, he would label the whole gang a "brood of vipors", both sides of the aisle.  And I bet that he would have a special place in you know where for those who pretend to help the poor when all they are really doing is buying their votes.  And sorry, there were a whole bunch of them listening to the State of the Union address Tuesday night.  Jesus looks at a person's intentions, and I'm not convinced that many people in Washington care about the poor at all.  But Jesus is a lot smarter on that point than I am, so you will not see me naming any names here.  And his vote is the only one that counts on that one, not mine. 

Are Republicans in Washington just in it to get re elected?  Of course they are!  But no more or less than the Dems.

Well, if you want to bring Jesus to the case, let me point out that the goats "intended" to serve Jesus but just never recognized him.  Those who advocate policies that actually help people would get a better mark than those who "intended" to do so but who supported stuff that hurst people.

I think a number of Rightwingers think that they are moral and in favor of what America needs.  I suspect they believe that crap about the 'nanny state,' but they wind up voting for the bully state.

It is no surprise that the Chicago Democrats are not pure.  Hell, that ahole Rahm is their mayor and is hardly the model of a Progressive.

You may feel that the policies the Dems advocate actually help people, but obviously well over 50% of the voters that went to the polls in 2010 felt otherwise.  There are a whole bunch of us that do not trust policians and do not believe that bigger goverment is better goverment.

You should probably dig past surface appearances. It's the Shadow Government pulling the strings of the elected government that's the problem.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

I jest not and don't call me Shirley.  I'm guessing you never read the Tribune:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune

From day one, this paper has catered to the masters of power and money.

Yesterday afternoon, some friends & I met with the area Congressperson, to voice our opinions about the need to sponser a bill to repeal or seriously ammend NDAA. 

It was a big "NO DEAL" with this 20+ year Democrat in Congress in DC, "respectfully disagreeing" with our "interpretation" of the arbitrary detention spoken of in that Act.

Well, I left a copy of the Naomi Wolf's Congress Signed Its Own Arrest Warrents with the Congressperson, but to me the whole thing was a classic example of the "shadow government" (or whatever you want to call it) having the true influence—one way or another. 

You do have the right to disagree with me, but I have to point out that I have read the Tribune most days since 1987.

Yes, they are to the right of PMS-NBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, but those news organizations are clearly mouthpieces for the left. 

And to their credit, the Tribune was severe critics of Rod Blagorivich (sp?), the former govenor of Ilinois who will be reporting for his 15 year jail sentence soon.  Turns out that everything they said about that guy was right on the money.

I hope that you all realize that right and left are just the seating arrangements in the French parliament. We are long past the French Revolution.

The real fight now is between world-wide democracy against world-wide oligarchy. Oligarchy, is the "shadow government" while the fading illusion of democracy still exists.

Perhaps an emboldened world-wide labor movement will be the silver lining to globalization?  It would seem to be inevitable.  It's just a matter of time.  Shipping our jobs overseas may give the man a leg up here, but eventually the people will rise up over there.  Equilibrium will be reached in due time.

Yep. It's just a matter of time. A long, long, long, long time. We'll endure a lot of bloodshed waiting. Notions of racial/cultural superiority are not isolated to non-Hispanic white Christian/Noncatholic Americans. 

Why do we need unions if in the future highly-educated Americans are going to design all the fantastic new consumer goods and the Chinese are merely going to manufacture them?

About globalization—Democracy by itself is not the ideal, because even if only one person has the right idea and can implement it for their nation, it's a good thing! Republicanism is what's wanted for everybody.

"It's a Constitutional Republic, if you have the wits to keep it." Ben Franklin said this to a lady questioning him as he exited the Constitutional Convention.

The Chicago Tribune is located in Illinois whereas Thom's original thread pertains to Indiana.  Progressives not being able to stay on point and focus on one specific thing: a weakness that helps explain why things have been so disorganized and ineffective for so long, outside, possibly, of OWS. 

Dear Robindell, Indiana includes "the district" in the North around Gary.  The Chicago Trib is the paper of record in that part of the state.

And "the district" or "the region" as it was called when I went to Purdue has got to be the most heavily unionized part of the state because it has all the steel mills.

DRC, the Chicago Tribune, while available in many counties surrounding the Windy City, has either minimal or no coverage concerning Indiana politics.  For coverage of state politics, a person would be much better off reading the Indianapolis Star which is available in all Indiana libraries, or even one of the two main local N.W. Indiana papers.  Chicago and Springfield have so much going on usually that there probably isn't that much space left over for reporting on us rural folk here in the Hoosier hinterlands.  For financial reasons, I'm sure that the Tribune has had cutbacks.  But my point was also figurative and not merely literal.  Chris Hedges is a progressive who is somewhat of a critic of progressives, especially academics and/or intellectuals.  Whether his criticisms had any influence on OWS nationwide is possible, but doubful.  At times, I see a tendency on this sight for arguments to become personal, when economics and public policy is inherent impersonal.  The issues go beyond a disagreement or discussion between two people.  No matter how interesting or captivating a certain point or certain personality may be, there is at times a pull in different directions that often seem tangental to the main point, thesis, or argument.  That is not to say that the same few points should be repeated over and over, and that does occur on progressive talk.  But a given discussion should have some shape to it, some direction, some coherence. 

Getting back to Thom's point, I recently read a comment in a local paper which has a comments section apart from the letters to the editor which contended that union members are not going to stop paying their dues and drop out of their unions just because this law was passed.  Union members, the person stated, are aware that their economic situation is improved by virtue of their union membership.  From what I have heard discussed on talk radio, there was no groundswell of people not wanting to remain in unions.  Some of the Republicans probably believe that some employers will not consider moving into the state unless the workers can opt out.  The (economic) statistics on right to work states seem to be discouraging.  Some of these Republicans could care less if right to work will increase employment; they want to weaken a source of financial and political support for the Democrats and also make life a little easier for the corporate fat cats.  Most of these states are in the South which traditionally has had the most poverty and lowest average wages of any other region.  The case could be made that poverty in northern cities such as Gary, Chicago, and Detroit where unions tend to prevail suggests a need for right to work.  But that would likely follow the trend in other right to work states of lowering wages with no demonstrable increase in the number of jobs.  Unfortunately, many people in Indiana are knee-jerk reactionaries in that they don't pay attention to what is going on and don't trouble themselves with understanding where Republicans are coming from.  Somehow, our schools and the development that takes place there over time are partly involved with this tendency to not do much thinking, but mostly to stick with comfortable, unchallenged reactions. 

Thom, I only caught a bit of your show today, but I must wholehartedly disagree with one of the comments you made on the air.  You stated that Unions make a Democracy out of the workplace.  Since when is a workplace a Democracy?  A business exists solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. Period, end of discussion.  It is not in business to provide jobs for its employees.  and any business will pay as little as they can get away with, and still attract good people.  Sorry, that's how it works, that's reality like it or not.

If a group of employees decides to band together and collectively bargain with their employer, that's fine, no problem with that.  And realize that if a business goes too low with their wages, they won't get any good people.  There is a company in Chicago that is expanding and is trying desparately to get people to fill their jobs.  They are getting NO ONE because they are not paying enough money.  I am qualified for their jobs, and I get a call from a headhunter every 2-3 weeks about the same jobs with this same company.  They simply cannot get anyone because they are so cheap.  So there is a price to paid by a company if they set their wages too low.  And there is a price to paid by employees (or unions) if they set their wages to high.

It would be stupid to not allow workers to have any say in how much money they are paid or in whether they have health insurance, etc., because the result would be an unfair and impoverished country, or a country where people were taken advantage of.  That would be a stupid system.  In some respects, our system is stupid, depending on many factors.  Widespread inequality is associated statistically with increased social and health problems.  That is undesirable.  What is ridiculous is the assertion that executives have no rights just because there is a union.  That is not the case, and unionized workers have made major concessions in more than one industry and in the public sector, and more will be made if people are stepped on by politicians and corporate bosses. 

Where management respects workers, it will welcome a union that actually represents the interests of the workers because it makes it easier to negotiate and happy workers give management the information needed to improve the bottom line.  Too many 'bosses' feel that they have an authority to protect and are offended by the idea of sharing power and decision-making.  When workers know that management is there for them, they will bend over backwards to make sure that the company is doing well.  How many stories do we need to hear about concessions that have been followed up by profit taking at the top and shipping the jobs overseas.  The idea that high wages are driving companies out of business is a myth. 

DRC what you are missing is that like it or not we are in a global economy.  And you simply cannot avoid competition. So if a company can make more money making something outside of the US and shipping it back to the states, guess what they are going to do?  Bottom line, if you ask for 20% higher wages, you better be 20% more productive, or that job will disappear one way or another.  And that is no myth, it happens all the time.

I don't know enough about this, but wouldn't that be where the trade and tax laws have to be changed...to get a sovereign economy in this still "sovereign" nation?  

Then..... to charge the now international companies to be here to get American"consumers."

You are assuming that when you ask for 20% higher wages you are only worth what you are being paid now.  If you are really being paid 25% less than what you are really worth and it's obvious, then you are not out of line by asking for a 20% raise without having to be more productive.

If a company decides to make a much heftier profit by going outside of their own country for labor then it should be within your own countries rights to impose penalties on your greed.  Your greed is costing YOUR country.  I don't think anyone has the right to produce massive amounts of wealth at a gross abuse and cost of the country that allows you to do business.

Would you make that same argument in 1942 if some manufacturer could make more money making something in Japan and shipping it back to the states?

Where do you draw the line?