Paul perhaps you should actually be out in the workforce supporting a family prior to determining right to work status as a campaign issue. Can you compare/contrast the average household income, poverty statistics, educational level, and standard of living between our state and those that are " right to work" states? We have that educated dedicated workforce here due to a history of supporting labor and not being a right to work state. Do your homework and please just dont spout off rhetoric that is not a constructive addition to the political process.

Ditto

As an unemployed mom of two I have to say Paul is right! There aren't enough jobs in the state. Any job is better than no job. And br it's clear Paul has done his homework. He gave you real statistics. What more do you want? You're probably just a union hack.

Finally a politician who gets it.

We have an educated workforce as a result of a STRONG MIDDLE CLASS. If right to work states are the panacea for our economic woes move to them. Ask yourself does a car cost less there, does a board cost less, does a widget cost less, does a surgical procedure cost less? The answer is NO the only thing that has a lower "cost" is your value related to the skill you prvide. So if it costs the same where does the difference go? Really this is that hard for everyone to grasp? We as Americans heard that for the first time ever our children will have a lower standard of living that we the masses experienced. What did we do? Nothing we swallowed it and looked for scapegoats while continually driving down the cost of labor and fight over scraps that fall from a continuing transference and concentration of wealth. While the working class is divided and withering on the vine the level of aaffluence skyrockets. Wake up study history not sounbytets remove emotion from political discourse and apply LOGIC and reality. Not what you want it to be or dream of but reality. Also Jensen, a politician that gets it? Gets what? How many years in the workforce supporting a family or himself solely and being competitive has this young man experienced? Really this is the best that we as a society can offer up? Demand creates jobs, that happens when we the masses have ancillary monies to spend. Again DEMAND for goods and services creates jobs plain and simple!

All native MInnesotans have been able to take advantage of the high standard of living we have from a strong middle class. Not from ourselves but the work and sacrifices made from those who came before us. Why now is it a remedy to remove those same protections? If you live here and dont like it relocate to a right to work state and give it a shot. Why change Minnesota and lower the standard of living here by driving down the value of our labor? Every cost goes up in the economic model yearly ie the value of a good or service. Ironic isnt it that your labor shouldnt as well? Thats why economics isnt a social science, rather it is self fulfilling theories which rely on circular logic.

Unions don't stand up for people who are unemployed. They stand up for people who already have jobs. Br needs to think about caring about the least among us.

You know, I agree with Paul. Here in Illinois our unemployment is too high. I was forced to be relocated for a job that was sound and didnt require a union represenitive to tell me whom i am voting for and who has my best interest. If anything, closed minded people like br, who dont see a full spectrum, have made jobs and the ability to choose few and far between. Those who benefit from union represented choices are the ones that have campagins that collect cash from said unions. There is no freedom to choose, but a forced plan in place for those workers. A lot of empty promises from thos canidates who were supposed to represent the unions who provided funds for the campaign. I agree that the numbers speak loud and i want someone to make a promise and attempt to keep it. But i also want liberties of supporting someone who has my interest as a constiuant versus the " gun to the head" forced representation made by unions.

As a percentage of population our neighboring states do have lower numbers unemployed, they also however have a smaller populus as well. Also take a look at the median incomes etc, if you think that indeed is the best way to go then I guess you believe in trickle down economics. If you are going broke and barely getting by now how will you survive with an average lower salary rate in states that are right to work states? Also there should be no confusion in anyones mind regarding the standard of living and median income in states that are right to work period. As far as union contributions to the political process stop listening to faux or fox news and actually crunch the numbers on your own. Again study the true history of labor conditions when there is no power given to the actual workforce. It isnt a pretty chapter in our nations history and I fear we are doomed to repeat it or become something simliar to a third world country with two classes and yes we are all on the losing end!

The Union is only out there to support itself and could care less about the people that are outside its control. We are losing our middle class at an alarming rate and need to change this before it gets beyond a state of repair. It’s about time we stand up for those that are unemployed and work to get them back to work. There is too much good talent that isn't being utilized here in this state and is slowly leaving to other states. It’s about time that we have a Politian that is willing to face this issue head on and creating a better working atmosphere for this great state!

Cant put something in a reject pile without faith and fair trial, i dont see you br, trying to make a difference. I see you passing judgement on a idea and contribution to change. When you produce solid facts and the downfall experienced by another state, your argument can be valid.

I didn't know people were forced to join unions in certain jobs. It's nice to see that the some people in the young generation have their heads on right and are trying to make a difference in this recession. You'd have my vote Paul but I'm in Monticello!

In 2011, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who
were members of a union--was 11.8 percent, essentially unchanged from 11.9
percent in 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number
of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8 million, also showed
little movement over the year. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union
data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were
17.7 million union workers.
We don’t need to conduct the same experiment that other states have undertaken. If you want to see what life is like do some research, again compare and contrast the variables from right to work states to others. It is not that difficult of a task to do. Honestly being 24 and having no real world experience in the labor market he so wishes to amend is not acceptable. It is easy to armchair quarterback and spout off, it is quite another to be actually surviving, supporting a family, balancing a budget, and gaining real world experience. This not only affects us but our children’s futures, I for one do not wish to see their standard of living reduced any lower than it is.

Is anyone listening to what is going on here? The continued demonization of labor organizations is more of the inflammatory blame rhetoric rather than taking a serious look at the variables that are in this problem. If organized labor stops job creation why is there not more prosperity in the states that are right to work???? Again compare and contrast the median income, educational level, quality of life, and levels of skilled and non skilled jobs. With the national median income at a little over 26k, why would any Minnesotan want to join that race to the bottom???? It is easy to spout of with incendiary rhetoric; it is more difficult to engage in a meaningful dialogue looking at reality and actual fact. So with this low percentage of the labor force being unionized has decreased since the early 80’s and you want to believe that they are the problem?

Joy K, unions are good for people who have jobs. But they clearly make unemployment worse and hurt people who don't have jobs. It's liberals and unions that are why so many people are on unemployment. Besides, if Minnesotans think unions are good, then they'll stay in their unions. It seems you libs are afraid of giving people the choice over their own destiny. You like to control people. Sick.

But if you look, minimum wage in most states is almost $9 per hour. If you have a job that pays you that, then you are doing good. What Paul is trying to do is get emplyment for those who dont have a job. Right to work explains that even if its unionized work every one has an opportunity. This doesnt ruin union but keeps employment fair. Instead of just union getting union jobs, everyone has an opportunity. Good fight but when people like you fight against it you are trying to prevent employment. Your point means no jobs for non union workers and increase in a deficit of employment.

Joy thank you for not allowing outright falsehoods and hatred coupled with ignorance dominate this thread. Every positive and truthful fact is simply ignored by these individuals and I am not sure why? It is painfully evident most people are angry and refuse to allow logic, truth, and actual reality enter in to the discussion.

br why do you think giving union members the choice of whether or not they want to be in a union is such a bad idea? If they are so great like you say they are then people will stay. If you actually watch the video it says that it doesn't force people out of unions...just gives them the choice to get out. Why are you against freedom and choice? Do you think you know better than people? And not everyone who disagrees with you is full of hatred and ignorance.

Thats not what this is truly about. More importantly why do you avoid every glaring fact and detail thay benefits every hourly paid worker in this state?? Why do you deny fact and reality?? This will only serve to lower the median income in this state, research the facts then come back.

Here are the facts comparing employment growth and per capita income in right to work states and non right to work states.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/07/jobs-income-data-show-right-to-work.html

And it also seems an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans supports this law. Also pluralities of Democrats, Iron Rangers (heavily unionized) and <40k income earners support right to work as well. So what's your beef? Your position has no substantial support whatsoever from the general public.

KSTP TV poll
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=e8bdfd5d-1ea0-47fa-b1f4-536070f107f3

OMG you cited a blog really???

Come on now head over to a fact based source ie us dept of labor and take a look

http://americanexperiment.org/sites/default/files/article_pdf/Minnesota%20Right%20to%20Work%20Center%20of%20the%20American%20Experiment%20Jan%202012.pdf

There are stats from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis from the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Please refrain from using presentations that have a political slant to them. Simply go to the Dept. of Labor and view the salary figure tables comparing and contrasting states that are right to work versus not right to work. Why is it so easy to avoid the reality of what is presented to oneself simply to continue an ideology that is not supported by the facts or reality? Again many valid points have been presented highlighting only a few of the benefits we as a state and nation have benefited from due to the organization of the labor movement. Why continue to ignore them as if it is not true, this does not validate any falsehood?

What makes the Department of Labor's tables any more valid than those from the Department of Commerce? You are just as obviously ignoring facts and reality to fit your ideology. Furthermore, you clearly hate the concept of giving people the choice, because you think you know better than them. Typical liberal.

In a regression framework, we analyze the relationship between RTW status and wages and benefits after controlling for the demographic and job characteristics of workers, in addition to state-level economic conditions and cost-of-living differences across states. We find the following:

• Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.

• The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.

• The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in our regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions. [EPI, 2/17/11]

A right-to-work law is not needed to protect nonunion workers. Several federal laws already protect the rights of nonunion employees in unionized workplaces, such as the NLRB vs. General Motors Supreme Court decision in 1963, and the Communication Workers vs. Beck decision of 1988. Under federal labor law, workers cannot be legally required to join a union as part of a collective bargaining contract. [MECEP, 2/19/11]

So if non partisan research show factual evidence that you would lose under this legislation, why would you support this agenda? What do you stand to gain if you support something that is antithetical to your best interests?

Center of the American Experiment is a nonpartisan, tax-exempt,
public policy and educational institution that brings conservative
and free market ideas to bear on the hardest problems facing
Minnesota and the nation.
That is the begining slide on a presentation you confused with simple research from the department of commerce. It was not the department of commerce research results. Why continue to find support for a flasehood?

"Right to work" is a great name from the standpoint of proponents, just like the term "death tax" is effective for opponents of the estate tax, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is widely believed that in the absence of right-to-work laws workers can be forced to join a union. This is not true. Workers at any workplace always have the option as to whether or not to join a union. [CEPR, 2/28/11]

Hey "br" clearly youre not very bright. If you actually read the link that jensen put up you would see that the data they cite in their tables is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is part of the Department of Commerce. And how do you explain that according to the Census Bureau, 5 million people migrated out of non right to work states and into right to work states? People go where jobs go. When there are more people competing for jobs, wages naturally fall. The result is lower unemployment and slightly lower wages in right to work states, and higher unemployment and slightly higher wages in non right to work states. If you ask me, the former is more desirable. The latter creates a larger class of unemployed dependents. But you liberals like that because you like to have control over people, and that's exactly why you fear people having the choice about their union membership. You hate freedom. I'm glad you have exposed yourself for what you are.

No one is arguing that wages aren't slightly lower in right-to-work states. It's about having the option to choose whether or not you want to join a union. If workers already have the right (as you say) then what is there to fear in this law? "Br" is talking out of both sides of his mouth and he looks like a fool.

Scott R wow talk about looking like a fool. Instead of believing what you are told by faux news because it fuels your anger actually study on your own. You already have the choice to join or not join!!! Got that you have been lied to and manipulated into believing a LIE! SO WHO IS THE FOOL???

I don't agree with Republicans much but I agree with what he said on the video.