According to a Web site (a research facility?) touting itself as "exposing the inequities of compulsory unionism," so-called right-to-work states have living costs averaging about 22% less than economies of "forced" union states. Ironically, that percentage is equal to U.S Government Federal spending portion of the nation's GDP. That's a considerable percentage of capital activity to potentially lose given the already tight economic conditions.
Although their article states that the correlation between higher living costs in union states and RTW States is robust, they also want everyone to know that correlation does not equal causality. So their talking points serve some purpose, just don't rely on them to mean something substantive to the point you may think they're trying to make.
Besides they claim, employees are happy so long as they can get two buck cheeseburgers and $39 eyeglasses. That's what matters most.
What matters most to employees seeking better lives for themselves and their families and employers seeking good employees is not nominal wages and salaries. It is what those wages and salaries can buy in the location where they are earned.
Wow: "what matters most ...is what those wages ...can buy ...," not whether those wages compensate employees equitably for their production, skill set or time. Here's two bucks, go get yourself a cheeseburger.
Obviously, things won't change overnight, but with rhetoric like that winning the argument for right-to-work, I hope local officials throughout Wisconsin have budget plans to cope with kicked-down taxpayers expecting more for much less in the new sinking bottom.
The reality is now there and the psychological seeds are all set.