Missouri Voters Overturn "Right-to-Work" Law By 2-1 Margin

[IndustrialJustice]

Blowout. What a wonderful night for Missouri workers and their families.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/business/economy/missouri-labor-right-to-work.html

[JGibson]

So happy that Prop A went down in flames.

[Lachi]

Good, may it burn in hell.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

So happy that Prop A went down in flames.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

Why do we allow Republicans and their string-pullers to get away with the "right-to-work" phrasing? I mean, I understand why they want to call it that. (Because "make it easier to bust unions" doesn't get much support, even these days.) But why do the public and the media let them shape the issue this way?

[IceSpear]

Yep. Republicans do not vote based off busting unions and cutting entitlements. They vote based off identity politics, racial resentment, and white grievance. The former are just things they're willing to sacrifice in order to get their way on the latter.

[JA]

So happy that Prop A went down in flames.

[GoTfan]

Why do we allow Republicans and their string-pullers to get away with the "right-to-work" phrasing? I mean, I understand why they want to call it that. (Because "make it easier to bust unions" doesn't get much support, even these days.) But why do the public and the media let them shape the issue this way?

Because Republicans, for all their faults, are masters of manipulating the image of things.

[Bea O'Problem]

So happy that Prop A went down in flames.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Why do we allow Republicans and their string-pullers to get away with the "right-to-work" phrasing? I mean, I understand why they want to call it that. (Because "make it easier to bust unions" doesn't get much support, even these days.) But why do the public and the media let them shape the issue this way?

Agreed. This is an extremely misleading name for a terrible law.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Why do we allow Republicans and their string-pullers to get away with the "right-to-work" phrasing? I mean, I understand why they want to call it that. (Because "make it easier to bust unions" doesn't get much support, even these days.) But why do the public and the media let them shape the issue this way?

Agreed. This is an extremely misleading name for a terrible law.

[pbrower2a]

Why do we allow Republicans and their string-pullers to get away with the "right-to-work" phrasing? I mean, I understand why they want to call it that. (Because "make it easier to bust unions" doesn't get much support, even these days.) But why do the public and the media let them shape the issue this way?

Because we think it too crude to call it "duty to starve".

Corporate America hates unions and would do away with them if they could. They would outlaw them or make union membership grounds for firing and blacklisting (now that is denial of any right to work as the phrase means in clean English!)

People are getting wise to this. With executive suites full of malignant narcissists, one needs a union just to keep some dignity.

[mvd10]

Good. Let's instead go for the Friedman way and make yellow-dog contracts legal !

[courts]

fantastic news.(normal,sane, etc.)

[Illiniwek]

[libertpaulian]

I wonder what the margin would have been if this was on the ballot in November.

[Gass3268]

I wonder what the margin would have been if this was on the ballot in November.

There is a reason the Republicans wanted this on the primary and not the general election.

[IndustrialJustice]

Good. Let's instead go for the Friedman way and make yellow-dog contracts legal !

Hell yeah. Let's bring back child labor and unsupervised threshing machines, too.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Good. Let's instead go for the Friedman way and make yellow-dog contracts legal !

[GoTfan]

Good. Let's instead go for the Friedman way and make yellow-dog contracts legal !

Weren't you over in Individual Politics saying the vote would be a resounding yes?

[mvd10]

Good. Let's instead go for the Friedman way and make yellow-dog contracts legal !

Weren't you over in Individual Politics saying the vote would be a resounding yes?

I'm only human. I make mistakes . Never said it would be resounding though. And seriously, RTW is a weird issue like I said a minute ago in another thread. I feel like it's an issue where people can be very easily swayed by both sides.

[JA]

Good. Let's instead go for the Friedman way and make yellow-dog contracts legal !

Hell yeah. Let's bring back child labor and unsupervised threshing machines, too.

Why not? It’ll increase profits and cut down on labor costs; it’s an investors’ win-win. That’s all that matters, after all.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Why do we allow Republicans and their string-pullers to get away with the "right-to-work" phrasing? I mean, I understand why they want to call it that. (Because "make it easier to bust unions" doesn't get much support, even these days.) But why do the public and the media let them shape the issue this way?

Agreed. This is an extremely misleading name for a terrible law.

In fairness, "Right To Work" is a phrase that everyone knows what it means.

What people are confused about is the benefits of having a union shop versus having a paternalistic employer.

[MarkD]

Blowout is right; over 67% voted "No."

I've been looking at the vote breakdown by county and doing some calculating. Clearly, all eight of the congressional districts voted "No," with only MO-07 being relatively close. All-in-all, fifteen counties voted "Yes": Atchison, Barry, Barton, Camden, Cape Girardeau, Christian, Dunklin, Howell, Jasper, McDonald, Newton, Pemiscot, Putnam, Stone, and Taney. The two counties in the Bootheel - Dunklin and Pemiscot - surprised me. Most of the "Yes" counties were in MO-07, but because Greene County voted "No" by over 57%, it outvoted the "Yes" votes in the remainder of the district, and the district as a whole voted "No" by about 51.7%.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I hope the door hits right-to-work on the ass like it did to Governor Greitens.