The News-Sentinel and Journal Gazette editorial pages might disagree on the worth of right-to-work laws (go ahead and guess which paper holds which position), but I think we'd agree with at least one part of the JG's editorial:
The committee did not hear testimony from the public at its meeting last week, but is expected to do so later. Hoosiers need to consider the repercussions of a right to work law and let lawmakers know what they think. The 2012 session will be too late.
The editorial wants people to consider the effects of RTW before speaking out, of course. This is a key paragraph:
Richard Vedder, an Ohio University economist, once again argued the case for the right-to-work proponents, claiming higher rates of employment, productivity and personal income growth. But Mary Wolfson, director of the Higgins Labor Studies Program at the University of Notre Dame and former Federal Reserve economist, argued that states that have passed right-to-work laws have not seen meaningful increases in the growth of income and that median household income is significantly lower in right-to-work states than it is in others.
As if that settles it. Wages are lower in right-to-work states, so the hell with such legislation and those who propose it. It is a fair question whether RTW laws actually do draw employers and increase employment -- some studies have shown a mixed bag in that area -- but the tradeoff we are willing or not willing to accept ept is a legitmate issue to debate. Having fewer jobs at higher salaries might seem perfectly OK to an employed editorial writer. But someone who has been out of work for several months might think more highly of more jobs at lower salaries.
