Not all Minnesota nurses are union members, but because a significant portion of them are, all the RNs in Minnesota earn more than in the so-called “Right-to-Work” states on our borders. In North Dakota RNs earn less than 78% the MN average, in South Dakota it’s under 75%, and RNs in Iowa earn only about 70% what a nurse here in Minnesota earns.
That’s why the MNA and other informed groups are trying to correct misconceptions about this mis-named theory: it’s our standard of living in Minnesota that’s at stake.
Originally posted on Minnesota Nurses:
It is critical to separate fact from fiction when evaluating the so-called “Right to Work” constitutional amendment being proposed during the 2012 legislative session.
Here’s a great illustration of how the amendment could negatively impact Minnesota nurses’ salaries. Take a look:
Some unions are getting better at the PR side of the equation. If you’re not familiar with John Nemos’s work for the MNA you need to check him out.
Originally posted on The Same Rowdy Crowd:
On the abortion issue, one group of advocates says “Right to Life,” the other side says “Pro-Choice” and the news media usually opts for the more neutral term, calling it a debate over “abortion rights,” or describing the protagonists as being “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion rights.” Fair enough. On that issue, reporters have done a pretty good job of striking a balance on the language they use.
But on the top labor issue of the day, one side says “Right to Work,” the other side says “Right to Work for Less” or “union busting.” The media goes with “Right to Work.”
Pioneer Press headline: “Republicans set stage for right to work fight in Minnesota”
Star Tribune headline: “State Republicans launch right-to-work amendment”
MPR headline: “One on One: The Right to Work Amendment”
In other words, the news media is framing the issue exactly how pro-amendment spin savants want it framed.
View original 252 more words