What I find ironic

is that the very people screaming support for unions and complaining their rights are being taken away, etc.  What about the people who live in a forced unionism state and are forced to join a union?   Where are their rights?  Where are their choices? 

Right-to-Work laws do not force employees out of unions but allows them to opt-out of union membership if they want to and does nothing to ban unions from the Right-to-Work states. It simply gives the employee an option. Not only that but workers are moving out of union states to Right-to-Work states and Right-to-Work states have experiences 23% faster per capita income from 1977 to 2007. Not only that employees are not forced to pay fees to a union that only supports one political party.

Right-to-work states outperform forced-union states in almost every measurable category of worker well-being.

• A study in the Cato Journal by economist Richard Vedder finds that from 2000 to 2008 some 4.7 million Americans moved from forced-union to right-to-work states.
• The study also found that from 1977 through 2007 there was "a very strong and highly statistically significant relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth."
• Right-to-work states experienced a 23 percent faster rise in per capita income over that period.
• The two regions that have lost the most jobs in recent years, the once-industrial Northeast and Midwest, are mostly forced-union states.

Right-to-work laws make states more economically competitive, but the bigger issue is about individual rights.  Workers should have the right to join a union but also the right not to.

So....which is better....forced unionism states or right-to-work states.  From the research I've done..it seems that forced unionism has actually hurt states rather than helped them.

Also...as a side note...I'd like to know if the MIA democrats in WI have fled the state and are staying in hotels, etc....is that money out of their pocket or the taxpayers?  Just a thought.