walker101

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.

Over a 16-month span at University of Michigan, three construction workers were killed. I guess this is a good record since they were all union members? Can you imagine if they were all non-union. I think I'll take my chances and not be in one, I have all the benefits as any other union person and I don't have to contribute with my union dues for political campaigning. Unions are more concerned about raising funds for the sole purpose of gaining concessions and agreements with the democratic parties, we pay more taxes to insure that union members continue to live and thrive on our increasing taxations from the private sector. One of the top 3 contributors for Obamas campaign came from Union organizations and of course Goldman and Sacks."We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama -- $60.7 million to be exact -- and we're proud of it," boasted Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, to the Las Vegas Sun this week. The behemoth labor organization's leadership is getting its money's worth. Right on.

clownfish

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 1:12 p.m.

BTW, unions also help keep out illegal aliens. Another benefit that is often over looked by those that seek to limit imigration, funny that. Another funny thing is that when Mr Snyder used one sentence out of a study to show union members pay is way, way too high, the same people that are picking this study apart went with the one sentence, not the whole study used by the guv'ner.

clownfish

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 12:54 p.m.

Having worked in both high rate union states, "right-to-work" states and in the Caribbean on a site that was union, I can state that my experience is that having a union involved makes for a safer work environment, period. Not only are job sites safer with unions around, but (gasp!) pay is higher, morale is better and the quality of work is better. Happy, safe employees make happy products. Why do so many anti-union posters still live in MI, if they find unions so reprehensible? I note that in the latest airline customer survey Southwest ranked at the top, they are heavily unionized. Delta was the worst, they are heavily anti-union.

Macabre Sunset

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 5:03 a.m.

I would imagine it would be safer since it takes ten union workers to do the work of one man. Hence a 30-40% increase in safety is considerably less than one would predict.

bunnyabbot

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 3:51 a.m.

oh boy, so many things wrong with this article! first off, by reading the title and seeing the word "safer" that would lead me to think that we are talking about accidents (or on the job accidents that resulted in death) However the word accident is only in the article once and it is attached to the word pervention, it is not attached to a statistic, the only statistic I see in the article is 34-40% and it is attached to the words death rates. The article does not say (and maybe the study fails to as well) whether these are deaths as a result of an accident on the work site or some guy dropping dead due to something like a heart attack, pulmenary embolism, lightning bolt or poisoned ham sandwich packed with care by his (primary benefactor) wife. Frankly a handful of the above scenarios can swing a statistic. Statistics can seem really big if you are using a small group of people. Furthermore, the article says the following: The study did not conclude that right-to-work laws caused the higher fatality rates, suggesting that the rates might be higher because of bad weather or dangerous geographic terrain in those states oh, for Pete's sake, who ever commissioned this study either should ask for their money back or got just enough out of it to prance around like a hot shot scaring people. this (indepth, ha!) article (we need a new word for whatever a really short incomplete article posing as an article is) what a joke!

Tom Joad

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 3:02 a.m.

Construction is inherently dangerous. Workers in construction by and large do not follow even the most basic safety protocols, unless they are on a commercial job site with strict regulations. They don't wear safety glasses, hearing protection, or respirators when working with toxic substances and materials. Many safety precautions are entirely ignored in the interest of productivity and speed. OSHA should enforce regulations but there are no inspections unless an accident occurs. I feel pity for some exploited workers who aren't provided even basic safety equipment because their boss is too cheap. Whenever I see some clown wearing a nuisance dust mask in lieu of a properly fitted respirator I have to bite my tongue...they don't listen anyway or appreciate the advice.

DonBee

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 1:28 a.m.

After reading the study, which does not contain the data, only the analysis of the data, I find it interesting that one might want to suppose that if we looked at fatalities per construction dollar that the rates might be the same, since the analysis indicates that the construction spending per employee was higher in the right to work states. Also I am used to seeing injury and death rates based on hours worked, not gross employees. In many Northern States, which tend to be more unionized, construction season is indeed a season and so more workers work, but fewer months of the year. In Western and Southern states construction tends to run the year around. I find it telling that the study starts with a thank you to the IBEW - the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. In general I would discount this "study" since it does not contain enough information to verify the results.

Brad

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 1:03 a.m.

Correlation isn't causation, people. The researchers themselves said "The study did not conclude that right-to-work laws caused the higher fatality rates". So it's nothing more than an interesting coincidence at this point.

Jaded in Ann Arbor

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 : 12:28 a.m.

It is safer because 2 people actually work while 5 people watch. Waste some more of my money.

Speechless

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 11:58 p.m.

"Right-to-work" not only means "right-to-be-stupid" but it also clearly means "right-to-greater-danger." Strong on-the-job safety measures cost contractors and companies money. These practices 'injure' their profit margin, so to speak. As a result, many employers will naturally try to cut corners in this essential area -- if and when they are allowed to get away with such bad behavior. This is where strong unions come in. Someone has to step forward to proactively interfere with sociopathic devotion to the profit motive, no matter what the social costs in terms of loss of life or well-being. Also remember that unions have been critical to adoption of existing workplace safety standards on the state levels as well as the federal. Weaker or nonexistent unions lead to more dangerous work sites where in return workers receive less pay and fewer benefits.

Will

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 10:55 p.m.

Rob Pollard's comments are on target. The study observed a large interaction. In RTW states, union density did not affect fatality levels as much as it did in non-RTW states. The key observation is that in non-RTW states high unionization resulted in .16 fatalities per 1000, low unionization resulted in .23 fatalities per 1000. In RTW states high unionization resulted in .18 fatalities per 1000, low unionization resulted in .20 fatalities per 1000. No effect of RTW overall. But it appears that unions are more effective in non-RTW states in preventing fatalities.

Stephen Landes

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 10:38 p.m.

The study appears to be incomplete. If the researcher did not take time to control for factors that do not relate to union v right to work -- as he plainly states according to the article -- then I come to the conclusion that this "study" was done to tie in to the current hot button topic of public unions and their bargaining "rights". The study is a "red herring". I do not dispute that unions may actually provide a tangible benefit to their members and employers. I contend that unions should be able to demonstrate from their own statistics that they provide value for money: training, educating, monitoring, and assuring quality work by their members. With those statistics in hand a union should be able to approach management of any business with a winning proposition: we'll do the training, assure quality, provide the discipline, and assure the health and safety of the work force; all you have to do is pay the wages. That is a profitable approach for both workers and business owners. An incomplete study rushed to publication simply clouds the discussion rather than clarifies it.

sbbuilder

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 10:12 p.m.

I wonder how many of the commenters here actually read the study. Here's one tid bit: "By comparison, the industry fatality rates in RTW states are relatively flat regardless of the level of industry unionization: with low levels of unions, the fatality rate is 0.20; with high levels the rate is 0.18." Gosh, the difference between low levels of union and high levels is an amazing, whopping, 0.02. So many armchair experts here. I wonder how many would know which end of a hammer to pick up.

Vernon

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 9:21 p.m.

Yes it read like TV journalism sounds, embelished.....

David Briegel

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 8:40 p.m.

A2.com should interview Bear as a counter to the "Anti-Union Mentality" that pervades this site!

Rob Pollard

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 8:16 p.m.

Interesting. So many of you are using the words of Nathan Borney, "The study did not conclude that right-to-work laws caused the higher fatality rates, suggesting that the rates might be higher because of bad weather or dangerous geographic terrain in those states." to say it contradicts the headline, written by Nathan Borney (or if not him, AA.com). Based on this, the study is "junk" like "climate change." Good work readers. Here is what the study actually said (thanks to the link provided by Mr. Borney): "For both measures, the fatality rate is higher in RTW states. The rate of industry fatalities is 40 percent higher in RTW states, and the rate of occupational fatalities is 34 percent higher in RTW states. These statistics alone, however, fall short of testing whether RTW law is responsible for the relatively high fatality rates. RTW laws are found predominately in the southern and western United States and it could be that other factors, such as geographic terrain, weather, and so forth, affect worker safety." (p. 6) In short, the study says there is an "association" btw higher worker safety and non-RTW but that further study is required. It can't be proven yet that it is casual, i.e., "responsible", as the research didn't controlled for the other factors mentioned (e.g., weather) but it provides a basis for further study. The headline made things sound more definitive than it is; it should have read, "Construction industry may be safer in states without 'right-to-work' laws, U of M Study finds." But the study isn't "bad" b/c the headline could have been more nuanced. Put your tin foil hats away.

lumberg48108

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 8:12 p.m.

In all fairness to the author, he probably does not write the headlines - a designer does ... that is likely why so many .com headlines are disconnected to the actual content that or, they purposely create misleading headlines to generate clicks ...

L. C. Burgundy

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.

Nothing like the headline not matching what's in the study itself, to say nothing of the study's actual quality. Here's another one I'm sure could be written given what I know what I know regarding demographics between the right to work states and forced unionization states: "Construction safer when fewer minorities employed - whites best for safe construction." That's equally based in fact as the headline we have now. No right to work is about protecting union dues. Follow the money. Studies like this are post-hoc rationalizations for a political position at best.

Terminal

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 7:43 p.m.

Dead workers don't pay dues.

Bob Martel

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 6:37 p.m.

Bad headline and possibly a bad study (can't say for sure about that second point since I did not read the study.) The headline (and perhaps the study?) confuses coincidence, correlation and causation. It could be that states with right to work laws also have less demanding laws regarding worker safety or less enforcement. All of which could account for higher accident rates and have nothing to do with right to work laws.

Basic Bob

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 6:35 p.m.

The most important benefit of union membership in the construction trades is that it ensures that people are qualified for the work they are doing, and know how to do the job safely. Apprenticeship programs are very important to ensuring that these skills are passed on to the entry level workers. Unfortunately for workers in right-to-work states, there is no control to make sure people know what they are doing. A company that hires eager but less qualified workers increases the risk of an accident. But this really has nothing at all to do with the collective bargaining aspect of union membership. Many union workers are qualified otherwise (teaching certificates are an example), while some unskilled positions require no qualification at all.

xmo

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.

Is this responsible journalism writing a headline like this? By: Nathan Bomey AnnArbor.com Staff Construction industry is safer in states without 'right-to-work' laws, University of Michigan study finds "The study did not conclude that right-to-work laws caused the higher fatality rates, suggesting that the rates might be higher because of bad weather or dangerous geographic terrain in those states."

IRISH DONN

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 5:37 p.m.

These two quotes from the article says it all! "according to a study released today by the University of Michigan." "The study did not conclude that right-to-work laws caused the higher fatality rates, suggesting that the rates might be higher because of bad weather or dangerous geographic terrain in those states"

Cash

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.

No big surprise. Why would we expect corporate America to look out for the low wage worker. As we see Rand Paul (R) in Kentucky trying to stop regulations protecting miners from Black Lung.....what would we expect?

xmo

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 5:24 p.m.

"The study did not conclude that right-to-work laws caused the higher fatality rates, suggesting that the rates might be higher because of bad weather or dangerous geographic terrain in those states." So, why does Roland Zullo conclude that "States attempting to reduce worker fatalities should consider encouraging trade union growth and repealing right-to-work laws." It doesn't make sense does it? Maybe we need another article on why he came to this conclusion. Of course, it could be like "Climate Change" where no evidence exists but it makes you feel good.

Atticus F.

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 5:20 p.m.

'Right to work' laws in no way guarantee anybody the "right to work".

say it plain

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 5:11 p.m.

I'd guess Professor Zullo will need to watch his emails now ;-) It doesn't bode well for Institutes on Labor and the Economy to find positive effects of labor organization in the face of managerial bottom-lines right now ;-) All their anti-Americ...I mean, um, "off hours" expressions might suddenly be deeply interesting to the State Organizations charged with funding them. You know how that goes, we've seen that film before, and the current talking-heads for the union-busting GOP tend to be all about re-deeming the mccarthyite types as saviours of the free world lol!

David Briegel

Thu, Apr 7, 2011 : 5:10 p.m.

I wonder if A2.com will get a response from Will Warner? Maybe Mr Warner could write a column in response to this clear proof of the folly of his anti-union "mentality" argument! I hope Bear will respond also as he cleary had strong feelings regarding the truthfulness of Mr Warner's column. Workplace Safety, Accident Prevention, Environmental Conditions, Ergonomic Rules are just some of the many benefits that unions have brought to the workplace. Society has benefitted greatly from these progressives! What's a few workplace accidents or even deaths when corporate profits are at stake? The Mackinac Center and their TeaPublican "values" are against civilized society!