Is SD’s anti-union, right-to-work, low wages hurting us?

by

Well in the rankings business, it is;

“Most states point with great pride to the quality and availability of their workers, as well as government-sponsored programs to train them,” CNBC’s report said.

It rated states based on:

  • The education level of their workforce.
  • The number of available employees.
  • The states’ demonstrated ability to retain college-educated workers.
  • The concentration of STEM — science, technology, engineering and math — workers, increasingly in demand by business.

“We measure workforce productivity based on each state’s economic output per job,” it continued. “We look at the relative success of each state’s worker training programs in placing their participants in jobs. We also consider union membership and the states’ right-to-work laws. While organized labor contends that a union workforce is a quality workforce, that argument, more often than not, does not resonate with business.”

South Dakota ranked a somewhat concerning No. 39 in this category. It can’t be based on productivity, which is always strong, so I’m guessing our low unemployment and potentially comparatively low educational attainment might have hurt us.

I truly think more organized labor will turn these numbers around.

Posted in: economy, Education funding, Sioux Falls

5 Thoughts on “Is SD’s anti-union, right-to-work, low wages hurting us?”

  1. Emoluments Clause on August 7, 2017 at 10:23 pm said:

    It is probably one of the reasons why Bay Harbor Shrimp would rather locate in a closed shop and more regulated state like Minnesota with a new plant in Luverne, that is just 40 minutes from Sioux Falls and its Foundation Park….. I guess we just got the Chill on that one…. (Sorry 😉 )

    It also probably helps to explain why Luverne can develop economically with a new opportunity, like with Big Harbor, while a similar town in South Dakota, like Yankton, has to rely on a predatory economic plan which evolves around building a casino….

  2. The Guy from Guernsey on August 9, 2017 at 4:24 am said:

    The shrimp growing facility needs lots of water. I wonder if that much water would have been made available in Sioux Falls, albeit from the same Lewis and Clark system which will supply the business in Luverne.

    My guess is the owners of the technology and the business [based in Marshall, MN] can get a place higher on the local economic development food chain in their western MN home area of Luverne, MN as compared to Sioux Falls.

  3. The Guy from Guernsey on August 9, 2017 at 4:40 am said:

    And the CEO for the shrimp growing facility when asked “Why Minnesota?” Answer: To place the shrimp close to feed supplies.

    http://www.star-herald.com/recent-news/shrimp-company-build-first-harbor-luverne

    Looks like the shrimp will be robotically fed. The CEO told KDLT that the Luverne location will need 70 employees.

    EC, this is essentially agricultural/aquacultural production, but any insight if or not any of those will be union shop jobs in closed shop Minnesota?

  4. Emoluments Clause on August 9, 2017 at 9:39 am said:

    TGfG,

    The mere fact that it is located in a closed shop state makes the likelihood of union formation much greater than in a right to work law state, doesn’t it?… Yet, the owners of Bay Harbor are willing to take the risk…..

  5. The Guy from Guernsey on August 15, 2017 at 7:05 am said:

    This update from the Mpls Star Tribune on investment partners in the shrimp operation to be located in southwest MN [Schwan’s]:

    http://www.startribune.com/schwan-s-invests-in-large-scale-shrimp-operation-among-minnesota-corn-fields/440390603/

Post Navigation