- Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:07 am
#44989
Viewpoints: Researchers, Author, Carroll, Ashenfelter (I assumed that the author uses the studies of Carroll and Ashenfelter to counter the literature by the researchers)
Structure: The First Paragraph introduces the right-to-work laws and its general evaluation of it, and the author makes a claim against it which is supported by evidence. The Second Paragraph further supports the claim with other evidence.
Tone: Informative
Arguments: The First Paragraph introduces the literature concerning right-to-work laws which suggests that they had no significant effect, and then proceeds to introduce Carroll's research to go against this. Carroll suggests that right-to-work laws had actually had significant effects, specifically that the reduce wages within right-to-work states.
The Second Paragraph expands on the effects of the right-to-work laws with respect to the wage differentials between the majority and minority workers, specifically that Black workers in right-to-work states would therefore experience a decline in their relative economic positions.
Main Point: The lines below reflects the main point, which is to suggest that the literature concerning right-to-work laws is insufficient.
"Much of the literature concerning right-to-work laws implies that such legislation has not actually had a significant impact. This point of view, however, has not gone uncriticized." (Line 9-12)
I also repeat the questions posted above:
And reading the passage, I was just so confused with the distinctions (right to work states vs. union shop states, and craft unionism vs. industrial union) so how would I deal with them?
Would it be right to say that the passage is suggesting that the union had a positive impact on the position of minorities, and the right to work states weaken their positions? And going back to the main point, these studies suggest the right to work laws had a significant impact in a negative way?
So confused! Any suggestions how to deal with passages like this?