The EPI study has the advantage of being comprehensive, thorough, and well-designed from a statistical standpoint. It has the disadvantage of being funded by, and published by, a generally left-leaning think tank. The latter concern is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that other "nonpartisan" studies have found similar results (e.g., here
The problem I had with the EPI study was that unless I missed something in there (quick read on lunch) it doesn't account for change over time, or even starting points. Saying RTW states have lower median incomes doesn't say anything about income growth over time.
The Stevans research seems a bit better, and does appear to address that question, though I'm going to have to look at it again tonight.
kurt_w wrote:These laws don't guarantee anyone a "right to work", they do the distinctly un-libertarian act of using the power of government to dictate the terms of contracts between private parties.
There are two ways of looking at this I think. On the one side the states are setting terms on what a contract between an employer and any union can entail. On the other side, the State is saying that a contract between a union and an employer cannot dictate the terms of employment for an individual not wishing to be affiliated with the union. Not really a libertarian either (though I admittedly have some more libertarian beliefs) but from my understanding of libertarian principals, the individuals rights should be protected to the same degree as the union's and employer's, if not more so.
Now the unions do have a valid complaint that non-union employees would benefit from their bargaining efforts, however non-union employees do not get the same protection union employees get and realistically there is no reason (other than laziness on the part of the employer) why non-union employees should have the same wage/benefits package.