Unions: I'm Part Of One. IBEW

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: halik
Whether you like it or not, globalization will hit you like a bag of bricks... those higher wages you speak off are extracted from your employer's profits. You can only pull that long enough until they realize they can move to lower cost provider - where it's states down south or somewhere abroad.

Wake up and smell the roses, manufacturing unions will be extinct in no time.

um.. IBEW is service union, no? (electrician)

employer profits?
how about the CEOs of companies making tens of millions?

if their hands are in the cookie jar, why shouldnt the workers too? the only loser are the shareholders. <looks at stock portfolio> hey, wait a min...

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm perhaps the strongest union supporter on these forums. I've been a member of IUOE for 30+ years and have served as a Business Agent for my union.

OP, congrats to ya. IMO, unions are the best thing for the working man since sex. You get a good day's wages for a good day's work, you get good health and welfare benefits, a pension, and pride of workmanship.

Have unions "screwed the pooch" in some areas? Of course. We've all heard the stories about the lazy thieving sumbitch that the union wouldn't let the company fire, or the old guy with the most seniority who slept all day while some young guy did all the work...and many, many more lies and FUD.

The benefits of unions are manyfold, and like them or hate them, the good working conditions we all enjoy today are the result of union bargaining, union political pressure, and union lobbying for the benefits of their workers.
How stupid must people be if they believe that unions are outdated? If all the unions went away tomorrow, and/or were outlawed, it wouldn't take long for the "Robber Baron" attitude to take over Corporate America and wages and benefits would be slashed en masse.
Can't happen you say? Look at the states that have enacted "Right to Work(for less) laws. Wages in every one have gone down, benefits have gone down, job security has disappeared and working conditions have been reduced to the bare minimums.
Are unions right for every sector? No, probably not, but for MOST working people, unions can be the difference between working a crappy job with crappy wages, or working a crappy job with decent wages.

America Works Best When We Say UNION YES!


BTW, I've also carried a IBEW card for many years...There have been a couple of times when my hall was slow and I'd go to work as one of the PG&E temps from Local 1234 in Walnut Creek, CA.

Whether you like it or not, globalization will hit you like a bag of bricks... those higher wages you speak off are extracted from your employer's profits. You can only pull that long enough until they realize they can move to lower cost provider - where it's states down south or somewhere abroad.

Wake up and smell the roses, manufacturing unions will be extinct in no time.

I've never worked in a manufacturing job, (other than a couple of part-times ones when I was young) so you may be right, as corporate greed takes presidence over what's good for America.
I've worked 30+ years in construction, and that's one area that can't be outsourced...you have to have "boots on the ground" to get things built. The biggest challenges facing the construction trades are "Right to Work (for less) laws" and illegal immigration. Of course, the economy plays a huge part in things as well, since when there's no work because no one is building, it doesn't matter if you make $10/hour or $40/hour...you're still not working.
I've seen union contractors work along side non-union contractors a few times over the years. The union jobs get done right the first time, usually come in under budget, and are done safer than the non-union jobs. Union workers are better trained, (apprenticeships FTW!) have more intensive safety training, and in general are better qualified than their non-union counterparts.
While this may not always be comparable in other trades or industries, it's been my experience over the past 30+ years.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Can't happen you say? Look at the states that have enacted "Right to Work(for less) laws. Wages in every one have gone down, benefits have gone down, job security has disappeared and working conditions have been reduced to the bare minimums.

This is factually incorrect. Oklahoma was a closed shop state until a couple of years ago when the voters overwhelmingly chose Right to Work. Oklahoma has been at the bottom of wages and benefits it's entire history as a closed shop state. High tech and high paying jobs were not coming to the state and the few we had left.

Since the passage of Right to work, wages and benefits are up and we are gaining high tech, high paying jobs. Unemployment is among the lowest in the nation. Oklahoma City is seeing growth it has never experienced in it's entire history.

Unions were necessary in the 1930's but have refused to modernize and are now becoming a hindrance. The economy has changed and the unions still believe this is the 1930's to the 1960's. We no longer have a manufacturing and industrial based economy. It is a service and high tech economy now. Unions have no one to blame but themselves for refusing to change with the times and grow with America. With Union membership at a whopping 12% of workers, 88% of American workers disagree with you that Unions are still necessary.

 

[RU482]

I love what the unions have done for hard working people...I hate what unions have done for lazy self righteous people

Unfortunately, most shops have some of the latter to smear the good

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Can't happen you say? Look at the states that have enacted "Right to Work(for less) laws. Wages in every one have gone down, benefits have gone down, job security has disappeared and working conditions have been reduced to the bare minimums.

This is factually incorrect. Oklahoma was a closed shop state until a couple of years ago when the voters overwhelmingly chose Right to Work. Oklahoma has been at the bottom of wages and benefits it's entire history as a closed shop state. High tech and high paying jobs were not coming to the state and the few we had left.

Since the passage of Right to work, wages and benefits are up and we are gaining high tech, high paying jobs. Unemployment is among the lowest in the nation. Oklahoma City is seeing growth it has never experienced in it's entire history.

Unions were necessary in the 1930's but have refused to modernize and are now becoming a hindrance. The economy has changed and the unions still believe this is the 1930's to the 1960's. We no longer have a manufacturing and industrial based economy. It is a service and high tech economy now. Unions have no one to blame but themselves for refusing to change with the times and grow with America. With Union membership at a whopping 12% of workers, 88% of American workers disagree with you that Unions are still necessary.

You are going to have to paste some links to back that up. The major reason a company comes to a State is how much they are getting from the State, maybe OK isnt paying enough for good jobs.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Can't happen you say? Look at the states that have enacted "Right to Work(for less) laws. Wages in every one have gone down, benefits have gone down, job security has disappeared and working conditions have been reduced to the bare minimums.

This is factually incorrect. Oklahoma was a closed shop state until a couple of years ago when the voters overwhelmingly chose Right to Work. Oklahoma has been at the bottom of wages and benefits it's entire history as a closed shop state. High tech and high paying jobs were not coming to the state and the few we had left.

Since the passage of Right to work, wages and benefits are up and we are gaining high tech, high paying jobs. Unemployment is among the lowest in the nation. Oklahoma City is seeing growth it has never experienced in it's entire history.

Unions were necessary in the 1930's but have refused to modernize and are now becoming a hindrance. The economy has changed and the unions still believe this is the 1930's to the 1960's. We no longer have a manufacturing and industrial based economy. It is a service and high tech economy now. Unions have no one to blame but themselves for refusing to change with the times and grow with America. With Union membership at a whopping 12% of workers, 88% of American workers disagree with you that Unions are still necessary.

While you may be right about increased wages in the job sectors you've mentioned, I suspect we're comparing apples and oranges. I believe that if you ask people who work in union jobs how they've faired, I suspect they will have less glowing opinions than you. I knew several people who worked for a major locomotive repair facility in Boise Idaho. They had a closed-shop union. When the RTWFL went into effect, every one of them was terminated without notice when they returned from the Christmas/NewYear break. Security and Personell were at the main gates, handing out final paychecks attached to applications. they were told they could reapply for their old jobs, but they would all get a 25% cut in pay (at best), company-paid fringe benefits would be slashed, but could be purchased by the employee, and if they wanted to remain in their union they could, but it was not advised if they wanted long term employment.
Is that perhaps a drastic case of "what could happen?" Yes, but from meetings with workers/union members and union leaders from states affected, it's a lot more common than people realize.
The idea of "Right to Work" is great, but people expect to work for a company that has a union, get the same wages and benefits as their union counterparts, get union representation if they have problems, but not have to join the union or pay dues...that makes them freeloaders IMO.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: bctbct
You are going to have to paste some links to back that up. The major reason a company comes to a State is how much they are getting from the State, maybe OK isnt paying enough for good jobs.

I will paste links to back my post up if you will paste links to back up that how much a state pays to buy jobs is the determining factor in a company moving to a particular state.

The truth of the matter is that there are a number of determining factors as to why a company moves to a state. The cost of labor is the biggest factor in that decision and tax incentives are another. (Oklahoma has had excellent tax incentives for years. What it lacked was steady labor cost due to being closed shop.)

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
While you may be right about increased wages in the job sectors you've mentioned, I suspect we're comparing apples and oranges. I believe that if you ask people who work in union jobs how they've faired, I suspect they will have less glowing opinions than you. I knew several people who worked for a major locomotive repair facility in Boise Idaho. They had a closed-shop union. When the RTWFL went into effect, every one of them was terminated without notice when they returned from the Christmas/NewYear break. Security and Personell were at the main gates, handing out final paychecks attached to applications. they were told they could reapply for their old jobs, but they would all get a 25% cut in pay (at best), company-paid fringe benefits would be slashed, but could be purchased by the employee, and if they wanted to remain in their union they could, but it was not advised if they wanted long term employment.
Is that perhaps a drastic case of "what could happen?" Yes, but from meetings with workers/union members and union leaders from states affected, it's a lot more common than people realize.
The idea of "Right to Work" is great, but people expect to work for a company that has a union, get the same wages and benefits as their union counterparts, get union representation if they have problems, but not have to join the union or pay dues...that makes them freeloaders IMO.

Right to Work does not give a company the right to violate Federal Law and fire an entire workforce and force union members to become non-union. That company can still be held liable under federal law for violating it's contract. All Right to Work does is give individuals the right to refuse to join the union and be forced to pay dues to be employed. I hope these people sued that company's ass off.

Federal, railroad and airline employees are exempt from Right to Work under Federal Law.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: bctbct


You are going to have to paste some links to back that up. The major reason a company comes to a State is how much they are getting from the State, maybe OK isnt paying enough for good jobs.

Actually the direct benefits from the state have relatively little to do with it (depending on the size and type of the company). Labor is by far the largest issue in attracting employers. Every other factor can easily be replicated by many other states, but a trained and adaptable workforce is rare.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: bctbct
You are going to have to paste some links to back that up. The major reason a company comes to a State is how much they are getting from the State, maybe OK isnt paying enough for good jobs.

I will paste links to back my post up if you will paste links to back up that how much a state pays to buy jobs is the determining factor in a company moving to a particular state.

The truth of the matter is that there are a number of determining factors as to why a company moves to a state. The cost of labor is the biggest factor in that decision and tax incentives are another. (Oklahoma has had excellent tax incentives for years. What it lacked was steady labor cost due to being closed shop.)

Oh this is going to be so east...for me

Text

The Utah Governor?s Office of Economic Development (GOED) is also courting Hershey with a $2.6 million incentive package in hopes it will choose Ogden over other sites the candy maker is considering in Arizona and Nevada for a new distribution center. The city of Ogden is also offering to make infrastructure improvements.

Text

Hi-Shear considered several locations in Ohio and Indiana before choosing Fort Wayne, but Maude said the state and local incentives were most attractive in Fort Wayne.

The Alliance said in the statement that the city offered the company a $100,000 grant to help with the building improvements. Tax abatements that could save the company up to $173,000 are being considered.

The Indiana Economic Development Corp. offered the company $30,000 in worker training assistance, up to $75,000 in infrastructure assistance and up to $855,000 in state tax credits.

?We?re excited about coming to Fort Wayne, and we look forward to the opportunity,? Maude said.



I could post dozens, this is the first two I came to. Your turn.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: bctbct


You are going to have to paste some links to back that up. The major reason a company comes to a State is how much they are getting from the State, maybe OK isnt paying enough for good jobs.

Actually the direct benefits from the state have relatively little to do with it (depending on the size and type of the company). Labor is by far the largest issue in attracting employers. Every other factor can easily be replicated by many other states, but a trained and adaptable workforce is rare.

We're talking about 100s of million in tax breaks these days. I think it was Toyota who received a sweet heart package from Georgia I think, that would pay all salaries for approx. 3 1/2 years.

Manufacturers are looking for a rural area, no competetion, employees happy with 11-12 bucks per hour. They want tax payers to foot a large portion so they can boost profits.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: bctbct


You are going to have to paste some links to back that up. The major reason a company comes to a State is how much they are getting from the State, maybe OK isnt paying enough for good jobs.

Actually the direct benefits from the state have relatively little to do with it (depending on the size and type of the company). Labor is by far the largest issue in attracting employers. Every other factor can easily be replicated by many other states, but a trained and adaptable workforce is rare.

We're talking about 100s of million in tax breaks these days. I think it was Toyota who received a sweet heart package from Georgia I think, that would pay all salaries for approx. 3 1/2 years.

Manufacturers are looking for a rural area, no competetion, employees happy with 11-12 bucks per hour. They want tax payers to foot a large portion so they can boost profits.

Based on my experience doing economic development in a manufacturing region I would disagree. Manufacturing is a somewhat unique area for labor. Most manufacturing positions now days are automated to a large degree, so most employees are managing machines. This means that employees must have a good knowledge of how to operate complex machinery as well as the ability to work well in a team environment. The biggest question employers have when looking at an area is the labor. How much is available, and how skilled are they. Workforce training is a *huge* issue in manufacturing.

Tax incentives are available almost everywhere. The example of Toyota is unique in that very few businesses are large enough to warrant getting custom-legislated incentives packages. So for the most part, you can get the same incentives in most states. Generally a company will narrow it down to a region first. Then they will look for any locations within that region. For larger companies the region might be the Midwest. For smaller it might be the Milwaukee area. It really depends on their size. So no, the final determining factor is not the incentive package except for the largest companies.


*Will make any replies in the morning if needed (or pm me)

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: TheSiege
Ok so I am part of IBEW Local 354. Which is part of IBEW.
(This will generally be for the electrical union, It might apply to the other unions as well)
So the purpose of a union is this;
1. To give union members, but not non-union members or scabs their rights.
2. To hold hostage and extort from employers.
3. To standardize pay, benefits etc. so that lazy union members get paid the same or more than hard working union members or non-members
4. Better work, Better pay, Better check your facts.

Fixed.

I am a lawyer and have handled various employment matters.

There was a time for unions and because of them, we have a great deal of employee protection laws. However, the time for unions as a presence in the workplace has passed. Unions should be converted from employer-specific organizations to state and national lobbies to help maintain the current laws and to proposed and support new ones.

MotionMan

 

[Old Hippie]

Unions were responsible for the shutting down of the steel industry in the Rust Belt. In the late 70's and early 80's there was a flood of cheap steel from other countries and right to work states. The steel mills approached the Union and it's members about a cut in pay and benefits to save their jobs and to continue operations. The Union leadership rallied the members to oppose any cut in pay and benefits because the union stood to loose millions in dues and contributions. The steel industry could not compete and closed their doors leaving these people without jobs

Soo, my paychecks got smaller because.......? I worked thru it. AFAIK, every contract that was signed in those years contained concessions. No amount of money was going to save those steel companies that did not invest in modern equipment.

 

[gar3555]

I once saw a shirt at one of the major auto plants *cough* GM LDT *cough* it said: "Concessions don't save jobs, militants do."

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: TheSiege

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: TheSiege

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
1) US Law today covers this. There is no value-add from a union here.

2) So basically, you're admitting that unions are a form of extortion because they make it difficult to complete large projects without the help of the union.

3) Except that in Toledo, OH, where I grew up, the non-union shops produced higher-quality results and paid their workers more than union shops because the company didn't have the union protecting incompetent workers.

4) My experience being in a union (UFCW) and talking with several friends who work in the HVAC industry (I do not know what union covers HVAC) has been the opposite. We all agree that the non-union jobs we've had were greatly superior to the union jobs. Non-union jobs mean that you advance according to talent, hard work, and ability, and do not have inept co-workers who can't be fired. Union jobs mean that even if you're the best person there, some moron who has no value but has been there 10 years longer will be paid more because of "seniority".

Unions today are a drain on society. I will never belong to a union again, and I will never hire any company that uses union workers. Unions had their place before the US legal system caught up with industrialization, but they have become nothing more than an expensive redundancy.

ZV

this is the most ignorant thing I have ever read. non union contractors simply don't have the man power. they just cant staff enough people do such large work.

union contractors can make a call into the hall to get more workers. people who are being mistreated, (forced to work further from home then needed. being abused by superiors, and so on) can drag up and take the call and go somewhere more desirable.

ever hear of labor staffing companies? Tradesman international, CLC, etc. I can call tomorrow and get 20-30 people ready to work within a few days. Hell there about as expensive as union labor but they dont have that elitist attitude.

ok do that, when has anyone in the construction world ever done that....close to never. why is that? cause it would be poor quality work. please dont be ignorant

Only unions do quality work now? Hell, I wouldn't hire a union worker to cut my grass...it'd take him 5 hours and 3 of those would be contractually required coffee breaks.

I say this from the bottom of my Rust Belt heart...fuck the unions. Fuck them long. Fuck them hard.

 

[Farang]

/passes out copies of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: TheSiege

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: TheSiege

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
1) US Law today covers this. There is no value-add from a union here.

2) So basically, you're admitting that unions are a form of extortion because they make it difficult to complete large projects without the help of the union.

3) Except that in Toledo, OH, where I grew up, the non-union shops produced higher-quality results and paid their workers more than union shops because the company didn't have the union protecting incompetent workers.

4) My experience being in a union (UFCW) and talking with several friends who work in the HVAC industry (I do not know what union covers HVAC) has been the opposite. We all agree that the non-union jobs we've had were greatly superior to the union jobs. Non-union jobs mean that you advance according to talent, hard work, and ability, and do not have inept co-workers who can't be fired. Union jobs mean that even if you're the best person there, some moron who has no value but has been there 10 years longer will be paid more because of "seniority".

Unions today are a drain on society. I will never belong to a union again, and I will never hire any company that uses union workers. Unions had their place before the US legal system caught up with industrialization, but they have become nothing more than an expensive redundancy.

ZV

this is the most ignorant thing I have ever read. non union contractors simply don't have the man power. they just cant staff enough people do such large work.

union contractors can make a call into the hall to get more workers. people who are being mistreated, (forced to work further from home then needed. being abused by superiors, and so on) can drag up and take the call and go somewhere more desirable.

ever hear of labor staffing companies? Tradesman international, CLC, etc. I can call tomorrow and get 20-30 people ready to work within a few days. Hell there about as expensive as union labor but they dont have that elitist attitude.

ok do that, when has anyone in the construction world ever done that....close to never. why is that? cause it would be poor quality work. please dont be ignorant

Do you know anything about the "construction world"? I am a project manager at a commercial construction company so I do. Unions may have been necessary for large projects in the past but in most fields they are no longer necessary to man very large projects.

We just finished a huge project that required 8 times the manpower that our company was able to provide on our own. We simply took on the roll of a "GC working under a GC" and subbed out portions of the work. We put a full time project manager and superintendent on the job, purchased and coordinated the material/deliveries and handled quality control. The labor cost ran roughly 6% over our in house labor costs and the project as a whole cost approximately 3% more because of the additional subs.

Oh, did I mention that a union company bid on the project as well? Their bid was over 40% more expensive than ours and they would not guarantee that they could meet the fast track schedule. So we got the job done quicker and cheaper than the closest union bid. I can't say that the quality was "better" because the union companies do turn over a quality product to the owner but it was definitely equal.

The ONLY reason that union companies are still in business around here is because of government work. They simply can't compete with other companies on projects that don't require union labor.

Of course this differs from area to area and different trades (usually dependent upon how much of a stronghold the union has on the trade/area) but unions are most definitely NOT required to complete large construction projects and they are NOT required to provide workers with a safe working environment anymore (OSHA, as much of a PITA as they are, handles that quite well now).

 

[jandrews]

I find most unions to be good for employees and bad for employees and the consumer typically. Electricians/Plumbers etc are a pretty good setup for unions. People need electricians no matter what and even if they are very expensive there are very little alternatives.

A good example of unions causing issues are the auto workers. Unions were great for them when americans really had little choice in their automobiles and they could mark up each car thousands of dollars to pay the exhoborant wages for mainly unskilled labor. Immediately when foreign automakers came into play the american auto workers are in the gutter. I dont see how a similar situation could happen to electricians (maybe mexicans trained and brought over by the bus load to work at 1/4 price?) but it will catch up to people eventually.

Are unions good? Sometimes but I think most are more trouble than they are worth nowadays. How do businesses even stay afloat when you go strictly by seniority instead of skill during layoffs etc? It just seems to go against every american value.

 

[jandrews]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Eeezee
I'm a member of a union (UAW - United AutoWorkers, who happen to cover most of the physics graduate students in the UC system) and proud of it.

You're proud of the fact that your union's short-sighted and selfish demands have severely crippled the ability of the domestic automotive industry to compete on a worldwide basis?

ZV

Our demands were selfish? Let's go over which part was selfish

I make $22k/year. This is just enough for food+rent+utilities in Southern California. I live in a 2-bedroom apartment with a room mate, which is the cheapest possible rent in the area. I live a very meager life, and I'm fine with that; eventually I'll have my PhD, I can make more money later. For now, I accept making only $22k/year for doing my job (and a damn fine one at that). No, I don't have beer money.

The university wants to pay me $20.9k/year for the exact same job. I've worked out my budget, I can't afford to live in Southern California on that salary.

We are willing to accept this if we get some other form of compensation, perhaps health insurance, perhaps a dental plan, etc. I would love to have health insurance.

University is unwilling to negotiate (illegal by CA law), using stall tactics (also illegal)

We threaten a strike

University comes to table, the old contract is renewed (same salary) after we've argued that we can't possibly survive off of a 5% pay decrease.

Now, clearly you did not read the post at all, so I'll let that slide. But PLEASE GET A GOD DAMN CLUE.

Weird, my buddy picked up scrap metal and swept the shop floor overnights for about 30/hr, things have changed apparently? Or are you one of the newer contract laborers they hired to save cash?

 

[jandrews]

Originally posted by: TheSiege
this might help you see what unions can do/have done for you

What have unions accomplished for all workers?
Unions have made life better for all working Americans by helping to pass laws ending child labor, establishing the eight hour day, protecting workers' safety and health and helping create Social Security, unemployment insurance and the minimum wage.

Just because something has done good in the past does not mean it is good for the future.

 

[Miramonti]

Unions are enigmas.

At this point they are more valuable for supporting workers rights, but when it comes to wages and benefits are often low performing greedy-@ss bastards, which hurts everyone including themselves.

 

[Deeko]

If I walked out on my job cuz I wasn't happy with my contract, I'd get fired.

This is how it should be. Union striking is bullshit. I've also heard of unions picketing companies that won't use union labor. That's great, they're on the same level as Peta now. Good company to be with.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Deeko
If I walked out on my job cuz I wasn't happy with my contract, I'd get fired.

This is how it should be. Union striking is bullshit. I've also heard of unions picketing companies that won't use union labor. That's great, they're on the same level as Peta now. Good company to be with.

My old law firm was picketed by unions at our old office space because one of the subs at our new space being built on the other side of town was using non-union drywallers.

I tried to take pictures of the picketers, but they all kept hiding their faces.

I found that odd.

MotionMan

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Oh this is going to be so east...for me

Text

The Utah Governor?s Office of Economic Development (GOED) is also courting Hershey with a $2.6 million incentive package in hopes it will choose Ogden over other sites the candy maker is considering in Arizona and Nevada for a new distribution center. The city of Ogden is also offering to make infrastructure improvements.

Text

Hi-Shear considered several locations in Ohio and Indiana before choosing Fort Wayne, but Maude said the state and local incentives were most attractive in Fort Wayne.

The Alliance said in the statement that the city offered the company a $100,000 grant to help with the building improvements. Tax abatements that could save the company up to $173,000 are being considered.

The Indiana Economic Development Corp. offered the company $30,000 in worker training assistance, up to $75,000 in infrastructure assistance and up to $855,000 in state tax credits.

?We?re excited about coming to Fort Wayne, and we look forward to the opportunity,? Maude said.



I could post dozens, this is the first two I came to. Your turn.

A major producer of natural gas, oil and food, Oklahoma relies on an economic base of aviation, energy, telecommunications, and biotechnology.[5] It has one of the fastest growing economies in the nation, ranking third in per capita income growth and leading in gross domestic product growth.[6][7] Oklahoma City and Tulsa serve as Oklahoma's primary economic anchors, with nearly 60 percent of Oklahomans living in their metropolitan statistical areas.

Here is more from the same article on Wikipedia.

Based in the sectors of aviation, energy, transportation equipment, food processing, electronics, and telecommunications, Oklahoma is an important producer of natural gas, aircraft, and food.[5] The state ranks second in the nation for production of natural gas,[58] and is the 27th-most agriculturally productive state, ranking 5th in production of wheat.[59] Six Fortune 500 companies and one additional Fortune 1000 company are headquartered in Oklahoma,[60] and it has been rated one of the most business-friendly states in the nation,[61] with the 7th-lowest tax burden in 2007.[62] From 2000 to 2006, Oklahoma's gross domestic product grew 50 percent, the fifth-highest rate in the nation. It had the fastest-growing GDP between 2005 and 2006, increasing from $122.5 to $134.6 billion, a jump of 10.8 percent,[7] and its gross domestic product per capita grew 9.7 percent from $34,305 in 2005 to $37,620 in 2006, the second-highest rate in the nation.[63] Though oil has historically dominated the state's economy, a collapse in the energy industry during the 1980s led to the loss of nearly 90,000 energy-related jobs between 1980 and 2000, severely damaging the local economy.[64] Oil accounted for 17 percent of Oklahoma's economic impact in 2005,[65] and employment in the state's oil industry was outpaced by five other industries in 2007.[66]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma