You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Wed, Dec 19, 2012 : 6:26 p.m.

Right-to-work legislation could benefit from being renamed

By Letters to the Editor

It's time to stop calling the legislation that was passed and signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder a "right-to-work" law. Like the days when anti-abortion forces insisted on being called "pro-life," those who favor this anti-labor legislation are happy to have it called "right-to-work."

The media plays editorialist when it falls into the "right-to-work" trap in its news columns. Please, editors, correct this starting now by referring to the legislation and its fallout by its rightful name, "anti-labor."

Richard W. Osborne

Ann Arbor


Unusual Suspect

Fri, Dec 21, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.

I agree. A more appropriate name would be "Workplace freedom," or more simply and accurately, "Freedom."

Roger Kuhlman

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 9:06 p.m.

How is it "anti-labor" to stop forcing people to join labor unions and pay dues against their will? Coercion is not a democratic principle. Let people voluntarily decide whether they want to join labor unions and pay their dues.

Unusual Suspect

Fri, Dec 21, 2012 : 6:41 p.m.

It isn't. They just want you to think it's anti-labor.

Atticus F.

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 9:19 p.m.

To answer your question; Because there are contractual agreements in place that maintain this as a stipulation for holding a particular job. If you dont like the agreement that was reached between Employer and employee, nobody is forcing you to take the job. Thats why... Is it "coercion" to say to an employee that one of the requirements for employment is that they show up to work on time, or that they be able to lift 20 lbs?

Atticus F.

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 8:57 p.m.

Why does big government think that it's their place to regulate contract negotiations between employees and employers? What if they said you it was acceptable for you to refuse the other duties and requirements that were a contractual requirement for holding a job. A perfect example would be; what if Snyder said "we don't care if your one of your job requirements is to show up to work on time, you have a right as an employee to show up 6 hours late to your job"?

Unusual Suspect

Fri, Dec 21, 2012 : 6:41 p.m.

It is the government's place to ensure freedom.

Atticus F.

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 8:35 p.m.

Most of the teachers I know would give their lives for their students, literally... And now Snyder is doing anything he can to cut their pay and take away their benefits!

Ricardo Queso

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.

Get over it. You should put your energies into convincing your membership that your union brings value for their dues. Professional union staff need to dust off the resume.


Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 11 p.m.

Non member receive all of the benefits of membership under this law. It's called freeloading.

Simon Green

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 11:58 a.m.

Call it Pro Choice.

Unusual Suspect

Fri, Dec 21, 2012 : 6:56 p.m.

Also, we were told by liberals that this logic is invalid. Remember... "If you don't like working in a smoky restaurant you can find a job at one that doesn't allow smoking" was overruled.

Unusual Suspect

Fri, Dec 21, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.

Here's a thought... if you don't like the idea of workplace freedom, you always have the choice of finding another state that doesn't have it.

Atticus F.

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 8:45 p.m.

Here's a thought... If you dont like the idea of accepting a job in which one of the requirements is to join a union, you always have the choice of finding work that doesn't have this requirement.


Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.

that's EXACTLY what it is, the freedom to choose whether you want a union or not.


Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 11:55 a.m.

Senator Majority Leader Randy Richardville certainly had time for David Schostak who isn't even a constituent of Richardvilles. Richardville cosponsored legislation to retroactively relieve his wealthy friend Schostak of his delinquent $2.1 million mortgage to Wells Fargo Bank. Please Mr. Richardville, will you sponsor a bill to relieve me of my $300.00 credit card debt too? (Reference Brian Dickerson's article, "In Lansing a mortgage bill tailored for one," Detroit Free Press Sunday April 1, 2012.)


Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.

Richardville is the ultimate sleazebag

Are you serious?

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 2:52 a.m.

Don't know the answer, but when the existing unions bargain for and receive higher wages and benefits, does management have to give the save wages and benefits to non-union employees who have opted out? If not, then welcome to a two tier wage structure. Might make the anti-union forces understand exactly what they are losing.


Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 10:56 p.m.

1) The two-tiered wage system is under the union contract. Many union contracts have a tier system. That between the AAEA and the AAPS is a good example. 2) To answer the question, the employer remains bound by the contract with the union to provide to the freeloader all pay and benefits negotiated by the union. The freeloader also continues to benefit from all of the protections provided by the union. The freeloader will have grievance rights, job protections, and arbitration rights granted to all union members, and the union ,use represent them in those proceedings. Hence they are, indeed, freeloaders. And the truly interesting part: the isolated random stories that always pop up in these conversations (e.g., that the unions protect drunks and druggies) will still be true under the RTW legislation, whether or not one is a union member. So the proper name for this law ought be: The Right for Freeloaders to Suck Resources from Unions Law.


Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 5:36 p.m.

Or do you mean a workplace that rewards workers for their WORK and not for their union membership? I've never had problems getting proper compensation for my work, except for the one union job that I did have "We'd love to give you a raise, but the union contract prohibits it".

Jay Thomas

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 6:34 a.m.

You mean like the two tiered wage structure that already exists in the auto biz?

Jonny Spirit

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 1:33 a.m.

If you had a union that worked just fine why does some person have to try to destroy it. Just like if a school system is doing just fine why does a dumb Gov have to destroy all school. Was the Gov spanked as a student once on his rich PRIVATE school that now made him hate school teachers and what they stand for. I am so glad the educational system and the Union workers can fix the budget for all you RICH RIGHT WING REP.

Unusual Suspect

Fri, Dec 21, 2012 : 6:45 p.m.

If you have a union that works just fine then people will want to continue to be members.

Jonathan Hurshman

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 12:50 a.m.

So those who oppose this point of view are using an unbiased, neutral term, while its supporters are using an inaccurate, biased one? Funny, that's just the opposite of what those supporters are saying.

Billy Bob Schwartz

Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 12:29 a.m.

It seems a stretch to call a law that forces union members to pay higher dues in order to cover the freeloaders who are always happy to get the good contract that the union got for them without paying a nickel to help cover their share of the cost--a "right to work" law. I call it a right to mooch law.


Thu, Dec 20, 2012 : 12:17 a.m.

Only if we can call Unions, because they have kept drunks and incompetent people on companies payrolls for decades, Darth Bladder clubs. See name calling is fine, as long as you are the one doing it. Get over it.


Wed, Dec 19, 2012 : 11:57 p.m.

It seems a stretch to call a law that would allow an individual worker to decide whether he or she would like to belong to a union, "anti-labor," "anti-union" perhaps, but "anti-labor" no. Obviously, unions will be required to convince workers that they represent value to the individual worker. This is a challenge that unions should not ignore.