Washtenaw County GOP calls on Snyder and other lawmakers to pass state Right to Work law
Leaders of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee are calling on Gov. Rick Snyder and state lawmakers to support enactment of a state "right to work" law protecting employees from being forced to join or pay dues to a labor union as a condition of employment.
The local party's executive committee Thursday night voted to adopt a resolution proposed by the Willow Run Tea Party Caucus saying a right to work law will "guarantee individual freedom of choice and help attract and create new jobs in Michigan."
The resolution specifically calls on Snyder, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville and local state Reps. Mark Ouimet and Rick Olson — all Republicans — to push the issue.
Judy McCoy, a member of the GOP committee, said in a statement that right to work legislation "is a civil rights law that will protect employees from job discrimination on the basis of union membership or financial support."
"No employee should be discriminated against and fired for choosing to join or support a union, or for choosing not to," she said.
The resolution states in part that no person should be required as a condition of obtaining or continuing public-sector or private-sector employment to:
- Resign or refrain from membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of, a labor organization.
- Become or remain a member of a labor organization.
- Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount, or provide anything else of value, to a labor organization.
- Pay to any charity or other third party an amount equivalent to, or a portion of, dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of members of a labor organization.
"With overwhelming Republican majorities in both houses, and a Republican in the governor's office, the only people in Lansing who can prevent Michigan from passing a right to work law are, obviously, Republicans," McCoy said. "We're calling on those Republicans to take the lead in making Michigan a right to work state, starting with Gov. Snyder who's from Washtenaw County, and Sen. Richardville, whose district includes our county."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
omniskeptic
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 11:54 a.m.
Wait ... there's a Washtenaw County GOP? Who knew?
sbbuilder
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:37 p.m.
In a RTW state you can: Join a union if your heart desires. Form a union if that is your wish. Organize, go on strike, rant and rave as much as you want. Or, You can elect to not join a union. So why is this so bad? Nobody is stopping you from consummating your desires with regard to unions in a RTW state. What these laws do is give you the OPTION to do what you want. Something distinctly missing from states such as ours. All those of you who laud choice so much should be jumping for joy over the freedom to choose.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.
See my post above (about half-way through the discussion) Explains it clearly. Good Night and Good Luck
sbbuilder
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 6:41 p.m.
Ghost You are better than that. Try, if you will, to explain how unions are facing destruction if every worker in every one of those states can opt to join a union. They don't seem to want to, though. The unions have made repeated, concerted efforts to unionize workers, to little effect. Unions will face destruction if nobody wants to be a part of them. That is how unions will go away. And, please, don't stoop to calling Republicans by that other misnomer. I thought we were taught at a young age that name calling was for the immature.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 4:55 p.m.
Well, you are correct. There is no point in having a discussion when we are talking about the language warp practiced by RepubliKans. This is not about "Right to Work." It gives no one a "right to work". This is about the destruction of unions. Good Night and Good Luck
sbbuilder
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
Both you guys seem to be intentionally missing the point. Nobody is abolishing anything, certainly the right to unionize. Can we be clear on that point? And if you can still unionize, then what's all the hullabaloo all about? This is a starting point for conversation. If we can't agree on this, then further dicsussion is pointless.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.
So "right to work" really does not mean "right to work" as in "right to vote". Because if "right to work" really meant that people had a "right to work", I'd be all over this in a heartbeat. Good Night and Good Luck
1bit
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 11:01 p.m.
Ideally, what you are saying would be a great idea. The problem is that if unions negotiate a benefit, the non-union employees would automatically receive the same benefit. With no advantage to the unions, why would anyone join? So the net result of the law is to harm unions rather than create good, high-paying jobs. Some agree with that and some disagree, but it seems to me that this type of law would not even be proposed if some larger unions were smarter in supporting both Democrats and Republicans. Trying to destroy unions is a pointless exercise. Like a seesaw, our country swings from right to left and when one side gains the upper hand it invariably shoots itself in the foot by trying to decapitate the other side. Yin and yang if you will. One of my favorite movies is Groundhog Day with Bill Murray. In many ways we live our lives oblivious to our past, but if we learn from our past mistakes we can break free from the same mistakes we make over and over and over again. Unions have a purpose historically. I do not believe their role is yet over, though I do believe they need to adapt in this country to a changing marketplace. Getting rid of them completely, as the RTW laws are trying to accomplish, just resets the clock back to 6:00am and then we'll have to hope we get it right the next time.
Jon Saalberg
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 12:58 p.m.
The GOP - taking from the poor, and giving to the rich - one dollar at a time. It must be tough for the GOP to abide unions, what with their exceedingly successful efforts that have helped workers get fair wages and fair treatment in the workplace. I am surprised that Ouimet would be involved in such efforts, given his immense wealth.
clownfish
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
Nobody really responded to my comment about the Right of people to have work. Why is that? If ya'll are so good with a "righ to work" law I have to assume that you think people have an actual RIGHT TO WORK. Should people take work as offered, smoke filled bars, unsafe conditions, unions, or should they seek work that suits them? Which is it Tea Partiers? You guys cannot have it both ways.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
snap wrote: "I love Ghost's post which eliminates ALL other economic variables of the 11 Right to Work states he lists, including the Civil War's impact on their economies." 1) It is the advocates of RTW who offer simpleton analysis and simpleton solutions. My post is meant to point that out. 2) The South's economy is still struggling due to the Civil War??? An event that ended nearly 150 years ago??? Really???? What an absurd proposition. Good Night and Good Luck
snapshot
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:28 a.m.
I love Ghost's post which eliminates ALL other economic variables of the 11 Right to Work states he lists, including the Civil War's impact on their economies. He missed several of which California is one, and one of the most "progressive states with way too strong unions even though it's a "right to work" state. Right to Work is neither here nor there, it's people who make it or break it. Unions and their ncompromising, uncooperative attitudes and behavor are bad for Michigan's comeback. Unions are "old school" in a new world. Complete incompatability with irreconcilable differences.
Huron 74
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 2:49 a.m.
When a person who has a GED and can put part A into part B is making more money than a teacher, there's something wrong. I firmly believe people should be paid by for their brains, skills and amibition, not because of a piece of paper. Otherwise what kind of society are we creating? Unions have an unfair advantage when the government backs them. Please, stop the emotional rhetoric and look at the job growth in "right-to-work" states. We need jobs here, boys and girls.
picabia
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 9:53 p.m.
Wow, I can't believe these GOP lawmakers want to be recalled that badly.
PLGreen
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.
This is just another way to do away with the Middle Class. All you have to do is spend some time in RTW States and you will see that the Middle Class DOES NOT EXIST. There are the "haves" and the "have nots"
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.
According to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, there are 22 RTW states. Source: <a href="http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm</a> Given the alleged success of RTW states in creating employment, one would expect that a majority of those 22 states would be somewhere between #1 and #25 in terms of state unemployment rates. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Of the 22RTW states, 11 of them are in the bottom 15 in terms of state unemployment. They are (removing D.C. from the stats): #50 Nevada #47 Florida #46 Mississippi #44 Kentucky #43 Georgia #42 South Carolina #41 North Carolina #37 (Tie) Tennessee #37 (Tie) Idaho #35 (Tie) Alabama #35 (Tie) Arizona Source: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm</a> It is worth noting, too, that the RTW states that have very low unemployment rates (e.g., North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Iowa) have very little industry and industry is not flocking to those states. Clearly then, RTW is no silver bullet for what ails our state or our nation. Indeed, looking at by-state unemployment data, it would appear that going RTW is a good way to destroy a state's economy. So what is the agenda here? Simple. Destroy unions by forcing unions to represent free-loading non-members (federal law requires this) without receiving their dues. Dues are the life blood of the union and cannot exist without them. And when unions die, the counterbalance to the plutocrats will be gone, as will the largest source of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party and to its candidates. So this is not about improving the economy. It is about destroying one's political opponents. And if that happens, back to the future—Gilded Age, here we come. That is, if we're not there already. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
Sb wrote: "I made no assumptions. Just stated the obvious." You apparently do not understand the assumption behind the things you wrote. In an earlier post, you said: "How many of those States have shown improvement in their economies since enacting RTW laws? How many of those States show any inclination to remove RTW laws?" These two questions presume that the goal of the RTW laws is economic "improvement," otherwise known as prosperity. And people don't pack up and move because oftentimes they cannot. Physical mobility is a privilege not enjoyed by the poor--it costs money to move--and move to where? It also costs money to find a job. People (black and white) left the South in vast numbers during WW1 and WW2 because of the exploding industrial economy in the North and along the Pacific Coast. They KNEW they could find jobs, no matter where they landed. But, under normal circumstances, that is not the case. Not having the wherewithal to move, they stay put. Good Night and Good Luck
sbbuilder
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:03 p.m.
Ghost I made no assumptions. Just stated the obvious.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.
"If RTW legislation is so darned bad, you would think there would be a mass exodus away from them." You assume RTW is about prosperity for all. It is not. It is mostly about political power and, to a lesser degree, about securing prosperity for a chosen few. The South has a long history, before and after the Civil War, of creating prosperity for the few by keeping the majority, both black AND white, in peonage. Good Night and Good Luck
sbbuilder
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
How many of those States were at or near the bottom already, and passed legislation in order to help them dig out of the hole they were in? How many of those States have shown improvement in their economies since enacting RTW laws? How many of those States show any inclination to remove RTW laws? If RTW legislation is so darned bad, you would think there would be a mass exodus away from them. But I guess all those States just haven't figured out your inimitable logic, Ghost. Can you be so right, and all those States be so wrong?
1bit
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.
As do yours!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
Thanks, 1bit. Given our back and forth on some issues, your kind words says a lot to me. Much appreciated! Good Night and Good Luck
1bit
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
Nice post. As clownfish noted, the phrase "Right to Work" gives away the political part of this as no one is actually advocating any real "right" to have a job. There seems to be a tendency to conflate "unions" with "laziness", "thuggery" and "bureacracy". Those who counter this tend to conflate "unions" with "collective bargaining". There are good and bad organizations/unions, good and bad corporations/corporate behavior. The 20th century U.S. learned the hard way that unfettered capitalism doesn't work well. Businesses need regulation ("rules") because the profit/greed motive alone creates a society of haves and have-nots, of pollution and destruction of natural resources. In fact, when wisely regulated, businesses actually prosper from a level playing field. Finding that balance is the hard part, and efforts by one side to destroy the other (as you aptly note) is counterproductive and harmful.
clownfish
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/3ghbxjs" rel='nofollow'>http://tinyurl.com/3ghbxjs</a>
clownfish
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:36 p.m.
When we were discussing the new no-smoking laws in MI those that support "right to work" laws were insistent that if someone did not want to work in a smokey bar they SHOULD GO ELSEWHERE FOR A JOB!!!!. If one does not like ones job, thinks they are underpaid or exploited they SHOULD GO ELSEWHERE FOR A JOB!!! but, if it means joining a union then all of a sudden these people are all about workers rights to any job they want. What gives with this neo-con-undrum?
clownfish
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
So the GOP thinks people have a RIGHT TO WORK? That must mean that everybody will be given a job, right? Or is the title of this legislation simply more misleading propaganda.
Ron Granger
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.
Have people forgotten how the auto industry abused workers - often physically - before unions drove reforms? Unions serve a very real purpose. There are those who would like to turn Michigan into a state of captive worker-bees. People who can't sell their homes, who can't flee. Those who can flee will. Those who can't must accept whatever terms are offered. And they must pay taxes to support the businesses. That is the future Rick Snyder wants to build. Get to work, drone.
Ron Granger
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.
Pass a law that protects workers from burdensome non-compete agreements. California has those protections. Non-competes are illegal there. Start-up businesses often fail - most do. In Californa that means you go on to another venture. But in places like Michigan, workers are often bound by non-compete agreements that prevent them from working for a year or more. Even workers who are laid off are usually prevented from working. And companies will make broad and absurd claims about who is a competitor. Employers here like to think they own workers. Imagine! This is a big reason why a lot of the best talent is in California. They won't be limited by non-competes at stupid employers who think they can own people.
McGiver
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 11:44 a.m.
Elections have consequences. We, the majority, won and now we get our way. We can now clean up the mess the democrats and their union thugs have created leaving this state and many businesses nearly bankrupt.
clownfish
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
Except when Obama and the dems swept and passed health insurance reform, then the "we won the elections" mantra was a non-starter with the same people that are now crowing about winning the elections. Then it was about "tyranny". Why so many flip flops from people that claim to have "core values"?
Waterdipper
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 1:47 p.m.
If you were truly the "majority" ("We, the majority..."), you wouldn't be crowing about having "won", as you never would have "lost" in the first place. The "majority" you seem to align with somehow lost after the Engler Administration in Michigan, and after the Bush Administration at the national level. Your "majority" will only retain power as the majority of voters are happy. Alienate and/or irritate enough voters and the "majority" will change.
Enso
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 9:45 a.m.
It's a race to the bottom, and Republicans are leading the way. Right to work states leave the economy of those states in worse condition than they were before. I mean, that's just what the evidence says. If you want to believe Republican rhetoric, than so be it, and hold on to your hat.
Floyd Griffey
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 12:26 p.m.
Actually... the hat industry was destroyed by President Kennedy (a Democrat) not wearing a top hat to his inauguration. Maybe you could say "hold on to your ball cap."
Enso
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 9:37 a.m.
The fact is = the less productive the American worker is, the more jobs there will be.
clownfish
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.
The highest productivity auto plants in North America are union shops. Not in Kentucky, not in Mississippi,
Cash
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 8:59 a.m.
This is what Teapublikans want for Michigan. GIVE and TAKE. GIVE taxpayer money to major corporations in tax breaks, increasing taxes on the working poor and elderly. TAKE taxpayer rights away to protect those same coporations.
snapshot
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 5:46 a.m.
Or a way of keeping unions from treating taxpayers like crap. Just say no to union bullying.
snoopdog
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 4:57 a.m.
The right choice, the only choice if this state is to survive ! Good Day
John Q
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 4:07 a.m.
I always love to read the union bashing that goes on. We're told how terrible unions are and how bad it is that people have to belong to a union. When asked the reasons why the unions are so bad, we're told how their members are overpaid and get too many benefits! Notice that anti-union people never talk about their ability to get workers better pay and benefits without union representation. Instead they talk about "choice". When the only thing anti-union people have to sell you on their position is "choice", it's clear they don't have the interests of workers in mind.
Floyd Griffey
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
John.. read the comment just before yours. You may want to re-do your comment to conform to reality.
Enso
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 9:40 a.m.
All of Germany's auto makers are unionized and they didn't go belly up. That entire country is unionized and their economy is booming compared to the rest of Europe and US. It is cowardly to claim that a small union could topple the largest auto manufacturer in the world. Blame the bosses and executives. The people building larger and larger Hummers and SUVs when the rest of the world was building smaller more efficient cars. The bosses and their choices are what sunk the auto industry. Not unions.
snoopdog
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 5:03 a.m.
You need examples John ? GM and Chrysler which went belly up and screwed their owners( stockholders) and employees. Typical unions inflate hourly pay for unskilled workers that cannot be supported by the high prices required for the products they sell. You are living in fantasy land my friend. Most all your union jobs have gone south to non union workers who are happy to work for 15 bucks less an hour. Good Day
Huron74
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11:37 p.m.
Over the years I've worked in two different jobs where union membership was required. In one, I never ever saw my so-called representative but around (union) election time. AFAIK they never did anything of value or benefit to me the whole time I worked there. The salaried guys who I worked with had the same deal and pay as what I got more or less. Ditto with the other unionized job I had although I often had to take an hour off work (with pay) to listen to political propaganda on behalf of candidates for the Democratic Party. IIRC the unions both had the most byzantine organizational hierarchy I've even seen as well. We worker bees got to vote for our unit rep, and that was it. Every other office in the union was elected by committees or appointed by those already in power. No love lost for me.
Huron74
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
I didn't ask a question. I was stating the facts. The salaried guys I worked with got slightly less money than I did but they didn't have to pay union dues or obey union work rules. Hence they tended to finish up earlier (i.e., less work effort). The only real effort by the union was to save the high seniority old timers from being fired for being drunk, stoned, theft, absenteeism, and other bad behavior. But these same old timers wouldn't sacrifice one penny in pay or benefits to save jobs for the short timers like me. Back in the day unions might have served as a form of protection for industrial workers but today they're just job killing parasites.
John Q
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 4:01 a.m.
"AFAIK they never did anything of value or benefit to me the whole time I worked there. The salaried guys who I worked with had the same deal and pay as what I got more or less." You answered your own question. If there was better salary and benefits to be had outside the union, the non-union salaried guys should have been able to negotiate for it. Without union representation, everyone would have been getting lower pay and benefits.
1bit
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:59 p.m.
Pursuing political legislation that will attract lower paying or menial jobs is a waste of time. Granted, menial jobs are better than no jobs but we should be aspire to developing new industries rather than fight a 20th century battle over again.
mojo
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.
Ever wonder why just about the last 25 major Auto Plants that opened in this country - did _not_ open up in Michigan?
DonBee
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:24 a.m.
drew blows - Wonder this about quality of life. The U-6 indicator for Michigan (the broadest unemployment index) is over 20 percent. How is your quality of life when you have exhausted unemployment, don't have a job and are under the gun to keep your house?
drew_blows
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11:25 p.m.
Ever wonder where the Right to Work States rank in quality of life indicators?
DonBee
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.
Back in the day unions were formed there were no government safe guards. OSHA did not exist MIOSHA did not exist Wage and Hour laws did not exist Discrimination laws did not exist The National Labor Relations Board did not exist Material Data Safety Sheets did not exist Tort Law for workplace injury did not exist ...and so forth. Much of the protection that unions brought to the workplace has been moved to regulation and legal protection. That is not to say unions are good or bad, only the environment that we work in today is very different than it was 100 years ago. Also at the time unions formed, they did not provide large campaign contributions to either party, finding both to be a problem. I have no opinion on unions, but like the political parties and corporations, the leaders of unions seem to be more focused on power than on the welfare of the people. Several union presidents have never actually worked in the jobs their members do.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.
Ahhhh. One of DonBee's famous "I have no opinion" posts, yet every fact he cites leads in only one direction. Good Night and Good Luck
David Briegel
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 4:28 a.m.
Without unions and Liberals most of the above would not exist. You know, "the good ole days"!
grye
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:10 p.m.
Several years ago I interviewed an individual high up in the UAW about the necessity of unions. He explained how things used to be under Henry Ford and why unions were formed. The working conditions, safety issues, etc. were definitely reasons to have a union. I then asked him if the owner of a company was a good individual, treated his employees fair, gave them good salaries and pay increases, would a union be required. He told me infatically that the union would still be required, even in this scenario. It was obvious that the union mentality would never accept anything else. Unions had a place. Unions are not always needed now and often are a detriment to the employees and the company. They are self servicing to themselves. However if a union is needed and wanted by a majority of employees, employees that do not want to be in the union should not be forced to join. That is the premise of this legislation, not the fear Cash would like to invoke that all employees would be treated unfairly by the ogre-like company management. Cash is trying to put fear into the hearts of good workers that should be able to make a choice.
Domey
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:08 a.m.
Because, after all, most employers are "a good individual, treated his employees fair, gave them good salaries and pay increases" like Wal-Mart right?
aavoter
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:07 p.m.
Are they also proposing changing the state's name to Michissippi? Welcome big polluters--we have "relaxed" those pesky environmental regulations and we are breaking the unions--so bring all those low wage jobs here!!!!! Do Republicans want low wage jobs or living wage jobs? Anyone that does not believe labor unions raise wages, benefits and safety for all workers in the state-- needs to think again.
drew_blows
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11:31 p.m.
Grye: If you apply for a job at a Union Shop do you not have the option to accept that job.
grye
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.
Would rather have a choice or be told what to do? I would rather be able to make my own decisions.
RayA2
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7 p.m.
Is there any doubt at all anymore in anyone's mind who the teapublikans represent? The grotesquely named "right to work" laws have very purposely destroyed unions in other, mostly southern states. Their membership has been decimated by these laws that encourage freloading by non-members on member sacrifices. As union membership has declined, so has all of our compensation, unless your in the top 1%. I am not a union member but I know well that collective bargaining is all that is between me and feudal world as a serf. Collective bargaining stands between wealthy teapublikans and their dreamed of utopia where, like 3rd world countries, they live in walled off communities with their own schools and cloistered society and the rest of us live 30 occupants to a 400 sq ft shack. Next election we need badly to make tapublikans pay for even mentioning these attacks on the middle class.
Floyd Griffey
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 12:13 p.m.
RayA2 ... i'm confused, what does ..."we need badly" mean?
A2K
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:34 p.m.
the difference is that folks in the US have expectations about standard-of-living and still believe that hard work and education can make for moderate successes in life...I don't think the walled enclaves of elites would last long if there's starving masses at the gate.
Bogie
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.
This issue is funny to me. In a right to work state, unions are given the same opportunities as in other states. The process is protected by federal law. The only difference, is that workers have a choice. I lived in Tennessee for several years. One time, I was talking to this gentleman. He was the president of a United Steel Worker's local. I asked him (he represented a Bridgestone tire factory), what was the percentage of hourly workers, that were union. He answered, "ninety nine and a half percent." Does this really sound detrimental to unions? I think the hard push against this, comes from Union leadership. With a closed shop state, there is no alternatives. You can have a "jimmy hoffa" type, spending your money illegally, with no recourse. It's the leadership of these unions, that will feel it. These laws don't effect the guy in the trenches; just the people at Black lake and Vegas conventions. If you do not like the way you are represented, you could disconnect. Unfortunately, this is about big money- big LABOR money. I do hope, this leglislation passes, for one reason. It would give the state a more business friendly reputation. Maybe we could shun the old stereotypes, that the rest of the nation has tagged us with.
xmo
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
I guess I am "PRO-CHOICE" I support the right to work law.
Martin Church
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:29 p.m.
Yes lets pass right to work. And then the employees can hold the unions accountable for what they do. After all who should pay union dues when they are working for 7.45 and hour. But that is what is happening in many industries. Or paying union dues to unions who pay there union bosses more than they are worth. don't believe that look at the wage paid the Grocery store union bosses. They have fewer workers making large sums and are paid more than the UAW President. Let return the rights to the works to determine if union membership is worth the price. also lets add an admendment to this bill that requires the elimination of self service registers. Kroger's and Meijers have scarifcied labor to allow the customer to do the work of employee's who would have been members of the union. and the union has allowed it.
John Q
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:18 p.m.
"The unions bought him with hundreds of millions during the last election cycle." Who knew that Obama was anti-union until the campaign contributions started flowing.
John Q
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 3:53 a.m.
"But the payoffs guaranteed the aggressive abuses we're seeing right now in states that are trying to fix the problem." I don't know what you mean by "aggressive abuses", perhaps a reference to Scott Walker's actions? But again, you make a claim that's nonsense as if we're to believe that Obama was going to take anti-union positions except for the donations that he got.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:55 p.m.
He wasn't. But the payoffs guaranteed the aggressive abuses we're seeing right now in states that are trying to fix the problem. Like Wisconsin and South Carolina.
David Cahill
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
It' s hardly big news that the Republicans are acting (gasp) just like Republicans!
Domey
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:03 a.m.
Funny how people think the left hand (democrat) and the right hand (republican) don't belong to the same monster.
Cash
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.
At least call it what it is, and stop being cowardly about it. Corporate Right to Treat Workers like Crap Act.
RayA2
Wed, Jun 15, 2011 : 12:15 a.m.
Cash, you hit it on the head. These teapublikans pushing for workers to be able to freeload on union dues and sacrifices would probably scream bloody murder if a law allowing freeloading on their business was passed. This is a plain and simple union busting action. The comment about union bosses controlling their members is so transparently off the mark. Unions represent their members in collective bargaining. They give them the ability to bargain as a group, rather than individually, for their services. How is that not the free market at work?
Mike K
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.
Parisan rubbish - Republicans are bad trying to @%&$ the common worker (like me) and the Democrats are there to save me LOL. Thanks but no thanks. Same old same old from Cash. We live in a competitive world. Get out and compete.
clownfish
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
When we were discussing the new no-smoking laws in MI those that support "right to work" laws were insistent that if someone did not want to work in a smokey bar they SHOULD GO ELSEWHERE FOR A JOB!!!!. If one does not like ones job, thinks they are underpaid or exploited they SHOULD GO ELSEWHERE FOR A JOB!!! but, if it means joining a union then all of a sudden these people are all about workers rights to any job they want. What gives with this neo-con-undrum?
Jimmy McNulty
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 11:52 a.m.
Cash has to name-call and bash the evil corporations and republicans to get her point across. "God forbid anyone challenge corporate control over this country?" More appropriate is God forbid anyone daring to challenge the union control over workers.
Cash
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 8:54 a.m.
I understand EXACTLY what this is. It is a move by the Republican party to destroy the rights of Americans to organize to protect their rights. Repubs claim to be all about protecting rights...unless it comes to the citizen's right to organize. God forbid anyone challenge corporate control over this country.
sbbuilder
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:11 p.m.
Cash This is all about parity. Currently, you don't have a choice whether to join a union or not. If you want to be an auto worker in Michigan, you're gonna have to be a member of the UAW. No choice. This law is simply saying, hey, if you want to opt out, go ahead. If you want to still be part of a union, that's fine too. That's choice. Understand?
gsorter
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
Or we could call it "Workers right to not be coerced into supporting non-productive causes"
grye
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
What is wrong when an individual who would like a job but doesn't want to join the union? That is the definition of a right-to-work state. Currently an individual is required to join the union. No choice. And doesn't the "Left" encourage "choice"?
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:54 p.m.
How so? I don't think you understand what right-to-work legislation means.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.
It will take more than legislation - Obama himself has made this a national issue, and will bring federal interference if he can (just take a look at what he's doing in South Carolina). The unions bought him with hundreds of millions during the last election cycle. Twenty-two states have right-to-work legislation in place. So there are only 22 states competing for new manufacturing jobs. With all of Michigan's unemployed, I don't see how the Democrats here can make a strong case for avoiding this legislation. Avoiding it only protects the few and the powerful.
omniskeptic
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 11:57 a.m.
I'm sorry ... your post makes no sense in any language I'm familiar with. Democrats and Republicans can avoid this legislation by voting against legislators who support it, just like anything else. But it's the "It will take more than legislation ..." part that confuses me. What are you talking about?
clownfish
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
So you would say that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley "bought" George Bush and friends? Isn't it interesting that with Citizens United corporations and unions can give freely, money equaling free speech, but those that support Citizens still whine about unions doing what everybody else does.