Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on July 21, 2010

Click here to view bill details.

This surely is the dream of the Mackinac center. It would more appropriately be making Michigan a "right to be exploited" state.

No way.

 I'm all for this! It works great in arizona and john mccain developed a workers compensation system that should be utilized here to!! Unions were a great organization when great grandpapi was around, back in the golden years. But times are a changing!!  Unions have destroyed the state of michigan since the day they buried hoffa somewhere. Unions are just another organization of hoodlum leaders who extort money from the little guy and hardheaded laborers who drink their kool aid and get overpaid and underworked. Not to mention the nepotism. Motivated people want a constitutionally protected right to work, And to have a chance to work their way to the top and prosper, to flourish, to own their own business, to start a non profit,  like so many others have done in this country.  We need work!! a right to work!! No unions!! And federal and state government leadership to bring all types of jobs into this state!! As well as diplomatically influence and compel other countries to allow the american venture capitalist to do business in their countries and bring more work to the u.s. And quit f ing the darn business owners out of their taxes you envious bad attitude sloths!!! Let businesses grow and let the rich get richer!! What the heck do you think brings more work into a community? Over taxed, belittled, disrespected, wealthy people?? Wake up!!!

This is a garbage bill proposed by a right wing nut job that I wish I could vote out of office. This isn't Arizona and the Unions are still the best thing for the working man/woman. So I'ld ask everyone to make sure this doesn/t pass. I've lived in Right not to work states and it's just something that takes away all job security and gives employers the power to stop pensions and benefits while they stuff there pockets. The only thing it could accomplish is lower wages and bigger profit margins for the rich! 

JOHNJACOBJINGLEHYMERSCHMIDT:

I'm all for this! It works great in arizona

The obvious suggestion here is to go to Arizona and seek employment. What, can't find a job there either? Maybe it's because of a recession, and not anything to do with being a "right to be exploited" state.

No one is forced to join a union. If someone applies for, and gets a job at a unionized organization, they are required to join the union after a certain period of time, but only as a part of a collective bargaining agreement. So-called "right to work laws" would outlaw union shops, making it very difficult for unions to function and bargain for their members. This would further accelerate the rapid decline of the middle class, and increase the power and influence of corporations.

JOHNJACOBJINGLEHYMERSCHMIDT:

Let businesses grow and let the rich get richer!!

The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last fifteen years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest-paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.

During the Bush years alone, from 2000-2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago.

"No one is forced to join a union. If someone applies for, and gets a job at a unionized organization, they are required to join the union after a certain period of time, but only as a part of a collective bargaining agreement. So-called "right to work laws" would outlaw union shops, making it very difficult for unions to function and bargain for their members. This would further accelerate the rapid decline of the middle class, and increase the power and influence of corporations."

Wow.  I'm wondering if more unfounded leaps of logic could be packed into three sentences!

 No one is forced to join a union.  Well, unless they want to work somewhere that has a union contract, or if 50% +1 of their coworkers are fooled into voting for a union, or if their employer is strong-armed into a "card check agreement" that forces union representation on a group of workers without a secret vote.  Even if that union was "voted in" many decades ago, even if the workers haven't seen a rep in years, even if they can't get a phone call returned from their union, those workers must keep paying those dues and if they don't like it?  Hey, says the union, go find another job.  

 "Right to Work laws" would make it difficult for unions to function and bargain for members.  Well, yes, because RtW would require a union local earn the dues and grants workers their right to withhold their dues if they don't like their service.   And yes I imagine this would make it a wee bit more difficult for unions to "function" the way they do now, which is however they dmn well please.  

(everyone hold on to something, here comes the biggest leap of all)

If unions can't "function" the way they do now that would further accelerate the rapid decline of the middle class.   Of course there's not one thing wrong with the way unions have been "functioning" so their right to "function" however they dmn well please should be preserved at all cost, even if unions are functioning themselves into utter irrelevancy outside of the public sector.  

And somehow, facts be damned, unions preserve what's left of the middle class, even if the vast majority of current unionized workers are making poverty wages and the historic "middle class" was primarily made up of small business people, independent contractors, managers, farmers, commissioned workers and other non-union professionals.  And even though unions have done next to nothing in the last 25 years to raise the living standards of represented minimum wage workers or preserve the jobs of high paid union professionals we are all supposed to just assume if they can continue to rake in the dues without accountability they will somehow "rebuild the middle class".  hmm.  I wonder how this whole "unions are saving the middle class" thing works!

Oh.  And if unions in Michigan could no longer collect dues without the consent of the worker, and had to earn those dues through voluntary union membership,  somehow giving workers more control and power over their own work lives would somehow be bad.  That's because union leaders and their staff lap monkeys have so much contempt for working people it's assumed working people can't be trusted to think for themselves, we all need some college kid with a union job to protect us from the evil corporations and independent thought.  

 

Put another way ---

If unions are so darn wonderful, why can't workers be trusted to pay for them voluntarily??

NancyJE:

 No one is forced to join a union.  Well, unless they want to work somewhere that has a union contract, or if 50% +1 of their coworkers are fooled into voting for a union, or if their employer is strong-armed into a "card check agreement" that forces union representation on a group of workers without a secret vote.  Even if that union was "voted in" many decades ago, even if the workers haven't seen a rep in years, even if they can't get a phone call returned from their union, those workers must keep paying those dues and if they don't like it?  Hey, says the union, go find another job.  

Apparently you agree with me. No one is forced to join a union, since no one is forced to seek employment where they have a union contract. And if a majority of workers want a union, they have, in this country, and state, the right to have one. Would Michigan be able to secede from the union because it doesn't want to pay taxes to the federal government? Pretty sure that question has been settled. You can rail on and on about some fantasy union that doesn't return calls or serve it's members, but that is just your fantasy, not reality.

Right to work laws would no more allow a union to function than individual states being able to secede from the union would allow our nation to function.

The decline of the middle class has paralleled the decline in union membership. And for your information, the middle class is defined by income, not job description. It covers a wide range of professions and jobs. The downward pressure on incomes is a reflection of corporate greed and global pressures.

Unions need the consent of the workers now to collect dues. One may either join or not join a union, work or not work where unions have been chosen by the workers as their representative. Union leaders are union members, and workers do need well educated union leaders to represent them adequately. Corporations are in it for the money, unions are in it for their members.

Nothing about Right to Work legislation keeps people from forming a union.  Nothing.  RtW only allows workers in a 

"union shop" the freedom to negotiate their own contract or work without a contract.  It also allows workers to abstain from financially supporting a union that they think does not serve them or promotes a political agenda they find morally or philosophically objectionable.

Your analogy to states' rights and succession is so poorly informed it's not worth debating.  Clearly you slept through most of American Government.  

 

You're comparing Right to Work to the Confederacy?  What?  Tell us this -- is there intelligent life on your planet?

gypsy:

Apparently you agree with me. No one is forced to join a union, since no one is forced to seek employment where they have a union contract. And if a majority of workers want a union, they have, in this country, and state, the right to have one. Would Michigan be able to secede from the union because it doesn't want to pay taxes to the federal government? Pretty sure that question has been settled. You can rail on and on about some fantasy union that doesn't return calls or serve it's members, but that is just your fantasy, not reality.

Right to work laws would no more allow a union to function than individual states being able to secede from the union would allow our nation to function.

You are aware I HOPE that our system of government is designed so the will of the majority does not trample upon the rights of the individual, yes? 

As for fantasy unions that don't return phone calls -- perhaps you would grace us with how it is you are so convinced that do-nothing union locals DON'T exist?  Is there some watchdog government agency that checks to make sure unions properly serve their members?  Or is it just that union leaders are of course so decent, honorable and COMPETENT?  Because I've spoken personally with hundreds of people who feel their union doesn't serve them and the elections are so crooked they can't do anything to fix their union either.  Also, the NLRB lists thousands of charges against unions for failures of "Duty of Fair Representation".  Are you suggesting all those complaints are baseless?  And if your union is a do-nothing union what are you supposed to do?  Just keep paying them?

 

gypsy:

The decline of the middle class has paralleled the decline in union membership. And for your information, the middle class is defined by income, not job description. It covers a wide range of professions and jobs. The downward pressure on incomes is a reflection of corporate greed and global pressures.

Unions need the consent of the workers now to collect dues. One may either join or not join a union, work or not work where unions have been chosen by the workers as their representative. Union leaders are union members, and workers do need well educated union leaders to represent them adequately. Corporations are in it for the money, unions are in it for their members.

Sigh.  Just because something parallels something doesn't mean one causes the other.  There are dozens of economic, political and sociological factors that could be implicated in the decline of the middle class and the decline in union density. In other words, WE LIVE IN A DIFFERENT WORLD than the Reuther brothers did.  

The middle class was its largest post-WWII when American manufacturing was booming because the world needed to be rebuilt and only America was equipped to do it.   And the ensuing labor shortage drove up both the union and non-union standards of living. And once the economy could no longer sustain constant wage increases, employers had to say no to wage demands or take the work overseas.  Still following me?

As for defining the middle class, please read more slowly and perhaps aloud this time -- a majority of long time unionized jobs still fall below the poverty level, (janitors, aides, clerks, laundry workers, maids, food service workers) even under decades of union contracts.  And another significant percentage of union members have household incomes that put them close to the upper class.  In other words union does not equal middle class.  Got it?    So promoting unionism doesn't equal expanding the middle class.  

Now, perhaps manufacturing growth would expand the middle class -- but just how the hell does making unions more widespread create manufacturing jobs?  And don't say that unions will somehow force corporations to create jobs and pay their CEOs and shareholders less.  No union contract has that power and neither do union bought politicians.  The only way unions have EVER created jobs is by expanding government.  

By the same token, a majority of the traditional economic "middle class" were NEVER union members -- they were small business owners, independent contractors, salespersons, managers and other professionals.  Their incomes were never driven by union wage increases but by demands for their services.    Are you following me, or do I need to explain all this again using pictures?

And unions absolutely DO NOT need the consent of members to collect dues in a closed union shop.  Oddly enough, a union legally only requires the consent of the employer to a "union rights" clause in a signed union contract to collect dues.  

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you could try a couple more fonts to make your point better, or underline a little more often, or put your keyboard in caps lock. And insulting me doesn't make your point, it only points to the desperation in your argument.

Comparing the states seceeding from the union is a good analogy to what would happen if a closed shop was made illegal, as I'm sure you know. Unions would be unable to effectively bargain for their members. A union is by defintion a cohesive group of workers with mutual interest, just as the United States is a cohesive group of states, bound together for a mutual interest. Allowing some states to enjoy the fruits of this union without obligations to the others would be similar to allowing some workers to enjoy the fruits of union gained benefits without an obligation to support other union members. It would also make the individual states much weaker than they would be united, as the individual worker is much weaker than when he unites in solidarity with his fellow workers.This bill is an attempt to evicerate unions in Michigan.

Unions do not create jobs, and I never said they did. Unions protect workers. They give them the bargaining power to gain the best wages and benefits from their employer. At this very moment, Chinese workers are gaining strength and demanding better wages and safer workplaces. Corporations are now looking at moving their operations to more "friendly" nations, meaning lower wages and less protections for the workers. Where will this end, this race to the bottom?

Yes, we do live in a different world than the Reuther's did. I didn't say  the decline in union membership caused the decline in the middle class. I did say that global pressures and corporate greed caused incomes to decline, and I stand by that statement. The recent near economic collapse is evidence of corporate creed and global pressures. You are either blind to this fact, or complicit in propagating it further.

If your goal is to see only small business owners, independent contractors, salespeople etc. being considered middle class, destruction of unions is a good way to accomplish that. My goal is to see the middle class include more people, not less. A bigger middle class is a middle class that can sustain our consumer driven economy.

Get the picture?

NancyJE:

You're comparing Right to Work to the Confederacy?  What?  Tell us this -- is there intelligent life on your planet?

Yes, there is. I live on Earth. Where may I ask do you live? Maybe some far off planet that hasn't evolved intelligent life yet.

NancyJE:

You are aware I HOPE that our system of government is designed so the will of the majority does not trample upon the rights of the individual, yes? 

Last I heard, this is a bill that must be voted on, and the majority wins the vote. If anyone's rights are thought to be trampled on, they can petition the courts. That's what they're for. I know this must be hard for you to understand, living on another planet and all.

NancyJE:

As for fantasy unions that don't return phone calls -- perhaps you would grace us with how it is you are so convinced that do-nothing union locals DON'T exist?  Is there some watchdog government agency that checks to make sure unions properly serve their members?  Or is it just that union leaders are of course so decent, honorable and COMPETENT?  Because I've spoken personally with hundreds of people who feel their union doesn't serve them and the elections are so crooked they can't do anything to fix their union either.  Also, the NLRB lists thousands of charges against unions for failures of "Duty of Fair Representation".  Are you suggesting all those complaints are baseless?  And if your union is a do-nothing union what are you supposed to do?  Just keep paying them?

I am not convinced do-nothing local unions do not exist. Matter of fact, knowing human nature, I am quite certain they do. But I am quite sure they are not the norm, just as corrupt businesses are not the norm. I wouldn't want to destroy all businesses just because there are a few that are. Why would you want to destroy all unions because of a few do-nothing locals. Members are the watchdogs of their unions, and can vote out representatives they believe are not serving them appropriately. The NLRB also list thousands of charges against employers for unfair labor practices, and keep in mind, the NLRB is made up of political appointees.

Another analogy for you pertaining to the last sentence in your post. Maybe you'll get this one. If you don't like the way your tax dollars are being spent, what are you supposed to do, quit paying them?

Explain to me exactly how Right to Work legislation destroys unions because I'm so stupid I just don't get it.  There are unions in existing RtW states, aren't there?  How do they stay afloat?  There are also thriving unions in countries that don't allow closed shop.  So how do they attract and keep such devoted members?

And if a union is doing right by it's members, won't they want to pay the dues?  Sure I can imagine a handful of folks would try to cheat the system, but if the union is getting good contracts and enforcing them, wouldn't the members want to keep the union around?  And if the majority of members don't want to pay for their union do they then even deserve a union?   

Is the operating margin in a union so narrow that a few folks not paying their dues on time will close down a union?  Then how is it so many unions can afford new office buildings,  and to send hundreds of organizers and members to work on political campaigns?  How much do union reps get paid? What's the overhead?  A contract only has to be renegotiated every three years or so, and maybe the rep has to come out a couple times a month for a few hours to do grievances and maybe once or twice a year you need an arbitrator, how much does it cost to have a union anyway?

And, technically speaking, it's not illegal for a state to secede from the Union, as a matter of fact, the way the Republic is constructed it's the threat of secession that keeps the federal government in check.  (pardon the underline but that's really really important)  States don't secede because their citizens agree the benefits of remaining a state trump any benefits of standing alone.  But if a unionize worker doesn't feel like he's getting anything from having a union contract why can't he or she just negotiate his own?

oh.  And please explain what you expect a worker to do if they are in a union shop where the union does nothing and the elections are crooked so the same people keep getting voted in.  What should that worker do to get his money back or to stop payment on a service he's not getting?

NancyJE:

Explain to me exactly how Right to Work legislation destroys unions because I'm so stupid I just don't get it.

I'm more than happy to.

According to a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision: "A union shop arrangement has been thought to distribute fairly the cost of these (representative) activities among those who benefit, and it counteracts the incentive that employees might otherwise have to become ‘free riders’ -- to refuse to contribute to the union while obtaining benefits of union representation that necessarily accrue to all employees."

NancyJE:

Is the operating margin in a union so narrow that a few folks not paying their dues on time will close down a union?  Then how is it so many unions can afford new office buildings,  and to send hundreds of organizers and members to work on political campaigns?

There would be more than a "few" not paying, if they didn't have to. Again I use the analogy, how many Americans would pay taxes if they didn't have to?

Members volunteer to work for political campaigns. I have done so many times, and received not one single dime.

NancyJE:

And, technically speaking, it's not illegal for a state to secede from the Union, as a matter of fact, the way the Republic is constructed it's the threat of secession that keeps the federal government in check.

Technically, it is illegal for states to secede. You need to do a little more research than Glen Beck's blackboard. If you are referring to the Declaration of Independence to come to this conclusion, as Beck has said, you do not understand that the Declaration of Independence has no standing in constitutional law. I would again like to remind you of that little skirmish called the Civil War.

If a unionized worker feels he is not getting the proper representation, there are legal procedures he can use, including actually suing the union.

In 1947, the Republican-controlled Congress passed an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act allowing states to ban union-security agreements. Since that time, 22 states have done so -- most of them in the South right after the amendment was passed. Union membership plummeted in those states, and today the rate of unionization is about half what it is in free-bargaining states.

Right-to-work is plain-and-simple union-busting. It is designed to encourage "free riders," and to weaken or destroy unions. And that’s exactly what it has accomplished in the states that have these laws. Worst of all, it has translated into lower wages and benefits, a diminished standard of living, substandard legal protections and more dangerous working conditions for all workers – not just union members -- in right-to-work states.

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that 19 of the 25 states with the highest worker fatality rates were right-to-work states, while just three of the bottom 25 states were right-to-work states. A study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that workers in right-to-work states earned an average of 6.5% less than their counterparts in states without the law. None of the 22 right-to-work states had an average annual pay level above the U.S. average.

When wages fall, state tax revenues fall. That means less funding for education, transportation and other vital programs. Right-to-work is bad not just for union members, but for everyone.

gypsy:

In 1947, the Republican-controlled Congress passed an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act allowing states to ban union-security agreements. Since that time, 22 states have done so -- most of them in the South right after the amendment was passed. Union membership plummeted in those states, and today the rate of unionization is about half what it is in free-bargaining states.

This is a gross over-simplification.  Unions never held a political stranglehold in the twenty-two Right to Work states because their agrarian culture at the time of Taft-Hartley stressed self-sufficiency and self-determination.  The homesteaders of Texas, for example, rejected the notion of unionism, and so then too did Texas legislators.  Contrast that to a state like Michigan where a wave of European immigrants settled here at the height of union activity to live in tight knit ethnic communities and work together in factories, bringing with them a belief in collectivism.    And that cultural difference could explain much of the inability of unions to organize in RtW states and the lack of a union tradition in them long before Taft-Hartley and until now.  The evil Republican overlords did not foist their will upon a downtrodden and powerless people, far from it.

As such, industries traditionally concentrated in RtW states did not have a history of unionization and their workforce never came to depend on unions.    And without a majority of voters raised within a family history of unionism and a culture of self-reliance that works against the notion of collective anything of course it's going to be difficult to organize there.  Most importantly, unions in RtW states don't own a swath of politicians, bureaucrats and adjudicators like they do in states like Michigan.

 I also don't believe union membership "plummeted" in RtW states after adoption, especially as compared to the nation as a whole.  Care to point us to the figures on that?  Did Right to Work states and forced unionization states have similar union density prior to legislation?

As for Michigan -- I believe the tradition of unionism (along with union political muscle, of course) is the only thing that has kept Michigan a forced unionization state, squelching all meaningful political debate on contemporary economic benefits.    Companies just don't have to build today's factories in fixed locations next to deep water harbors anymore.   And union support has softened considerably here over the past twenty years as the UAW hemorrhaged members to automation and out-sourcing.  (which, apparently, the mighty UAW could do nothing to stop even at it's strongest)  That trend will only accelerate as new UAW members come in earning less than half of current members doing the same jobs.  

I can only imagine two ways in which RtW legislation actually damages a union -- financially of course and politically.  Financially RtW would demand every union in Michigan go directly to its members to collect dues (and of course legislation could be written to make that transition less jolting on unions) and thus every union would feel a financial pinch inversely proportional to their members support and investment.  This of course could drive more than a few unions off a cliff, especially the most top heavy ones with the most over-paid under-qualified dead weight do-nothing staff members and those unions that are unable to think and react creatively to the challenge.  (and to that I say good riddance as they weren't doing their members any favors anyway)  But those unions who spend the members dues wisely would weather the transition well and end up only leaner and meaner.  Perhaps you could point us to specific examples of unions destroyed by the adoption of Right to Work legislation?

I think the real terror coming out of the union leadership (who of course will be the last to lose their union salaries) is the fear of losing political clout in Lansing.   Having in your pocket  half the legislature, most of the regents and school boards, the MERC board and the governor's office (half the time) makes running a union fairly simple business as usual here in Michigan.  Good riddance to that too.

 

 

On the subject of "free riders" --

I'm confused by how a union can negotiate and enforce strong contracts in shops without the widespread support of the union by the members.  It would seem to me that the answer to "free-riders" is a fairly simple one -- organizing.  Isn't that what unions are supposed to do??  Organize the members into active participation and investment in their union?   And what does a union full of potential "free-riders" plan to do in the event a strike is called for?  Just accept the "free-riders" will cross?  How can you run a democratic union or a powerful one if your members are not even well organized enough to sign a dues deduction card for you?   Wouldn't that suggest that the strength in such a union comes only from the contract and not from a unified membership?

On the subject of "free riders" --

I'm very confused by how a union can negotiate strong contracts and even enforce those contracts in a shop without the widespread support of the union by the membership.  It would seem to me that the answer to "free-riders" is a fairly simple one -- organizing.  By that I mean (in case you are unfamiliar, Gypsy) investing every member in their union on a personal level, holding meetings and events that make the union visible and viable in the workplace, and most importantly, training active members in how to get the "free-riders" involved as well.

What does a union full of potential "free-riders" plan to do in the event a strike is called for?  Assume the "free-riders" will cross?  And if a job action is needed between negotiations to address a problem in the shop don't too many "free riders" drain a lot of energy from that?  How the heck can you even run a democratic member-owned member-driven union, Gypsy, if your members are not well organized enough to sign a dues deduction card for you? 

On the subject of "free riders" --

I'm very confused by how a union can negotiate strong contracts and even enforce those contracts in a shop without the widespread support of the union by the membership.  It would seem to me that the answer to "free-riders" is a fairly simple one -- organizing.  By that I mean (in case you are unfamiliar) investing every member in their union on a personal level, holding meetings and events that make the union visible and viable in the workplace, and most importantly, training active members in how to get the "free-riders" involved as well.

What does a union full of potential "free-riders" plan to do in the event a strike is called for?  Assume the "free-riders" will cross?  And if a job action is needed between negotiations to address a problem in the shop don't too many "free riders" drain a lot of energy from that?  How the heck can you even run a democratic member-owned member-driven union if your members are not well organized enough to sign a dues deduction card for you? 

On the subject of "free riders" --

I'm very confused by how a union can negotiate strong contracts and even enforce those contracts in a shop without the widespread support of the union by the membership.  It would seem to me that the answer to "free-riders" is a fairly simple one -- organizing.  By that I mean (in case you are unfamiliar, Gypsy) investing every member in their union on a personal level, holding meetings and events that make the union visible and viable in the workplace, and most importantly, training active members in how to get the "free-riders" involved as well.

What does a union full of potential "free-riders" plan to do in the event a strike is called for?  Assume the "free-riders" will cross?  And if a job action is needed between negotiations to address a problem in the shop don't too many "free riders" drain a lot of energy from that?  How the heck can you even run a democratic member-owned member-driven union if your members are not well organized enough to sign a dues deduction card for you? 

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than those in states with free and collective bargaining.
Twenty-one percent more people lack health insurance in right to work states as compared to free bargaining states.
Right to work states have poverty rates of 12.5% as compared to 10.2% in other states.
The infant mortality rate is 16% higher in right to work states.
Maximum weekly worker compensation benefits are $30 higher in free bargaining states than in Right to Work states.
The rate of workplace deaths is 51% higher in right to work states. 

So just who benefits when the state is made a "right to work for less" state? These statistics indicate who doesn't, the worker. If unions have less political clout, who would gain political clout? Corporations of course.

NancyJE:

How can you run a democratic union or a powerful one if your members are not even well organized enough to sign a dues deduction card for you?   Wouldn't that suggest that the strength in such a union comes only from the contract and not from a unified membership?

An election is held, the workers democratically decide if they want to be collectively represented. If they do, a contract is negotiated, and then voted on. Just as our government works, the majority decides. The strength of the union does come from the contract, and the contract comes from a majority approval of the members. You suggest that doesn't indicate unity. I suggest you want to place a bar so high it cannot be reached. I suggest you want to make organizing a union and allowing it to function impossible, giving big business the upper hand, and more profits to dole out to already over paid CEO's, with results for the workers such as I describe in my statistics.

NancyJE:

unions in RtW states don't own a swath of politicians, bureaucrats and adjudicators like they do in states like Michigan.

Business PACs not only gave nearly five times more in campaign contributions than labor PACs did in the last election cycle ($365.1 million versus $77.9 million, including contributions to leadership PACs) they are backed by the US Chamber of Commerce, which spent $144.4 million on lobbying efforts in the 2007-2008 election cycle, or more than $400,000 for every day Congress was in session. By contrast, the entire labor sector spent less than $84 million on lobbying efforts during those two years.

So how many politicians do business PACs and the US Chamber of Commerce own?

 

 

gypsy:

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than those in states with free and collective bargaining.
Twenty-one percent more people lack health insurance in right to work states as compared to free bargaining states.
Right to work states have poverty rates of 12.5% as compared to 10.2% in other states.
The infant mortality rate is 16% higher in right to work states.
Maximum weekly worker compensation benefits are $30 higher in free bargaining states than in Right to Work states.
The rate of workplace deaths is 51% higher in right to work states. 

So just who benefits when the state is made a "right to work for less" state? These statistics indicate who doesn't, the worker. If unions have less political clout, who would gain political clout? Corporations of course.

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming.  Here are the major differences between RtW states and forced unionism states -- agriculture, fishing, ranching and tourist service work -- in other words seasonal work.  Seasonal workers less often have healthcare and on average are paid less because they are not a stable workforce.  Frankly, I'm surprised the wage difference isn't greater, but then average wages are plummeting in forced unionism states.  

You should also note that the largest RtW states -- Florida, Texas and Arizona have large undocumented populations which explains the difference in infant mortality and the poverty rates.  As a matter of fact, if you look at those figures for California, a forced unionism state with a high percentage of undocumented workers, you'll see your figures start to fall apart.  And if you compare states to states instead of lumping them together you'll see many RtW states that have better averages across the board than many forced unionism states.  Or if you compare Tennessee, a RtW state, with neighboring Kentucky, a forced unionism state, all the differences evaporate.  

As for who would have more clout if unions lost theirs?  Here's a thought -- the voters?

 

An election is held, the workers democratically decide if they want to be collectively represented. If they do, a contract is negotiated, and then voted on. Just as our government works, the majority decides. The strength of the union does come from the contract, and the contract comes from a majority approval of the members. You suggest that doesn't indicate unity. I suggest you want to place a bar so high it cannot be reached. I suggest you want to make organizing a union and allowing it to function impossible, giving big business the upper hand, and more profits to dole out to already over paid CEO's, with results for the workers such as I describe in my statistics.  

Well, we've run around this tree a number of times and we all know the majority of unionized workers in Michigan never voted for a union -- they took a job where a union was already in place or desired to work in a profession where unions have a stranglehold on that line of work here in Michigan.  You and I both also no that no law requires a union contract be ratified by the membership.  

But help me out here -- if the members support the contract and the union, then why wouldn't they continue to support it with their dues?

As for where I place the bar, it seems you are contented with unions gaining all their power through forcing people to join a union regardless of whether or not they still trust in the union.  According to you, a union shouldn't be something workers willingly belong to and support.  That is apparently is setting the bar too high.   

And if Right to Work makes it impossible for a union to function -- I've asked this a few times already -- how is it that there are strong functioning unions right now in Right to Work states?  How is it new organizing drives are still being conducted and elections won in Right to Work states?  How does RtW Nevada have one of the highest union densities in the country (and the new lousiest economy)?  

And again, can you share the facts, figures and specifics on those unions that were "decimated" after the passage of RtW legislation?

Business PACs not only gave nearly five times more in campaign contributions than labor PACs did in the last election cycle ($365.1 million versus $77.9 million, including contributions to leadership PACs) they are backed by the US Chamber of Commerce, which spent $144.4 million on lobbying efforts in the 2007-2008 election cycle, or more than $400,000 for every day Congress was in session. By contrast, the entire labor sector spent less than $84 million on lobbying efforts during those two years.

Here's the problem with those number -- you and I both know that unions operate a near endless list of front political organizations and "action committees," the most infamous one being ACORN.  You and I also know that hundreds of millions of union contributions to political campaigns are reported as "organizational activities", principally wages, travel costs, rental cars and per diems for thousands of  organizers and members sent around the country to "blitz" political campaigns.  Nothing the business community does in any given election cycle can compare to putting thousands of trained door knockers on the ground to do voter turnout.  Just imagine the left wing yowling if hundreds of workers in Target or Walmart tee shirts were paid their regular wages plus per diem and travel expenses to be flown around the country to go door to door leading up to an election.

 

You see, Gypsy, you can foist these AFL-CIO talking points on someone with no familiarity with the inner workings of unions but it won't work with me.   

 

 

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming.  

The major differences between RtW states and forced unionism states are the industries that drive their economies and shape their workforce -- agriculture, fishing, ranching and tourist service work -- in other words seasonal unskilled labor.  Seasonal workers less often have healthcare and on average are paid less because they are not permanent residents.  Frankly, I'm surprised the wage difference isn't greater, but then average wages are plummeting in forced unionism states.  

You should also note that the largest RtW states -- Florida, Texas and Arizona have large undocumented populations which explains the difference in infant mortality and the poverty rates.  As a matter of fact, if you look at those figures for California, a forced unionism state with a high percentage of undocumented workers, you'll see your figures start to fall apart.  And if you compare states to states instead of lumping them together you'll see many RtW states have better or similar averages than many forced unionism states.  Or if you compare Tennessee, a RtW state, with neighboring Kentucky, a forced unionism state, all the differences evaporate.  ____________

We've run around this tree a number of times and we all know the majority of unionized workers in Michigan never voted for a union -- they took a job where a union was already in place or desired to work in a profession where unions have a stranglehold on that line of work here in Michigan.  And you and I both also know that no law requires a union contract be ratified by the members.  

But help me out here -- if the members support the contract and the union, then why wouldn't they continue to support it with their dues?  As for where I place the bar, it seems you are contented with unions gaining all their power through forcing people to join a union regardless of whether or not they still trust in the union.  According to you, a union shouldn't be something workers willingly belong to and support.  That is apparently is setting the bar too high.   

And if Right to Work makes it impossible for a union to function -- I've asked this a few times already -- how is it that there are strong functioning unions right now in Right to Work states?   Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee all have many thriving unions.  So how could that be?  How is it new organizing drives are still being conducted and elections won in Right to Work states?  How does RtW Nevada have one of the highest union densities in the country (and the new lousiest economy)?  

And again, can you share the facts, figures and specifics on those unions that were "decimated" after the passage of RtW legislation?

___________________

Here's the problem with your numbers on political donations -- you and I both know that unions operate dozens of front political organizations and "action committees," the most infamous one being ACORN.  You and I also know that unions report hundreds of millions of "soft" contributions to political campaigns as "representational activities", principally the wages, travel costs, rental cars, administrative costs and per diems for thousands of  organizers and members sent around the country to "blitz" political campaigns.

Nothing the business community does can compare to putting thousands of trained door knockers on the ground to do voter turnout.  Just imagine the left wing yowling if hundreds of workers in Target or Walmart tee shirts were paid their regular wages plus per diem and travel expenses to be flown around the country to go door to door leading up to an election.

 

You can foist these AFL-CIO talking points on someone with no familiarity with the inner workings of unions but it won't work with me. 

 

I certainly don't expect anything to "work with you", but readers of this forum are entitled to hear from both sides. I too am quite familiar with the "inner workings" of unions, as is my family, for three generations. We have struggled to achieve a living wage, a safe working place, health care and pensions for years. Your depiction of unions as some form of mafia style organization, concerned only with collecting dues and padding the wallets of it's leaders is misleading at best, and libelous at worst. Your portrayal of the effects of "right to work" laws is also deceiving, and people need to know the motivation behind efforts to pass these laws is not concern for workers welfare, but a plan to increase company profits.

I provide statistics, you dispute them or try to explain them away as just being coincidental to right to work. As someone once said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

Every union contract I have been involved in has been voted on and ratified by it's members. No law was needed.

To help you solve your problem of not understanding why a union member might not want to pay dues to the union that represents him and fights for his rights to a decent wage for his work, try to imagine how many people would continue to drive on public roads and not pay taxes if they were suddenly relieved of their obligation to pay taxes. It's quite simple really. Maybe you would like to think everyone would voluntarily continue to pay for the roads they use. I know some would, being conscientious citizens, but I also know many wouldn't, and in a short time, our roads would be in terrible shape. This is the agenda of these right to work laws, to gradually destroy unions, depress wages, and bring American workers down to the level of a third world country.

 

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that unions do not have a history of corruption, rigged elections, embezzlement and ties to the Mob?  Really? Please read Solidarity for Sale by Robert Fitch, a former long time loyal union member and activist.  The book well documents examples of contemporary union corruption that gravely impacts low wage union members.   Fitch also lays out a path for unions to grow again by rebuilding public trust -- through fiscal transparency, true democracy, member ownership and by policing one another.  

As for the motivation behind Right to Work or any other social movement, how can you even pretend to know the motives of everyone involved?  I'm sure there are those who support RtW in Michigan only to amass more wealth, just as there are certainly union staff members who oppose it only to protect their paychecks.  There are folks on both sides that hold their positions for a range of selfish and selfless reasons.  I find it outrageous to require workers pay and pay for a union that does nothing for them, especially low wage workers who tend to be most neglected by their unions.  Having witnessed both bad employers and bad unions I'm far more sickened and disturbed by the latter.  

If your union is truly democratic you have nothing to worry about -- the members will support their union.   Any union that truly empowers workers will be fine because the members are already deeply invested in their union.  And the members are the union -- not the staff and executive officers, not the union hall, not a bunch of old white guys in DC who never worked a day on a shop floor in their lives.  This is not about whether or not workers are better off when standing together  -- this is about all the leeches and barnacles that have attached themselves over the years to the principles of unionism.    Giving members back their control and power over their union cannot possibly be a bad thing.  

And you still haven't shared with us one example of a union destroyed by RtW legislation or even the specifics on how or why unions would disappear.  How are you able to predict what percentage of workers will not pay their dues?  

As for your taxes/dues comparison -- well, it certainly would be a wonderful world if the government worked in such a way that everyone gratefully and willingly paid their taxes!  Of course with the bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste most taxpayers can't see how their taxes directly serve them.  So, is this the model you want for your unions?  Forced dues because the system is such a hot mess that no one would ever see the point in paying them willingly? 

I know for myself there are plenty of things I willingly pay for without immediate benefit.  No one has to forcibly deduct my charitable contributions from my paychecks because I believe in those organizations.    And somehow all sorts of non-profits survive and thrive and even wield great power (the AARP is one good example) without compulsory dues or membership.    All sorts of small civic, religious and community organizations get great things done using voluntary donations, fund-raising and member involvement.   (And they don't seem to need an 80K Communications "professional" to write their newsletters either!)  Of course, this requires keeping control in the hands of the members.  

 

gypsy:

 This is the agenda of these right to work laws, to gradually destroy unions, depress wages, and bring American workers down to the level of a third world country.

Do you see yourself leaping from point to point with absolutely nothing but air in between?  You somehow know the "agenda" of all those who support RtW and somehow you know this law, which has yet to be written, would destroy unions (without any explanation as to how) and 

if unions are "destroyed" this would automatically depress wages to "the level of a third world country."  Wow.  What exactly are the wages in a third world country?  You really think that if that 9% of the private sector workforce were to lose their union contracts that would result in all the rest of us living in mud huts and working for a couple dollars a day?  Really?  Really?

Well, no wonder you're alarmed!  

 

I see myself leaping from point to point that you would like to hide from. That isn't air in between, that's truth, something you seem to recoil from.

I have explained how right to work for less would destroy unions, and has resulted in lower wages and unsafe working conditions repeatedly. I have used statistics and analogy to demonstrate this.

You have used vitriol to defend what is obviously a movement supported by the US Chamber of Commerce, the sponsors of this forum, and most American corporations to weaken the voice of organized labor in this state, and in this nation, for increased profits. You rail on about the instances of corruption in organized labor, but conveniently ignore the corruption in business. We are in a "great recession" now because of unfettered greed and corruption in business, not unions.

Do I think a loss of union contracts would result in the rest of us living in mud huts and working for a couple dollars a day? No, just the workers losing those contracts. The rest of your crowd would continue reaping even more profits to be deposited in off shore accounts. That is the motivation behind right to work for less. Money. Money and power.

 

gypsy:

I have explained how right to work for less would destroy unions, and has resulted in lower wages and unsafe working conditions repeatedly. I have used statistics and analogy to demonstrate this.

You have used vitriol to defend what is obviously a movement supported by the US Chamber of Commerce, the sponsors of this forum, and most American corporations to weaken the voice of organized labor in this state, and in this nation, for increased profits. You rail on about the instances of corruption in organized labor, but conveniently ignore the corruption in business. We are in a "great recession" now because of unfettered greed and corruption in business, not unions.

Do I think a loss of union contracts would result in the rest of us living in mud huts and working for a couple dollars a day? No, just the workers losing those contracts. The rest of your crowd would continue reaping even more profits to be deposited in off shore accounts. That is the motivation behind right to work for less. Money. Money and power.

 

How specifically would Right to Work in Michigan destroy unions?  How?  Please explain the process.  I get the part where a percentage of workers under union contracts would refuse to pay dues.  We can assume that would cause Michigan union locals, to varying degrees, to tighten their belts.  How then would that "destroy" unions?

What's wrong with the US Chamber of Commerce?  What's wrong with the Mackinac Center?  And if they feel unions have too much control in Michigan, what's wrong with them attempting to lessen the influence of unions on Michigan politics?   And what's so bad about increased profits?  Profitable companies are able to expand, create more jobs and build more facilities.  Is it better for companies to come close to bankruptcy like GM and Chrysler?  As profits increase the stock market rises and takes upward with it the retirement savings of millions of Michigan citizens.  Why do you hate business?  Don't you work for one?  

And how do unions control "corporate greed" exactly?  And how does forced unionization and dues collection in Michigan keep corruption in Michigan businesses in check?  Can you give us an example of a Michigan union local fighting corruption in a Michigan business?  

Are you sure it was "unfettered greed and corruption in business" that caused the current recession?  Not the cost of two wars?  Not runaway consumer borrowing?  Are you sure it wasn't some greedy business people and that most business owners and executives are responsible and decent?

And how is losing a union contract the equivalent of third world working conditions?  And again -- how is it you know the motivation behind all the supporters of this legislation?  Do you read minds?  Enjoy some special super-human power?  How do you know who my "crowd" is?  You don't even know me!

 

NancyJE:

How specifically would Right to Work in Michigan destroy unions?

A lesson for you in collective bargaining. When unions bargain for a contract in the private sector, they are bargaining for the value of their labor collectively. If the corporation and union cannot reach agreement, the only recourse left to the workers is to withhold their labor. Strike. They sacrifice their wages, and the corporation sacrifices their profits, until one or the other relents. This is the balance of collective bargaining. To allow a corporation to hire workers without joining the union is the old divide and conquer routine. The union could only withhold the labor of it's members in a strike. Very quickly the strength of the unions to confront corporations is diminished, since the collective is reduced in number. Workers would see no use in joining a union if the union was unable to secure good wages, benefits, and working conditions for them, hence the snowball effect on membership. In any equation, when one side looses, the other gains. Wages go down, working conditions degrade, benefits are reduced, and profits increase. Great for the corporate bottom line, not so great for the workers, as statstics show in right to work for less states.

NancyJE:

how is it you know the motivation behind all the supporters of this legislation?

Just a hunch.

 

 

 

Wow.  Where to start.  

gypsy:

A lesson for you in collective bargaining. When unions bargain for a contract in the private sector, they are bargaining for the value of their labor collectively. If the corporation and union cannot reach agreement, the only recourse left to the workers is to withhold their labor. Strike. They sacrifice their wages, and the corporation sacrifices their profits, until one or the other relents. This is the balance of collective bargaining. To allow a corporation to hire workers without joining the union is the old divide and conquer routine. The union could only withhold the labor of it's members in a strike. 

First, I'm sure you know most contemporary union contracts have "no-strike" clauses which prevent workers from striking during the length of a contract or honoring the picket lines of other striking unions.  Meanwhile, unless it's an unfair labor practice strike, nothing bars employers from hiring strike replacements and keeping those replacements on permanently.  And nothing compels existing workers to go out on strike.  So unless a new contract is negotiated reinstating their jobs, those who do go out on strikers could be out of work permanently.

So, if I understand you correctly, you trust enough workers to go out on strike to cripple a business and you expect those workers to walk out without a contract, when they can be legally replaced, and with the very real threat of permanently losing their jobs,  but you don't trust them to willingly pay their dues?  Really?

And point of order -- companies already have the freedom to hire workers who don't belong to the union because, as I'm sure you know, Taft-Hartley made it illegal for union membership to be a condition of employment.     Of course non-members still have an 85% "service fee" deducted from their paychecks instead of dues.  

So please.  This isn't about employers being able to hire workers who don't support the union or shop floor support for a strike.  It's about unions having the right to extort dues and service fees from workers regardless of how they feel about the union or whether or not they feel served.  

gypsy:

 Workers would see no use in joining a union if the union was unable to secure good wages, benefits, and working conditions for them, hence the snowball effect on membership. In any equation, when one side looses, the other gains. Wages go down, working conditions degrade, benefits are reduced, and profits increase. Great for the corporate bottom line, not so great for the workers, as statstics show in right to work for less states.

Sorry, but I just have to call you out on this.   I find this deliberately deceptive.  You haven't shown where "wages go down, working conditions degrade and benefits are reduced" when Right to Work legislation is enacted in a state.  You haven't shown one example of  this, or even of a union "disappearing" in a state when it goes RtW. 

There isn't even solid evidence that RtW means lower  wages "as statistics show".  Again, many factors effect the wages and benefits in existing RtW states including cost of living, percentage of unskilled jobs, percentage of undocumented workers and percentage of part time and seasonal workers, urban areas and the size of government.      

And you just can't compare the average of these 22 states with the average of these 28 states, although I realize it's tempting when it "proves" your point.

Take this example -- 2008 average wage, the latest figures available from the federal government

Tennessee $39,469  A Right to Work state

Kentucky $37,163  a forced unionization state 

or

New Mexico $38,488 a forced unionization state

Arizona $43,192 a Right to Work state

Texas $45,517 a Right to Work state

My only point -- if the "averages" are so important, how do you explain Kentucky and Tennessee?  Or Arizona and New Mexico?  And if factors are skewing my comparisons, why would factors not be skewing your "statistics"?  

And of course, in most forced unionized states the unsustainably high wages in the public sector drive up the average wage.  And all the wage averages you can post mean nothing if you don't have a job.  

 

You point out that workers going out on strike without a contract risk losing their jobs. That is a risk that must be assesed by the members, and is decided by the members, in a democratic manner, with a vote. So there is no trust needed, it is the members choice, they a aware of the risk.

Your comparisons of wages in New Mexico to Arizona, and Tennesse to Kentucky is interesting, in that they are adjacent to each other, and studies have indicated that wages in right to work for less states which are adjacent to union states are influenced by their neighbors higher wages. Check out the study done by Lawrence Mishel at the Economic Policy Instuitute.

Jobs are not lost nationally by higher wages. That is a fallacy. People will move to where the jobs are. It makes it a little harder on the worker when his job is moved to China though.

gypsy:

You point out that workers going out on strike without a contract risk losing their jobs. That is a risk that must be assesed by the members, and is decided by the members, in a democratic manner, with a vote. So there is no trust needed, it is the members choice, they a aware of the risk.

How would this change under Right to Work?

I just find it weird that you trust unionized workers to go out on strike when needed but not to pay their dues.    Can you explain the difference?  

Is it that unlike strikes, dues aren't determined democratically?  Or maybe that members see the point in striking but can't see the point in paying their dues?  

 

Your comparisons of wages in New Mexico to Arizona, and Tennesse to Kentucky is interesting, in that they are adjacent to each other, and studies have indicated that wages in right to work for less states which are adjacent to union states are influenced by their neighbors higher wages. Check out the study done by Lawrence Mishel at the Economic Policy Instuitute.

So, by this logic,  if Michigan went Right to Work, it's then safe to assume that wages wouldn't be impacted because we are surrounded by forced unionization states.  Sounds like a win/win/win to me -- weak unions are forced to serve their members, companies are encouraged to move to and create jobs in Michigan and wages remain where they are because Ohio, Illinois and Indiana are forced unionization states.  Sounds like just the shot in the arm Michigan needs! 

 

Sounds to me more like the beginning of a virus that may spread, which of course, is it's goal.

NancyJE:

I just find it weird that you trust unionized workers to go out on strike when needed but not to pay their dues.    Can you explain the difference?

Not much to explain there. Members agree to abide by democraticlly made decisions, non-members have no such obligation to pay dues.

Now a question for you. If right to work for less is such a good deal for Michigan, I'm sure you feel it would be a good deal for Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana too. Would wages go up or down if Michigan and it's neighbors went right to work for less?

gypsy:

Not much to explain there. Members agree to abide by democraticlly made decisions, non-members have no such obligation to pay dues.

But non-members do have to pay mandatory service fees which are 85% of dues and for that they can't vote on anything.  So you trust that in order to keep making gains at the table (or else no one will want to join unions anymore) enough members will vote to go out on strike and then will go out on strike and stay out on strike long enough to force the employer back to the table -- but you don't think enough members will voluntarily pay their dues?    

You just wrote that the only power a union ever has is the threat to withhold labor through striking.  Okay, assuming that's true for the sake of argument, which damages a union more -- a worker who crosses their own picket line or that same worker not paying dues?

 And what does allowing people to withhold their dues or service fees have to do with strikes again? 

 

 

 

Now a question for you. If right to work for less is such a good deal for Michigan, I'm sure you feel it would be a good deal for Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana too. Would wages go up or down if Michigan and it's neighbors went right to work for less?

I live in Michigan and I'm only concerned for the moment with the Michigan economy and with very good reason -- my house is worth spit and half the people I know are out of work.  If we could get a healthy economic jump start off of being the only RtW state in the region then I'm all for it.  Maybe only an economic Code Blue will save us.

You still haven't shown us where wages fell in RtW states after adoption and anything beyond that is the conjecture of unions who like automatic mandatory dues deduction and who could blame them?  So here's my conjecture on what would happen if Michigan became RtW.  

_____________________

Workers in union shops across the state would decide, local by local, if they still wanted a union contract by voting with their dues deductions cards.  And those workers would be the best judges of what would happen to them and their wages without a contract. Healthy unions would survive with a little belt tightening -- bad unions would pretty quickly disappear. Given how many bad unions I'm familiar with in Michigan I suspect we could see union density cut by up to a third to about 14%.   

In some shops, losing the union contract might mean wages go down although workers might be willing to trade higher wages for better job security.  In other shops I imagine the employer might even raise wages slightly so workers see that a union contract doesn't translate directly into higher wages.  In most shops I would expect everything to stay pretty much the same as it was under a poorly enforced union contract because the employer wouldn't want the shop to go stampeding back into another union in a year.  (remember the cost of unionization to the employer is rarely in higher wages or better benefits but in legal fees, inflexible job descriptions and schedules and time lost to bargaining and grievance handling)

Employers would still be under the threat  of new organizing and reorganizing because these campaigns are run by unions on the national not local level.  I also expect union internationals to put up one heck of a fight to not lose locals, right down to cleaning house at the bad locals to keep members on board.  Still all sounds good to me. 

Meanwhile, adoption of RtW would signal to the business community that Michigan and its workforce were willing to move beyond the 20th century collectivist mindset that has stifled initiative in the Michigan for generations.   It would also signal that Michigan politics was no longer the private holdings of Big Labor.  I would expect to see a surge of new business investments in Michigan, if for no other reason than to encourage other states to go RtW.  

As for wages -- I would expect them to stabilize at about the same, maybe even see the state average drop a couple thousand a year as the new jobs added would not be at UAW levels.   But I'd also expect to see unemployment drop, property values recover at least partially and the entire Michigan economy get a huge dose of adrenalin.  

I do imagine more than a few union staffers would be out of work or see their wages cut precipitously.  I can live with that.  Can you?

 

 

 

 no one is forced to join a union????????  Are you kidding!! If i wanted to apply for work at one of the big three auto companies in michigan for the last hundred years i would be forced to join the united auto workers of america. U.A.W. the last i heard is a union! And I would be forced to join them and bullied out of about forty dollars a month in union dues. I'm all for outlawing union shops. Why can't I be competitive with others in society and get hired at the auto companies with my own motivation and emperical and academic experience instead of some union mobsters nepotism and bias favoritism getting in the way!

I'm all for those 400 families being wealthy.  I want more families being more and more wealthier! I want to be wealthy! Or at the very least have the opportunity to procreate my own wealth, God willing!! What about abraham/david/solomon, and multitudes of others in the old testament that were wealthy beyond i have seen in my life so far? There is nothing wrong with a family being wealthy!!!

 

 

Nobody likes to talk about what it used to take to get one of those high paying union jobs in the "golden Days of Unionism" either.  As it was explained to me by my parents and family you generally had to be related to somebody in the union and then that person had to take you and the union president out to dinner and slip the president a one hundred dollar bill.  (that I'm sure went into the Widows and Orphans Fund) 

That's how my brother got into the IBEW -- I remember the day they went out to dinner, I remember my brother having an apprenticeship the next week.  

 

Then there's today's flip side of that -- how you and your coworkers can get together, take all the risks and make a majority decision to join a union and then be unable to find a union willing to represent you.  If your "serving costs" are not offset by enough dues they won't even return your phone calls.  Then they'll target some big employer where not even a single worker has asked them to come in and even if they can't get any real worker support they'll keep coming back and coming back because the employer is strategically important to them.