Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 9, 2011

Click here to view bill details.

This is a terrible idea. Why would we want a patchwork of low wage zones around the state? Michigan has thrived with strong unions in the past. Strong unions make a strong and vibrant middle class, and that's what makes a good economy. Not low wage workers following jobs around to the lowest paying local.

It's about time.  I have supported this idea for years.  Believe me, when these RTW zones start to grow and create jobs, the rest of the state will follow suit.  It's time we let workers work; whether they want to join a union or not!

The devil is in the details and the big one is a governing body deciding that a right to work zone be created.  So, a public employer just has to declare that it is now a right to work zone and eliminate the union.  BAD IDEA!

Agree, very bad idea. Just increasing our speed in the race to the bottom for workers.

lilstoetz:

right to work zone and eliminate the union

Right to work does not eliminate unions, it simply allows people to work at the company without joining the union.  If the union is providing the benefits they claim to provide, people will naturally want to belong to the union.

 

Right to work is meant to eliminate unions. Why would some people pay for union bargained for benefits when they can get them for free?

gypsy:

Right to work is meant to eliminate unions. Why would some people pay for union bargained for benefits when they can get them for free?

 

Actually, dues paying membership in RtW states tends to run around 80%.  And some RtW states, like Nevada, have a relatively high percentage of unionized workers. (within a percentage point of Michigan) Also, most major unions have been aggressively and successfully organizing in RtW states for decades.  Differences in union density have more to do with differing industrial bases, levels of public sector unionization and cultural differences than RtW legislation.   (There is no evidence of a state's union density dropping markedly post legislation) 

As for why unionized workers would pay for something they would get for free, well, to start, those who don't pay dues can't participate in strike or contract votes yet they are bound by the results of both.  Unions also have a way of generating "social pressure" to ensure only the most steely objectors stand up to them.    Also, everyone, dues payers and not, have lost their right to represent themselves and must turn to the union if they feel unjustly terminated or reprimanded.  That generally does not go well for "free riders" -- the union must represent them -- but it doesn't have to represent them well.  

Your prejudice against unions in general is quite obvious. Implying that unions use "social pressure" is a not very well camouflaged slur that unions use intimidation. This is an old company propaganda tactic. In fact, businesses are much more adept in the art of intimidating their employees against union membership. Also implying that unions don't represent the free riders as well as dues paying members paints all union reps with a broad brush indeed. Do lawyers represent the guilty as well as the innocent? It has been my experience that workers opposed to unions get the best representation in an attempt to impress them with the benefits of union membership.

As for your litany of statistics, you give no references, therefore I am inclined to believe these are opinions, not facts. Here is an example of referenced statistics for your consumption:

"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."

so you're implying that its the UNIONS that keep workers safe?  Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?  Unions have dragged this state into the toilet, with their $38/hr unskilled labor jobs that are gone FOREVER.  FOREVER.  I admit, in the days of the Rouge River bridge incident, BEFORE OSHA and the NLRB, they had their place. I've actually belonged to several unions in my lifetime.  But now - less than 18% of the US workforce belongs to a union.  Companies leave their state of origin soley because of unions.

 

This isn't about taking anything away from a union  -  it's about giving the WORKER a choice, eliminating closed shops, and allowing people who don't support the MEA's or the SEIU socialistic agenda a means to work in those industries.  It's 2011 - not 1911.  DEAL WITH IT.  Or move.

gypsy:

Your prejudice against unions in general is quite obvious. Implying that unions use "social pressure" is a not very well camouflaged slur that unions use intimidation. 

"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."

oh well, you caught me, perpetuating the myth of the union goon.  God knows no one in Michigan has ever felt intimidated by their union steward or blown off by their union rep.  Unions use intimidation?!  Clutch the pearls, how dare I!

Now on to your "statistics".  

The top ten states with the lowest average cost of living (2008) in order are -- Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Missouri, Kansas, Georgia and Mississippi  --- and only one, Missouri, is not Right to Work.

Meanwhile, 

The top ten states with the highest average cost of living (2008) in order are -- Hawaii, California, DC, New Jersey, Alaska, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Vermont  -- all forced unionization states.  

So maybe the lower wages wouldn't be all that bad in return for lower housing and food costs and substantially lower taxes.  

And the worker safety argument is a red herring.  A disproportionately higher percentage of workers in Right to Work states work in high risk professions such as agriculture and oil and gas production.  

 

And you have to be kidding putting the "Economic Policy Institute" out there as non-biased on union issues.  Have you looked at the EPI's board of directors?  Hilarious! 

 

To citizen50, this is about taking something away from the unions. Political influence, to be specific. it's all about that. Take political influence from workers, and it automatically goes to businesses.

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, and I also don't believe that businesses will provide safe jobs and living wages out of the kindness of their hearts. Business is in it for the money, in case you didn't know. Why shouldn't workers get the best deal they can?

You can be sure I'll deal with it, just not in the manner you would prefer. I will support a workers right to collectively bargain, and petition our government collectively.

And I like it here, so no, I will not move. Deal with that.

Seems to be a habit of yours, BB. Stating opinions as fact with no reference as to where you got those facts. Nonetheless, I don't really think you want to make an argument against unions based on the fact if wages are lower, so too will be the cost of living. I wonder how long it would take for the cost of living to drop here in Michigan if we all suddenly had a large wage decrease. Might be a little lag time, wouldn't you think?

Why does your "goon" radar only work in one direction? Have you never heard of company thugs? Don't you know anything of labor history? Do the terms Battle of the Overpass, Ludlow Massacre, The Carnegie Steel Works Strike, or the Pullman Palace Car Strike jog your memory? Citizen50 and yourself would have us forget history, and no doubt repeat it. We may certainly repeat it, if you and he are successful in destroying unions.

 

(-:

gypsy:

 Don't you know anything of labor history? Do the terms Battle of the Overpass, Ludlow Massacre, The Carnegie Steel Works Strike, or the Pullman Palace Car Strike jog your memory? Citizen50 and yourself would have us forget history, and no doubt repeat it. We may certainly repeat it, if you and he are successful in destroying unions.

There's a difference between learning from history and being trapped in it.   

 

You seem to be quite adept at looking at a situation from the side you are currently on, and being blind to the side you are opposed to. All the arguments you make about unions creating an adversarial relationship for the workers towards the company they are dealing with works very well for the companies when they foment adversity toward unions. Too bad you didn't stay in the union movement longer. You would have noticed how unions have evolved to take into consideration the companies finances when negotiating contracts. The UAW is a prime example. While forgoing raises, benefits and loosening work rules to help the auto companies, upper management was flying to Washington on private jets to beg for money. Most auto workers hired now in union plants make about half of what previous workers made. Not so the top management tier. They're still raking it in. All that without a strike. Maybe you switched sides for more money.

You and I basically agree about businesses. I want then to make money, and create jobs. We part ways when you advocate workers need to give up their collective bargaining rights and political influence for that to happen. And no, I'm not buying your argument that right to work wouldn't impede the unions ability to organize and collectively bargain. Right to work is a tool used to weaken unions, and ultimately destroy them. Middle class wages have stagnated since Reagan, and unions now only represent 7% of the private work force, while corporations are raking in record profits. It's not the unions that need to be weakened at this point. It is the ability of corporations to create a needy and compliant workforce that needs to be reined in.

History bears out the fact that unbridled capitalism is not good for our workers, or our economy. Unions are a proven, moderating force. When unions have been strong, our economy has been strong.

 

gypsy:

Business is in it for the money, in case you didn't know.

And so are the unions and so is the labor force. It always amazes me that businesses are "greedy" and while unions are just trying to get "their fair share".  Hypocrites.

The fact is, when businesses and their labor force work together toward the same goal, namely profitability, both parties benefit.  When the parties are pitted against each other as in union vs. management, the chances for success are severely diminished.

Just one little problem with your working together goal. Business sees labor as a cost of doing business. The lower they can make that cost, the more money they make for their investors or owners. That makes labor and business naturally adversarial, which doesn't have to be bad for neither. It is a balancing influence. To diminish the influence of one side, as the inaccurately named right to work law does, only increases the leverage of the other side. That leverage for business will surely be used to increase profits and lower labor cost. It's like slaughtering the goose who laid the golden egg. But right now, corporations have golden egg laying geese in China and India. They don't need our market like they used to, so it is great time for them to turn American workers into the low wage workers they need to produce products for these emerging markets.

Unions are as greedy as business is, and should be. Why not? Why is it more American to make record profits than high wages? It isn't of course.

When both labor and business are able to bargain on an equal plane, the chances for success, if you mean success is a strong and vibrant economy, from the top to the bottom, is greatly increased.

changeagent:

gypsy:

Business is in it for the money, in case you didn't know.

And so are the unions and so is the labor force. It always amazes me that businesses are "greedy" and while unions are just trying to get "their fair share".  Hypocrites.

The fact is, when businesses and their labor force work together toward the same goal, namely profitability, both parties benefit.  When the parties are pitted against each other as in union vs. management, the chances for success are severely diminished.

 

Thank you.  Exactly.  

This entire argument breaks down if one recognizes that "union" does not equal "worker" and that in fact a labor union is a third party injected into the relationship between an employer and employees.  Unions are businesses themselves with a product to sell (representation), salesmen (organizers), marketing departments and brick and mortar buildings to maintain (including multimillion dollar DC HQs).  Most important, unions have officer and staff pensions, healthcare and lifestyles to maintain.    Bob King wants to put his kids through college, make his mortgage payments and retire with a nice pension just like anyone else.  And in order to do that Bob has to sell union memberships or his union goes out of business.  It's as simple as that.  And Bob himself has said the real prime directive of new organizing is to perpetuate the union, not respond to the will of a workforce crying out to be organized.

Apparently some people seem to believe that taking away a union's ability to forcibly deduct dues (used to maintain their bottom line) is a bad thing.  I for one don't.  If workers feel they truly need and want a union in their workplace they will fight for it and pay for it.  And maybe, just maybe, the only reason unions are failing businesses is they aren't selling a product most workers want or need anymore.  

 

 

Unions are not businesses, they are an organization. Their goal is to protect and serve their members. The goal of business is to make money, not provide jobs, safety or a living wage to it's workers. Unions exist because business exist, not visa versa. You are correct in saying union does not equal worker, it equals workers. Workers united to have a bigger voice than standing alone. The misnamed right to work is an attempt to divide and conquer.

gypsy:

Unions are not businesses, they are an organization. Their goal is to protect and serve their members. The goal of business is to make money, not provide jobs, safety or a living wage to it's workers. Unions exist because business exist, not visa versa. You are correct in saying union does not equal worker, it equals workers. Workers united to have a bigger voice than standing alone. The misnamed right to work is an attempt to divide and conquer.

Spoken like a true Kool-aid drinker.  As such, there's no talking sense to you as you can only respond with union-speak platitudes.  For some reason you need to believe that unions are what their PR departments purport them to be -- and I'm not sure yet if that is more sad or hilarious.

By the way, Disney says its corporate goal is to "make people smile."  So in that sense then yes, the goal of every union out there is to protect and serve its members -- hardeharhar.  (-:  

I gotta say though -- I'm sure your union president appreciates your blind loyalty.  

Not only my union president appreciates my loyalty, but my family does as well, since they have benefited by being able to go to good schools, good doctors and dentist, and living the American dream. I think my kool-aide taste much sweeter than the bitter potion you are drinking, and will keep me smiling long after you have choked on your naive idea of a labor friendly business model.

gypsy:

Business sees labor as a cost of doing business. The lower they can make that cost, the more money they make for their investors or owners. That makes labor and business naturally adversarial,

This relationship is no more adversarial than the one between you and your grocery store.  You want to pay as little as possible for your food but you want good quality so you will pay extra for better food.  Your grocer wants to sell you the food for as much as he can in order to cover his costs and pay himself yet he knows he must compete with the grocer down the street so he must be competitive.  This doesn't make you adversaries, in fact, it makes you cooperative.  You choose to buy from him and he chooses to sell to you.  No one forces you to buy from him; you can go down the street.  No one forces him to sell to you; if you will not pay what he requests, he won't sell to you.

The same holds true in labor.  The business owner purchases your skills for an agreed upon price.  If you don't like the price, you can sell your skill to someone else.  If the business owner decides your skills are not worth what he is paying or if he finds those skills for less money from someone else, he should be free to choose where he purchases those skills. 

The government enforced union breaks the laws of supply and demand by removing free will to associate and replacing it with coercion which drives the prices of those skills artificially higher, thus causing the prices of those goods and services to escalate unnaturally until consumers no longer buy them unless they are forced to do so through restrictions in competition.  The rest of the marketplace suffers while those who use force are rewarded.  Hardly my idea of paradise, but then, I'm not the one getting paid $50 an hour to put a bolt in a hole.

 

 

To expand on your grocery store/customer analogy; when your grocer gets together with the grocer down the street to buy their produce from the same supplier, in larger volume, to get a lower price, the customer's choices and ability to take his business elsewhere suffers. This is corporate America.

Why should labor not have the right to join together in a union, and collectively bargain to get the best price for their product? Matter of fact, they can. And this right has worked well for both labor and business, and for our economy. Having to join a union that legally represents workers at a particular business is no more "coercion" than having to obey company rules once hired. It is a condition of employment. If a person is adverse to joining and contributing to an organization representing the interest of the workers, they should seek employment elsewhere, or apply for a management position.

The law of supply and demand is not broken by collective bargaining. The business knows, or should, how much they can afford to pay for labor, and will bargain within those parameters. Labor generally knows, or should, how much a company can afford to pay for their labor, and will negotiate to those terms.

It is a quite American notion of organizing into a union to combine many voices into one, giving it more influence and security. Hence, the United States of America.

gypsy:

when your grocer gets together with the grocer down the street to buy their produce from the same supplier, in larger volume, to get a lower price, the customer's choices and ability to take his business elsewhere suffers.

This may be true, but only temporarily.  If the customers believe they are not getting the quality produce they deserve, they will look for another choice.  If there isn't one, someone will see an opportunity for profit by providing quality produce and will open a competing store (unless the larger groceries are able to get their legislators to pass a law against additional groceries).  That is how corporate America works.

I support the right of individuals to form a union.  I also support the right of a business owner to employ whomever they choose.  No one should be forced to work for someone against their will and no one should be forced to employ someone against their will.  That is freedom for everyone.

 

 

changeagent:

I support the right of individuals to form a union.  I also support the right of a business owner to employ whomever they choose.  No one should be forced to work for someone against their will and no one should be forced to employ someone against their will.  That is freedom for everyone.

I agree completely. As I have written previously, if one does not want to join a union and pay dues, they have every right to seek employment from employers who have not legally recognized a union as the sole representative of their employees.

 For posters on this website who disagree with having "work zones" identified in Michigan then there is another solution.  We will now start the legislation to make Michigan a "Right to Work State".  Let the letter campaign begin.  For posters like gypsy......thanks for the encouragement to get this going!  Your typical left wing diatribes are very helpful for the small business owner, big business owners and expecially the home owners who will greatly benefit.  Why you ask?  People will be moving back to Michigan since business's will relocate to this state because there will be NO Union BS to put up with.

Senator Gregory’s statement is as follows: I rise in opposition to this right-to-work or right-to-work-for-less legislation before us. By trying to ram this bill through, my Republican colleagues are putting the lame in lame duck and forcing Michigan workers to duck for cover. Simply put, right-to-work-for-less is wrong for Michigan. It hurts Michigan workers by enabling employers to lower wages, benefits, and even their workplace protections. We have seen no positive or significant benefits from right-to-work in other states which have passed it. In fact, Michigan workers have to make around $7,600 more than workers in right-to-work states and have stronger health benefits for their families. As we work to rebuild our economy do you really think it’s smart—$7,600 out of the pockets of working families and out of the cash registers of our local small businesses where they sho—in order for wealthy CEOs to make more profits? I, for one, don’t think so. Passing right-to-work would further erode the earning power of the middle class while those at the top make more—perhaps the only constant in the Senate Republican agenda over the last two years. By passing this right-to-work legislation you are actually attacking workers’ rights. This legislation is not going to create jobs; it’s not going to help our economy. Right-to-work laws do not improve business conditions in states. Right-to-work laws are not the deciding factor for where businesses locate. Right-to work laws have tech companies which provide good-paying jobs. Americans favor states where unions have a strong presence because unions provide a higher-skilled workforce and decrease turnover. Communities lose jobs when wages are lowered by right-to-work. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that for every one million in wage cuts, the local economy sheds six jobs. In fact, it has the potential to do the opposite. I strongly oppose this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to stand up to the Senate Majority Leader and the Governor and end this incessant attack on Michigan workers. Mr. President, I will speak now from a personal point. At one point in my career, I was a union president. I can tell you that, as a union president, what we did as we got new employees in, we would go out and talk to the new employees and educate them about their union rights. We would also ask them to join the union. We had 100% participation in the union. We never had any opposition to the union. Why? Because of the union rights; because of the benefits of it. Now we are saying that without these same union rights, although they will have union rights, they just won’t pay for them. So here we are now representing people who are not putting any money into the union which will actually kill the unions. It will run the unions down. We know that. We know that that is why this legislation is being pushed forward. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to reconsider their positions on this, to think long and hard about where this will put Michigan workers. Clearly, Michigan workers deserve more than this. They have been fighting for labor rights for more than 50 years. Now, here in 2012, instead of moving forward, we are moving backward. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to reconsider their position again and vote this legislation down.

Senator Whitmer’s statement, in which Senator Hunter concurred, as follows: You must be kind of embarrassed right now. Your floor leader doesn’t know the rules, and your leader doesn’t even want his name added on this bill. I have a simple question: Why are we here today? You know, we are here today on an issue that’s not about unions. It’s about people. You know what I find striking in the way that everyone talks about this bill? You never talk about people. You don’t talk about the nurses or the teachers. You don’t talk about the first responders, the corrections officers, or the social workers who are keeping people safe. You haven’t once mentioned that. You talk about the business climate. You never talk about people. Let me tell you about a person, an important person in my life, my grandmother, Ester Whitmer. I think I mentioned her earlier in this week. She’s turning 99 next week. She started her career off as a teacher. I am going to tell you something about teachers. No one goes into the profession because they think it’s lucrative. People who go into the profession of teaching—and it is a profession—do it because they love kids. They do it because they want to help shape the young minds of tomorrow. When my grandmother was a teacher, she and my grandfather had to keep their engagement quiet for two years because if they had found out she was getting married, she could have been fired because she might get pregnant, and that was okay back then. My 99-year-old grandma tells that story about how it was the teachers and the movement of labor in this country—like we have the right to be married and have a particular job; why we are protected when we have a child and have maternity benefits. This is about people. This isn’t unions and labor. This is about the people of our state. Do you want to make them second-class citizens? We made a commitment when we were sworn into office that we would put the best interests of our working families, our seniors, and our children ahead of those of special-interest billionaires who often want their way and are willing to flex their political and financial muscle to get it. We took an oath that we would do what’s best and what’s right for the future of Michigan and not let politics get in our way. If you honestly believe you are doing that—any of that—here today, then you are more out of touch with the people of Michigan than they already thought. Let’s be clear, this legislation is petty and vindictive politics at its most disgusting. You began this two-year session by attacking workers and their families with your emergency manager legislation That raised the ire of the people around this state and brought thousands of protestors here to Lansing. And now for one of your final pieces of business in this legislative calendar, you want to pass right-to-work legislation that hurts workers and our economy by lowering employee wages, benefits, and workplace protections. Another bow to big business and wealthy special interests at the cost of our people. By passing this, you are actually attacking workers’ rights and further eroding the earning power of our middle class. This isn’t going to create jobs and help our economy. This legislation would only succeed at taking money out of the pockets of our middle class. The press conference I mentioned, the Governor talked about modeling this after Indiana. But you know what the Governor didn’t say? Indiana is a bad role model—at least if you’re a worker interested in a decent wage or a business looking for an educated and qualified workforce. All statistics—look at the metrics the Governor claims to like so much. Indiana is ranked 33rd among 50 states in per capita income. The latest figures from 2010 rank at 42nd, with no reason to think that things have improved since the right-to-work legislation they passed. Their average per capita income ranks 33rd in the nation. In 2005, when Daniels, took over, they were 34th. There is statistic after statistic after statistic that our tough nerd didn’t bother to check out. It makes me ask, good God, is this Governor Snyder’s vision for Michigan—More people on welfare, workers making less money, and unemployment higher? There is absolutely no reason we should follow Indiana and their assaults on employment, unless we want to follow them into economic obscurity. The people of Michigan have already voted “no” on this bill, and I, for one, will be standing with them and voting “no” as well. I encourage you all to do the same. You know what? I am going to tell the people of Michigan I am not going to stand here and participate in this attack on Michigan workers—your political retribution, especially if you move to cut off our voices in this process. If you move a call on the question, I am leaving and I am going to join the workers out in the rotunda.

Senator Hopgood’s statement is as follows I rise to give my “no” vote explanation to this so-called right-to-work legislation, this “Right to Work for Less” that is before us. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, voters across the state have told us, as they have likely told you, that they want nothing to do with this deceptive legislation. They would tell you again if we had a chance to bring the public in and have a public hearing and debate the topic in front of the people—in front of the state. Michigan voters cherish their ability to collectively bargain for the rights to fair wages and benefits. Do not, for a second, mistake their lack of support for Proposal 2 as support for this misguided legislation. To do so would put words in the mouths of Michigan voters. These voters can and have spoken for themselves. We’re taking this right to referendum away from them with this process, and that’s shameful. In addition, please spare us the claim that this legislation is driven by what’s best for our state or for our workers. Everyone in this room knows full well that is not the case. This bureaucratic overreach is clearly driven by none other than your special interest cohorts, many of whom come from out of state and have no interest in Michigan workers or Michigan communities. Way back when, there was a time when people would ask me, “What do you think of this new Governor, this tough nerd?” And I would tell them, “I’m keeping an open mind. I’m listening. I want to give him a chance. Let’s see if he changes Lansing or if Lansing changes him.” And We’ve seen the results of that loud and clear. I hope that my colleagues will take this opportunity to join me in voting no. Right to work is wrong for Michigan. It’s wrong for our middle class, wrong for our workers, wrong for our communities, and wrong for our local business, for our families, and our children.

Senator Smith’s statement is as follows I was not raised in a union household, but I understand and respect why it is important to have the right to organize. Let’s be honest, this legislation is payback for Proposal 2. This legislation is a pernicious attack against the working class, men and women. This legislation will return us to the sharecropping ways of the Old South. I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Senator Bieda’s statement is as follows As we’re listening to the debates tonight, I’ve heard you mention a couple times, very accurately, the rules of the Senate asking people to respect the rules of the Senate and Senate decorum. I wish the Senate had done the same thing for the people of this state. This is a sad day. I strongly oppose this legislation. Not only is it bad for the middle class, not only is it bad for working families, not only is it bad for small businesses, but the method by which this legislation is being placed before us today is contemptible. I’m surprised any decent person would even consider doing it in this action. Passing this legislation is wrong. It eviscerates several main tenants of good government. First of all, it violates government transparency. These bills have received no committee hearing—nada, nitch. The public has not had a chance to testify. I’m glad the Ingham County circuit court allowed people to come in after the Capitol was locked today because that is just so offensive in the people’s house. The public has not been given a chance to read this legislation or even to consider its consequences. Heck, most of the Senate and the House has been kept in the dark until just a couple of hours ago as to what this legislation actually looked like. This is backroom dealing at its absolute worst. This is exactly the type of activity that Americans abhor and rally against. Apparently it’s been pushed by some out-of-state right-wing fund groups and a right-wing, pyramid-scheming, cheap soap peddler multi-millionaire who’s reportedly been doing some threatening messages to members of the Senate. This is wrong; this is not how you do public policy. This represents a total disregard for the legislative process, for our state constitution and an arrogant disregard for the people of this state. Listen, I’ve worked with a lot of you on a lot of things. I do respect you; I like you. I consider you my friends but ask you to consider what we’re doing and how we’re doing this today. This really is an affront to the State Constitution and the people of this state. All legislation requires thoughtful and deliberate legislative hearings. We’ve had special license plate hearings that have been given more thoughtful review than the legislation before us today. The Senate’s action in voting on this bill can only be viewed as an arrogant exercise in political power, the type you generally see in third-world dictatorships, not in an American state and certainly not in Michigan. Thus, we are now treated to the unfortunate spectacle of a legislative body largely composed of people from the middle class, presiding—no, actively participating—in the demise of the middle class. This is a very sad day. I have union members, my family, like a lot of you, if you think, in your family background and in your immediate family, your grandparents, your neighbors, your friends. I find this very upsetting. If I’ve personally insulted any of you, I apologize because that’s not the reason for making this argument. But I feel very strongly that what we have here today is the wrong thing to do for the state of Michigan, and it’s the wrong thing to do for the workers of the state of Michigan. Thank you, for your indulgence and allowing me to speak. I do think the people deserve better than what is here today.

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows I don’t know if we have a sadder day that we can harken back to. You know, my grandparents came to this state because they had the right to join a collective bargaining unit. That’s why they’re here; that’s why they came; that’s why my family’s in Michigan. I know that my fellow Senator from Genesee County, that his family reaped the rewards of the same plants that my family worked in. I represent Flint, Michigan. There is not Flint, Michigan, without the sit-down strikes of 1936 and 1937. Folks, what you’re trying to do, we’ve already done, and it’s not going to work any better today than it did back then. To take away the rights of anyone, that’s not what this building was built for, and that’s not what we’re here for. We’re here to expand the rights of Michigan citizens, not to deny them. I mentioned something earlier that’s very dear to me. We had a member of my family who was buried. He was killed overseas in this recent war. His family endured a funeral in Clio, Michigan, a funeral in North Carolina Polk Airforce Base, and a funeral at his final resting place, Arlington Cemetery. At the time, he was the highest-decorated casualty of the war. Now what we did earlier today, we said that his mother and his father couldn’t come in this building. Also what we said is that they couldn’t take part in the conversation that we typically undertake through the committee process. Now my family paid an awful price for a different country and other people, but it was all for us. Yet, you wouldn’t let his mother come in this building tonight, and you wouldn’t let his mother talk in the committee room about why we shouldn’t do this. Now Scott’s grandfather belonged to Operating Engineers Local 324. His dad is a union member; his mother worked in Clio schools. His uncle, me, I’ve been a part of the Carpenters Union for 40 years. We have regular meetings where the members can talk about the issues that are important to them. They all don’t have to agree, but our family wasn’t given that right, and you’re gonna cast that vote in a few moments. I’ve been to too many funerals of people who tried to give me the right to speak on their behalf, and I had a moral obligation to give them the right to speak for their own reasons, but we didn’t give them that tonight. When we deny our veterans a chance to be part of this dialogue, I think that’s the worst that we can suffer as a democratic institution. Those people who wear our uniform, the ones you shut out today, they weren’t the only ones, but they were some of the ones you did not allow in this room tonight to have their voices and their reasons recorded. This bill was introduced 11 months ago. We had a lot of time to fit those veterans and their families into this process. Not one of us would be here without those veterans, and yet, you won’t let one of them in. You wouldn’t let one of them talk in the political process that we love so much and that we decided to undertake as individuals to represent our districts. We’ve tried this before. The results on the street were not good. Projects, schools were shut down because the workers tried to get what they’ve got today. And now you’re taking it away from them. We tried this. We didn’t have the best societal results because of it. You know, folks, if you’re going to take somebody’s rights away—and that’s what you’re doing—you ought to have enough courage to let them defend themselves. Don’t take something from someone that he can’t say why you shouldn’t take it. I don’t care whether somebody’s voting based on race, ethnicity, gender, or otherwise. If you take something from somebody through the government process, you ought to give them every consideration to tell you why you shouldn’t do it. I don’t know how you could be proud of what you did tonight. How can you be proud to say that this is the way we want our state to move forward? There’s been a terrible price expanded on those who came before us. How do you justify what you’re doing this evening—more importantly, the process? Everybody’s entitled to their thoughts. Our leadership, how can our leadership justify the process utilized for this historic vote? We’re going to join the ranks of many other states, most of them we don’t even want to be associated with the results of what happened after they enacted the right to work. We have to do better. I’m going to be gone, here, in a couple days, but I think what this institution has undertaken today—first of all, it’s a lack of character, a lack of courage, lack of democratic values that we undertook this evening. So the next time that you read a memorial resolution on behalf of a veteran, use that as your benchmark of what they gave you and what you gave them. This is a horrible example of government. In regard to the workers, you know, people who came from families such as mine and most of yours, they couldn’t even go to school until they were working at a job that was represented by a collective bargaining unit. The middle class literally grew because of democratic process that you shut down tonight. Those folks hit the streets, they picketed and boycotted because of the rights that our forefathers gave them. And then you all think that you’re better than those who gave those rights because you’re sure willing to take them. I dread the day when we see our senior citizens—one of the best social programs we had to keep people out of the poorhouse were the folks who belonged to a collective bargaining unit and had a pension. It’s pretty unusual to find an individual who has a pension who doesn’t belong to a collective bargaining or doesn’t have an affiliation with that in the workplace somewhere. This opportunity to use a million dollars of taxpayers’ funds, when we need streets repaired and we need police and firefighters—my God, we’ve laid off over a hundred police and firefighters in the city of Flint, and we say we’re going to fight crime. Yet we give a million dollars to deny the political process. This is a bad day for Michigan. I think you’re making the wrong choice by joining the ranks of those you really don’t want to be affiliated with. You know, they say that they judge you by who you hang around. I’m not real big on hanging around Texas or Indiana or any of the other states. This is the last thing I’m going to say in regard to this: When you look at the facts, when you check the arithmetic, it’s about single digits. Those who work in the manufacturing sector in right-to-work states, the hiring practices leave out women and minorities at tremendous rates. This is not only a workers’ rights, this is civil rights that we’re attacking this evening. So this is my “no” vote statement: I know we haven’t changed one mind tonight, and I know you got whatever you needed to make sure you cast a vote the right way for whatever was good for you, but we’re doing the wrong thing if we move this legislation forward.

Senator Hood’s statement is as follows: I think it going to be a very sad day in the state of Michigan. I’m a product of unions. I’m here because of unions. I don’t mean that because of support as an elected official, I mean that as a support of my grandfather and his brother, my uncle, who helped organize unions. They were in the fight and the struggles that happened as African-American men involved in unions. So they had two strikes against them. One, they wanted to be union men, and they were African-American—so they had two strikes against them. They were going through all of the processes standing next to their fellow union members of all races, standing together to fight for what was right, what was fair, so they could have a safe environment to work in. So I stand before you on the backs of them. See, what we’ve lost in this process is that everybody in this room has benefitted from unions. This month, you’ll have Christmas off. Next month, you’ll have a day before Christmas off. You’ll have New Year’s Eve the month after that and the day after New Year’s Eve. You think companies wanted to give you those days off, and you’ll be home to spend time with your families? No, they don’t and they didn’t. But after the hard work and the lives that were lost, their behinds were kicked out there. There was talk about the Battle of the Overpass in Dearborn. In my district, where these folks lost their lives, if you go over to the Local 600 and walk down the hallways, you’ll look up on the walls and you’ll see men standing there with billy clubs beating up union members, and what do we do today? We say fooey on them, and I really want to use another word but somebody else got gaveled on for using those words. We stand here today and, look, nobody’s listening. The people you see here in the Gallery, in the rotunda, the people you’re hearing from—guess what? They pay your salary. If they didn’t have a job, they couldn’t pay your salary. They pay your bills. Quiet as it’s kept, they support your lifestyle. They support your kids going to college. They support you—or they supported you. I don’t know that they’re going to support you anymore. They supported you, and now they’re here in this chamber asking you to support them. It’s not a hard request; something simple: support them. Don’t ram it down their throat; support them. Time and time again, studies have shown that right-to-work is bad for the states that adopt this legislation. As a matter of fact, recent studies show that manufacturers didn’t even rate right-to-work at the top ten factors affecting their location decision. For the high-tech, high-paying jobs that we are looking to bring to Michigan, nine out of the top ten states preferred to locate are non-right-to-work states. So if manufacturers aren’t interested in this issue, if high-tech companies aren’t interested, what type of companies are going to be beating down the doors to come to Michigan? None. We may even lose employers. Oklahoma adopted right-to-work legislation over ten years ago, and the number of new companies located there has fallen by one-third since then. I know we had some legislation earlier, some amendments that said let’s put in a sunset clause. Well, that’s put in a clause, and let’s review it in a couple years and let’s see if it works. If it’s such a great idea, why not? But we decided not to, or some folks decided not to take that up. I don’t understand it. We see in what has happened today, as I walked outside, there are a lot of folks asking me who their Senator was, or did I have any relationships with this Senator or that Senator, and I asked them why. Well, they said, “They won’t come out and see me.” Well, why won’t they go out and see them? If you in your conviction can say, in your heart and in your soul, this is the right thing to do for Michigan, why can’t you go out there and talk to them? These are the people who elected you; go talk to them. I don’t care if you agree with them or not or they agree with you or not. That’s your job to go talk to your constituents, but we sit in this room and we bring in more State Police than we probably got on the roads out there to protect us. We’ve got the State Police outside, but we forget they’re union members too. So we’ve called on the union to protect us from the unions. I understand; I have a total respect for the State Police, and I know that they’re going to do the jobs that they do to the best of their abilities. A lot of us in here are tired because we’ve been here all day. We’re not used to being here all day. I’m not tired; I’ll stay here all day. I have no problem, and I know they will too because that’s how important this issue is. Folks on this side of the aisle, we’re not tired; we’re just getting started, and I know they are too. There are going to be some interesting things that are going to happen in this state if this legislation passes. When you don’t go out there and talk to your constituents, you know what that tells me? I’m going to be real blunt here. It’s a coward’s act. That’s being a coward because if you’re man or woman enough to have convictions about something, you have no problem with going to talk to them. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, guess what? It’s a duck. And if the shoe fits—it may not fit everybody, but if the shoe fits, put it on and wear it proudly, but you’ll have to answer to your constituents. This is one of the benefits of sitting right next to the mic. The Obama Administration, in a statement Thursday afternoon, came out against proposed right-to-work legislation being pushed by Republicans in Michigan, including Governor Rick Snyder. “President Obama has long opposed so-called right-to-work laws and he continues to oppose them now,” said White Spokesperson Matt LaRiche. “The President believes our economy is stronger when our workers get good wages and good benefits, and he opposes attempts to roll back their rights. Michigan and its workers’ role in the revival of the U.S. automobile industry is a prime example of how unions have helped build a strong American economy.” That’s our President speaking. I know some of you didn’t vote for him, but that’s our President. I’ll say like the Senator from the 1st District said: He won; get over it. Romney lost. But what that states is that this is an individual we want to go to. You know there’s some folks in here who support a bridge, and then they got to go to him to get the money for it. Good luck because I’ll be personally calling him and telling him to have a deep conversation, not to oppose the bridge, but on the methods in which we go about conducting our business here in Michigan. It’s a sad day in Michigan if this legislation passes, and I guarantee you it will come back to haunt us all. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves right now. Mr. President, we’ll be taking a significant step in the wrong direction if this legislation passes. Let’s show the hardworking people of Michigan the respect they deserve and vote “no” on this legislation. We have to. We have to. At a minimum, we need to start having conversations across the aisle because we’re not doing that now. We think we’re going to make Michigan better—when we have one side in the majority and one side in the minority, whoever. If we continue to conduct business like this in the state of Michigan, it’s not going to be good. If we think one group knows better than the other group, that’s sad because that’s what Michigan was built on. Michigan was built on this diversity and the people who have migrated here. What you told me today, as a colleague in this Senate Chamber, you told me that my word means nothing; that I have nothing to say about this. But one day, remember this, my father always told me this: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So I will vote “no” on this legislation. Thank you.

Senator Warren’s statement is as follows: Many of you have heard me come before you and talk about the fact that I started my career here as a staff person, so one of my jobs was to make sure that the bosses I worked for were armed with the pages and pages of material to make sure that they could have the facts and figures and statistics they needed to make good decisions when they came before this chamber. The colleagues who have spoken before us, especially the good senator from the 2nd District, certainly gave us a lot of facts and figures to think about. But when I joined the chamber across the dome here as a state representative, one of the things that I learned really quickly is that we see a lot of stats and facts and figures and often it’s the personal stories that linger with us longer than one more spreadsheet of graphs and facts and figures. So I’m going to give my “no” vote today, Mr. President, in story form. I’m going to, in honor of my good colleague from the 1st District, start this way: Mr. President, I would like to start with a quote: “Alongside our famous individualism, there is another ingredient in the American saga: a belief that we are all connected as one people. It is that belief, it is that fundamental belief—I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper—that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family.”—From then-Senator, now President Barack Obama’s keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. For a lot of Americans and certainly for a lot of Michiganders, the union becomes your family. The story I’m going to tell you is the story of one man and his journey with his union family. He was an outstanding high school athlete who fell in love, maybe was a little more amorous than he should have been, ended up finding himself at 17 with a 16-year-old pregnant girlfriend who he married. The day after he turned 18, his father-in-law, who was a union man himself, helped him get a job in the local union factory in the town that he grew up in. Eighteen years old, only a high school education, with a wife and a baby on the way, he had the right to collective bargaining and got a salary that meant that they could have their first little apartment and they could start to build their little family. And he did and they did. Eventually, they had a second daughter and a third daughter, and a fourth daughter. Still, just him working, mom stayed home and took care of the kids, but that salary that he earned at that union job with just his education from high school meant that they had enough to pay the bills. That union family that was his family helped through the tough times, and the tough times came, twice. While he was in his 20s, the union shop that he worked at went on strike, striking for better working conditions, striking for appropriate levels of pay. During that time, this little family survived on $80 a week of strike pay—four daughters, two parents, $80 a week in strike pay. So they did fun things, the union family. They had potlucks with other union family members, so that they helped take care of each other, helped feed each other. That’s what we’re talking about. One day, one of his friends got hurt on the job. Because of his union family, they were able to go to management, and they were able to make sure that that faulty piece of equipment was taken out of service that day, immediately fixed before it was put back to use, so that nobody else go hurt. Because of his union family, they made sure nobody else got hurt. That’s what we’re talking about: safe working conditions; people working together to make sure they have what they need. Now he was maybe a little lucky in some ways, maybe a little unlucky in some ways. All four of those daughters ended up needing braces, and there were times when people thought he must’ve been an orthodontist because, otherwise, how could he have afforded to have all of his daughters in braces at the same time? But his union contract had good health insurance, including dental, including orthodontics. So all four of his daughters ended up having those braces, and hopefully beautiful smiles to this day. Because of this union family, he had vacation, and every summer he would get in the car with those four daughters and his wife and visited Pure Michigan. Anywhere you could go on a day trip, they went and visited. The state parks, the great lakes that make the state such an amazing place to be. Because of his union family, he got to take a vacation every year with his kids and his wife. After 30 years and four months, literally to the day that he started working in that union shop, that company made a decision to move the plant from his small hometown somewhere else. But because he had 30 years and four months to the day in, he got to retire. A lot of his other colleagues got a little severance package. His daughter who was in middle school heard the numbers that they were throwing around about what those severance packages look like, and it was numbers like $17,000. They each got $17,000 when the union shop picked up and moved out of town, and it sounded like the world. But most of us know now that $17,000 doesn’t last very long when you’ve got four kids and a wife and no other prospects of a job that good in a small town like that. But because he had thirty years and four months to the day in, he got to retire. When he retired, because of his union family, he received a pension that sustains a modest income, a modest lifestyle, but enough to pay the bills, to make sure that the mortgage is paid, the taxes are paid, and the gas and food are available. Because of his union family, health care coverage in his retirement was also negotiated. So he and his wife, now in their mid-60s, have the assurances that they will both still have access to primary care, that they’ll still have access to prescriptions, that hopefully they can remain as healthy as they can into their old age. This story of this one man shouldn’t be an outlier. It should be what we’re here fighting for. We should be saying that kind of life doesn’t need to exist in Michigan. We should, as elected officials, be doing everything we can to make sure everybody in Michigan who’s willing to work hard, to come every day, to do the job that they’re hired to do; has those things; has the ability to make a wage that sustains a life—a liveable wage; that everybody who is willing to work hard and go to work has the right to safe working conditions; that they have a right to a little vacation every summer so that they can visit Pure Michigan; that they have a right to health care, including dental and vision and prescriptions; that they have a right to a secure retirement after putting in 30 years at a company—nothing grand, but something modest to sustain a life that’s worth living. That’s what I was sent here to do and so today, I’m going to vote “no” on this so-called right-to-work legislation because I don’t think that my father is the only person in this state who should’ve had to have that lifestyle. As the third of those four daughters, I’m grateful every day that he has that pension and he has his retirement health care because as much as I love my parents, I’m glad that they’re not living with me right now. Hopefully they’ll be able to live an independent life for as long as they possibly can because of their union family. So I hope, colleagues, that you’ll be voting “no” on this very destructive legislation.

Senator Gleason’s first statement is as follows: This should not be a day where we’re seeking trophies for any particular philosophical desire. I’ve seen the erosion of this institution over my years of service here, whether denigrating an individual members or the institution itself. There was a representative long before us who said that this government is for, of, and by the people. It’s not to the people. We’re not supposed to be doing something to the people; we’re supposed to do something for them. The best thing we can do for them is to let them be part of it. To hide in the dark—you know darn well, what the results of this legislation is or else you would be more transparent. You know, there should be a level of courage to stand up for those who can’t speak for themselves, and that doesn’t mean shutting people out of this process. Why the haste? Is your haste because of the idea, or is your haste because of an election that happened only a few weeks ago, and you’ve seen the results of that? Don’t fool yourselves. If you think that Proposal 2 was a benchmark for what people think around this state, you’re wrong. There were many people who voted against Proposal 2 because they didn’t want to see our Constitution up for sale with any of the six proposals that were put before them. Don’t fool yourselves, many people are against what you are doing today. This is not only an issue about fairness for the workers, which that’s the ultimate goal, but it’s also an issue of fairness for the process. Who in the world decides that? We won’t give those who pay our wages and pay the taxes for the services we provide. They don’t have a chance, a fair opportunity to tell us what their desires and their opportunities to change this legislation would be. This is a shameful day when you say that you know more than 10 million people—when 26 people are smarter than 10 million. None of you have had the array of careers or life opportunities and experiences that 10 million people in this state have. Shame on us for not including their remarks that we can elevate this institution. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of going too slow? Are we afraid of hearing a decision or result or an idea that’s different than ours? This is an historic event. We ought to treat history better than this. To undertake an assault on one particular class or one constituency, this is against everything that democracy has stood for. We’ve tried leaving people out. We’ve tried to oppress people in the past in this country and in this state. It didn’t work very darn well when we succumbed to the pressures that our brothers and sisters of color should not be part of their government. It did not work well when we said the female should not have the opportunity at the ballot or in the government, or those who are disabled shouldn’t have the same access. What is your purpose today? Is your purpose to denigrate, decay, and destroy this institution? We owe those who came before us a better example for those who will come after us. To say that we are going to assault the workers of this state, those that built every single means of society itself, that we’re going to demean and denigrate and decay those people. This is a shameful day. Where would you be on the other tough issues when we were isolating and individualizing those whom I mentioned previously? Where would you be in that fight? Would you stand on that side of the hall and say, “Yes, we can continue to have the minorities be succumbed to the authority of their government?” That’s what this vote is about. To do this in the stealth that you’re performing today; to not let these people—I’d say we should have fair access; that we should hear from the contractors and the corporations and the workers. You not only shut out the workers you’re attacking, you shut out every form of civil discourse to this process. I hope those who come after us treat this the way it should be treated. There is enough respect for those who pay our way and build out public works that they have a chance to speak on behalf of themselves. This issue is not against the workers today. This is an assault on all the ones who came before us and all the workers who are going to come after us. This assault is so scandalous that we say, “Listen, we’re going to perform an act today that we won’t even give the people a chance to redress this with their votes.” So today we are talking about shutting out voices and the votes. We can do better. I don’t have the fear of listening to anybody. What is your problem when hearing from others? Your title and responsibilities are representatives of the people of the state of Michigan. And that’s what you should be doing today. This is scandalous that we’re moving this forward this fast.

Senator Bieda’s first statement is as follows: Mr. President, my amendment would tie-bar this bill to the repeal of the pension tax. For those of you who were opposed to the imposition of this pension tax on our state’s retirees, here’s an opportunity for you to vote to repeal it. The bill we are considering today will drastically affect low-wage earners in Michigan, and such men and women will be stuck working minimum-wage jobs pretty much until the day they die. No one is going to be able to return anyway, and they’re not going to be able to pay the pension tax anyway, so why don’t we just get rid of it? Thank you for supporting men and women working late into their golden years. The citizens of Michigan are tired of your relentless attack on the basic rights of working men and women. It’s tragic that right to work is up for consideration today. I ask you to support this amendment. I appreciate your support of the amendment.

Senator Hopgood’s statement was as follows: As the Secretary was reading the bill, the substitute that was introduced and put before us just minutes ago—as we were reading it, and as we were listening to what’s actually in the bill, it became apparent that there’s an appropriation placed in there. Now, serving on the Appropriations Committee, I know that we do supplementals just about every other month, maybe sometimes every month, so it’s kind of curious why we would have an appropriation in this bill, when, in fact, there are many opportunities to provide the money that may be necessary—may not be necessary—to implement the provisions of this new act that we’re trying to pass here. The question becomes: Why are we avoiding the committee process with this bill, and why are we avoiding the appropriations process with the appropriation which is found in the bill? There’s a million dollars that would be struck by this amendment. It becomes obvious: What we are doing is an end-run around the Constitution. We always talk about how the Constitution is such an important document; how it frames the rules that we operate under and how we should adhere to it—until it becomes inconvenient, until it becomes inconsistent with whatever we want to do, and that’s just wrong. Why are we doing an end-run around the Constitution? Why are we putting in this appropriation to avoid the rights the people have to referendum? It’s a constitutional provision. We didn’t have it with the enacting amendment earlier. This is a constitutional right that the people have, and we’re shutting them out just like we shut them out during this conversation on this bill. It’s outrageous, it’s wrong, and it’s something we should not do. Quite often when we rush things in these ways, we do it wrong. Right-to-work is wrong for Michigan. We should be preserving the right to referendum.

Detroit - "The Model Cities Program". Detroit ranks 66 out of 68 (1 year ago) of big cities. Ever wonder why? Here is the answer: http://www.youtube**.*com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw

Senator Young’s first statement is as follows Let me tell it to you like this: The reason why I support this amendment is because if you believe that right-to-work is actually going to increase wages, then you might as well believe in beanstalks or you might as well believe in Bigfoot or you might as well believe that you can go out there and find the Abominable Snowman in the mountains or you might as well believe that Batman really exists. You know, you might as well believe that you can ride horses that fly or that there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. You have a better chance of jumping in the Lansing river and finding Nemo than you do of this bill doing anything to increase wages. It’s fake; it’s a joke. Let’s approve this amendment so we can actually reveal how much of an embarrassment this is.