Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on August 24, 2010

Click here to view bill details.

 Yes, I agree

A big no to this attempt to weaken the unions, and thus punish the working men and women of this state.

gypsy:

punish the working men and women of this state

 

Really?  Isn't the fact that Michigan is not a right to work state punishing the non-working men and women who cannot find jobs  because of the pro big labor, anti-business climate?  I think the real fear of right to work from the unions is that the high paid union leaders are afraid it might cut into their cushy lifestyle.  I've always wondered, are union leaders and management employees considered working men and women? 

BTW gypsy, the implication that only union members are "working men and women" is Marxist claptrap. 

 Although this legislation has virtually no chance of passing, making Michigan a right to work state would do more to improve our economy than any other single move.

This needs to happen-and the sooner the better!

Making Michigan a right to work for less state would make us more like....China.

"Right to Work" is Republican code for "anti-union".  Please remember that higher union wages provide workers more money to spend in the local economy.  Less for workers means less for everyone.

Thanks for the AFL-CIO talking points.  Every unbiased study out there says you're wrong.  And plenty of RtW states have lots of unions.  The only difference being those unions can't take the members for granted.  

bapossum:

"Right to Work" is Republican code for "anti-union".  Please remember that higher union wages provide workers more money to spend in the local economy.  Less for workers means less for everyone.

 

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? Georgia?  Nevada?  Arizona? Florida?  How do those unions 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 most members 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?  

(I thought it might be easier if I just copy and paste my answers from the other thread, gives me a chance to polish them up a bit.)

changeagent:

 Although this legislation has virtually no chance of passing, making Michigan a right to work state would do more to improve our economy than any other single move.

Maybe this particular bill won't make it through but we should all be very encouraged that at least the conversation has started.  I think RtW advocates can see the shift in public opinion, especially with the rhetoric coming out of the teachers unions and AFSCME.    I'm trying to get someone at National RtW to suggest ways to volunteer on this.  

I also believe the Right to Work campaigns of the past have missed the boat in reaching out to existing union members, as if they fell for the garbage that union leaders and communication directors actually speak for union members.    I think if RtW takes the time to explain to union members what the legislation really means -- not that unions would become "illegal" like so many of the union staffers on these threads keeps claiming -- but that unions leaders would become ACCOUNTABLE TO THE MEMBERS for how their dues are spent and how the members are served.    I have a hard time imagining any union member but the most brainwashed who wouldn't see the benefits in that.  

 

To portray this movement to make Michigan a right to work for less state as an attempt to make the unions more accountable is laughable. It is obviously and blantantly an attempt to weaken unions by starving them of dues, resulting in less clout at the bargaining table, and less clout at the ballot box.The real motivation behind this campaign is profits and control. Understand I am not at all opposed to corporations making a profit. That is why they exist. Labor is motivated by the same need to make money, and collective bargaining brings balance to those dynamics. Weakening one side gives more strength to the other, which is exactly what this right to work for less campaign is all about.

May I add that I am not a "union staffer", but a retired union member. A member who worked and raised a family here in Michigan on union wages and benefits, and is enjoying a retirement and pension obtained through a union contract. I know first hand that union jobs provide workers with more income, more benefits, and safer working conditions. This in turn provides our state with more taxes and a stronger economy. The financial crises our nation has gone through, caused mainly by unscrupulous banking and unfair trade, has provided fertile ground for the right to work for less people to push their agenda. These right to work for less bills need to be sent to the trash heap.

All this Big Union blather about the evil corporations, that's  what's laughable.  Without business there is nothing to unionize, except the government of course. 

gypsy:

To portray this movement to make Michigan a right to work for less state as an attempt to make the unions more accountable is laughable. It is obviously and blantantly an attempt to weaken unions by starving them of dues, resulting in less clout at the bargaining table, and less clout at the ballot box.The real motivation behind this campaign is profits and control. Understand I am not at all opposed to corporations making a profit. That is why they exist. Labor is motivated by the same need to make money, and collective bargaining brings balance to those dynamics. Weakening one side gives more strength to the other, which is exactly what this right to work for less campaign is all about.

May I add that I am not a "union staffer", but a retired union member. A member who worked and raised a family here in Michigan on union wages and benefits, and is enjoying a retirement and pension obtained through a union contract. I know first hand that union jobs provide workers with more income, more benefits, and safer working conditions. This in turn provides our state with more taxes and a stronger economy. The financial crises our nation has gone through, caused mainly by unscrupulous banking and unfair trade, has provided fertile ground for the right to work for less people to push their agenda. These right to work for less bills need to be sent to the trash heap.

 

Motives are meaningless -- all that matters are the lasting effects.  We could question motives all day long and that wouldn't change the realities of how this legislation would effect the state.  And one thing it certainly would do is free thousands of workers from paying compulsory dues to do-nothing unions.  

And exactly what is so wrong with business owners and executives seeking more control over their own businesses?  Perhaps what they seek is something called COMPETITIVENESS so a business can quickly respond to market and economic changes without being hamstrung by a union contract.  That's the true cost of unionization to a company you realize -- the inability to quickly respond to changes in the economic climate in order to keep a company viable and competitive.  But why would the workers possibly care if their employer was doing well, eh?

You write as if the unions are all in some sort of battle with the largest corporations and the highest paid CEOs.  Not true.  The average unionized company is relatively small -- Fortune 5000 not 500 -- and the CEO is not sitting atop some mountain of money.  Nope -- the average Michigan business with a union contract is living much closer to the bone than the average Michigan union local, that's for sure.  And the typical start-up job-producing company simply can't navigate these difficult economic waters shackled to a union contract.  

And now FINALLY, after weeks of sparring it all makes sense -- you are afraid that somehow Right to Work will weaken your union so much it will screw up your retirement.  How blessed you are to have had a job your whole life and a retirement.  Sadly, that's now a thing of the past for almost all Michiganders under 65 and strong unions won't do a darn thing to bring back the good times you were truly lucky enough to enjoy.  And it wasn't the unions that gave you that leg up -- it was your skills in a healthy economy before America had any real global competition.

Well, good news.  If your marvelous union has well cared for your pension your retirement is safe no matter what happens.  And those of us still out here trying to make a living will be much better off with employers as flexible responsive powerful engines of economic growth.  

By the way, has your union, or any union that you know of, ever CREATED a job?  (outside of a government job, of course)

 

NancyJ I guess you haven't payed attention to how this whole competitive thing has been working have you? Those cars and trucks built in Mexico are you getting any kind of savings on them even though they're built by a substandard workforce? If it wasn't for Unions no one would make a living.The house that Reagan built was built on the backs of the middle class and Bush tried to finish the job. People with beliefs like yours only hurt this country. If you don't produce a product you will not be a leading nation in the world. The Tea Baggers are fighting to save the USA but the only thing they're doing is creating racism and poverty.

Actually, my Toyota was just recalled -- it was built in California on a UAW Vibe line.  The part that failed was a UAW made Delphi ECM so I'm not getting you on this whole Mexican car thingee.  Actually, that UAW American made Toyota is the biggest lemon I've owned since the good old days of the 100% American UAW made Maverick, Vega and Gremlin.   And the Saturn?  Wow, yeah, there's a quality vehicle, much more reliable than my sister's Volvo.

BeirutVet83:

NancyJ I guess you haven't payed attention to how this whole competitive thing has been working have you? Those cars and trucks built in Mexico are you getting any kind of savings on them even though they're built by a substandard workforce? If it wasn't for Unions no one would make a living.The house that Reagan built was built on the backs of the middle class and Bush tried to finish the job. People with beliefs like yours only hurt this country. If you don't produce a product you will not be a leading nation in the world. The Tea Baggers are fighting to save the USA but the only thing they're doing is creating racism and poverty.

Funny, I can't put my finger on the single thing hurting this country.  You are clearly very astute.  What's even weirder is I used to have beliefs just like yours, then I read a few books and started really checking out the "facts" being thrown about by unions.  Like the whole fairy tale that Reagan somehow destroyed the middle class.  Wow.  I remember screaming that one at people for years!  You do know the real reason union leaders hate Reagan, don't you? Check out The President's Commission on Organized Crime.  

 

NancyJE:

You do know the real reason union leaders hate Reagan, don't you?

Yes I do. Three words, Air Traffic Controllers.

Using the "I'm reformed" is an old trick of the revival tent preachers to try and connect with their sinning audience. At least their motives were to try and save their listeners, not steal from them, at least not openly. The right to work for less campaign is a bald faced attempt at stealing the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions. If all it took for you to conclude that workers would be better off if they didn't have unions was to read "a few books", I would humbly suggest you read a few more. Maybe a couple books about the Ludlow Massacre, or the Hay Market Tragedy, or even the Battle of the Overpass would expand your thinking. I know these incidents are history, but history has an annoying way of repeating itself if lessons are not learned. Maybe just the logic of workers having the right to organize and get the best deal they can for themselves might take root in your mind, again.

 

 

Nothing about RIght to Work inhibits or prevents workers from organizing or joining unions.   Right to Work expands the rights of workers, it doesn't take any of their rights away.  Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO said just this week that Right to Work legislation in Michigan would result in the loss of one in five dues payers, one can assume from those unions that are not able to maintain the trust of their members.  He said nothing about this legislation effecting workers rights to organize or the strength of their contracts, only union budgets and the political clout of unions in Lansing.

Those interested in the facts about this legislation and not the union hyperbole, should read the Mlive pieces running this weekend on Right to Work for Michigan.    One innovative notion -- Right to Work zones in western Michigan that could serve as a model for the rest of the state.  If it draws investors and creates new jobs we'll know -- if it destroys unions and wages plummet we'll know.

 I would be curious to hear the plan for bringing more investment and jobs to Michigan while maintaining the hostile anti-corporate posture of the most vocal supporters of closed shop.  Why would any new business want to locate in an area where earning a profit is considered evil?    

Right to work for less would allow companies to entice workers not to pay dues. Why should they? All the benefits won by the union would be available to them for free. Eventually, the unions would lose clout at the bargaining table, since they would not represent all of the workers. Strike funds would be depleted, political influence would diminish, and in a short time, unions would not have the financial ability to organize new workers.

Money talks in politics, as we all know. This campaign to pass a right to work for less law is a political manuever to blunt union influence, and therefore increase corporate influence. Workers are suffering now because of corporate greed. No unions are against corporations making a healthy profit, but workers have a right to their share of the pie. Collective bargaining is the best method for finding that balance.

Unions, and the closed shop, have not cost Michigan jobs. NAFTA and poor management at the auto companies have. The unions have given back many hard earned gains to save the auto industry, as have other unions in other industries. More investment, along with more jobs, will be brought to our state with new industries, especially in the clean energy sectors. Fairer trade agreements and government incentives will certainly help this happen. We should be working together to accomplish this, not using this recession to try and destroy labor's voice.

I just trust workers to be smart enough to decide what's best for them in their workplace.  If they believe in the union they will support it, if they don't they won't.  

If they are so tractable that their employer can persuade them to act against their own best interest then so too can the union organizer sitting in their living room.  But I just don't see members as dumb cows who will sell their own futures for a few pretty promises from their boss or to save ten bucks a week.    The members I knew were far too savvy for that.  Unless a worker is profoundly mentally challenged, I trust a well informed worker to do what's right for them.  They know their worksite, they know their boss, they know how well their union has or hasn't served them so they should have the right to make those decisions.

I'm quite confident in the wake of Right to Work we would see many Michigan union locals with 100% or near 100% participation, those union locals where the members have always come first and the ownership of the union has always been democratic.  I believe we will also see more than a few union locals where the officials won't be able to scramble fast enough to stop the hemorrhaging because the members are just that fed up.  In between those two extremes I believe we will see a range of member support for their unions leaving locals to do a little or a lot to trim budgets and regain the member trust -- and that experience will be good for them.

Most unions no longer have strike funds or depleted them long ago which is why you see so few strikes anymore.  This also speaks to the decades of union mismanagement that Right to Work could address.  And if a union local is healthy enough to have a strike fund it will be strong enough to get through Right to Work stronger than ever.

New organizing is rarely if ever financed at the local level.  New organizing is generally conducted by international staff. (note how little new organizing is being conducted now in the wake of massive union spending on the Obama election) Michigan RtW would have little impact on new organizing here -- if anything internationals might be inclined to spend more money organizing in Michigan to regain sagging political clout or prop up faltering union locals.  I'll tell you where internationals don't waste their organizing cash -- in weak economies where those newly organized jobs could disappear within a year or two.  Unions like to organize shops where they expect a long run and an expanding workforce.  With RtW you might see organizing in Michigan like you haven't in 30 years.

Finally, I simply cannot see the world as black hat and white hats anymore -- the evil corporations versus the noble union.  That is the old tired divisive thinking that got us all right where we are right now.  There are good guys in both labor and business and the best path would be to empower them and disempower the corrupt and the inept on BOTH sides.

The current Big Labor status quo can do nothing to stop unscrupulous business leaders from taking too large a profit, or sending work overseas, or making short sighted decisions.  If it could? Why hasn't it?  Our only way out of this nightmare is for all the good players at the table to lay down their weapons -- unions, especially in Michigan, need to stop demonizing business, investors and profit-making.  Or guess what, investors and profit-makers won't want to bring their businesses here.  

Unions need to also do a radically better job of listening to their members.   And union leaders need to begin taking a long view of what it is to be a union member in these times and how to best not only serve their members but turn control of the union over to the broadest base of shared leadership.  You don't do that by demonizing the business world, spewing a bunch of divisive rhetoric and advocating for class warfare.   That's the cheap and path of the simpleton hacks running most union communication departments -- throw red meat at them, scare the crap out of them, make it all about the boogiebossman.    

Look -- we have ALL screwed the pooch here -- government, business and working people too.  We all borrowed too much, spent too much, assumed to much and came to expect too much from everyone and everything but ourselves.    I say throw all the bums out -- out of government, out of the union office, out of the boardrooms.  I say give every union member in Michigan the RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether to pay his dues or hold them back and make union leaders accountable only to their members again. 

 

Workers intelligence is not the issue. The volume of their voice is. To paint this picture of right to work for less as giving the workers a choice is intentionally deceptive. They make their choice when they apply for work at a company where workers are represented by a union. That choice was made because of better wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions than companies without union contracts. Those benefits weren't furnished out of the good and generous hearts of the companies management, but were negotiated through collective bargaining, most likely with a strike involved. The small amount of money required in dues is the least employees who are able to benefit from others sacrifice should pay. If they then don't like how the union is run, they have the choice of becoming involved in changing it. You underestimate, again maybe intentionally, the companies influence with workers. After all, they determine their hours, their job description, and many other conditions of employment. To someone who needs a job, which most of us do to survive, the companies influence is much greater than the unions ever could be.

We don't see strikes as often now for very obvious reasons. Less people are employed, most industries are depressed, and companies are quick to move operations out of country for much cheaper labor.

You're wrong about Labor not being able to prevent unscrupulous businesses from taking more than their share in profits and sending work overseas. With politicians in office who support labor, laws can be passed to protect jobs and regulate businesses, and they have. The reason they haven't been able to for at least a decade is obvious, an administration in DC unfriendly to labor and overly friendly to international corporations.

Unions need not demonize the business world, they have managed that themselves. Think Enron, Goldman Sachs, BP, or closer to home, the auto CEOs flying to DC to beg for taxpayer money in their private jets.

We have not all "screwed the pooch". Government has by not doing their job of keeping financial institutions and corporations regulated properly. This blame falls on both parties. Businesses have by not showing loyalty to the nation that spawned them and made them what they are, instead searching for ever more profits at the cost of destroying markets. But working people have not screwed anyone's pooch. Working people, the middle class, are taking the brunt of government and business malfeasance. Stagnating wages, loss of health care, home foreclosures, unemployment, all the price the middle class has paid in this recession. None of the bankers have gone to jail, the CEOs of the auto industries retire with mult-million dollar pensions. No, the workers need not share any of the blame. Now business sees an opportunity to weaken unions while they are most vulnerable, to insure obscene profits and absolute control once the economy recovers.

I support anything that gives workers the dignity of a fair wage, decent hours, and safe working conditions. That has been unions, and will continue to be.

Obviously you need examples.

In Detroit, all the casinos, Joe Louis, Cobo and the ballparks are organized.  They are members of UNITE HERE local 24 in Detroit. The kitchen and waitstaff at about 80% of the country clubs in the tri-country area are also local 24.  Most of those shops were organized to first contract back in the 1950s and back then union membership was a good deal for those workers.  Now it isn't at all.  It's the entire litany of union gone wrong -- poor or non-existent service, corrupt stewards with super seniority who only help their friends, crooked elections, expired contracts, can't get a phone call returned, the list goes on.  

THERE ARE NO OTHER JOBS LIKE THESE IN WAYNE COUNTY.  Can you understand that?  These people trapped in Local 24 shops are don't have the transportation to work anywhere else and they can't move and there simply are no other jobs in Detroit for them.  They feel blessed to have any job and stark terrified of losing it.  They didn't "choose" a union it chose them.  They pay flat (not percentage) dues as high as most nurses and other professionals making ten times as much a year.  And they literally get nothing for those dues except in some cases access to crappy high cost healthcare that might not otherwise be there.  Otherwise the vast majority make minimum wage or less (happy to explain that you to if you like) from which they pay dues for nothing.  Sure, there's a handful of elite in all these shops who the union takes care of, but the vast majority are suffering for their union membership.

They are one big reason I'm for Right to Work and I know they are not alone, that there are other trapped in union locals all across the state that harvest the dues and do nothing more.  These people deserve the right to withhold their dues.

 

MEANWHILE, the unemployed in Michigan deserve a shot at whatever will bring jobs to Michigan.  So why not create the proposed "Right to Work" zone on the west side of the state, where there are not too many existing union members, and see what happens?  Give it a shot. 

And you just won't address the question of how unions can thrive and new organizing drives can be going on right now in existing Right to Work states.  Isn't possible there's a healthier model out there of unions that truly work to earn the support of each and every member?  

 

 

You obviously need an example of what these jobs were like without a union.

NancyJE:

 And they literally get nothing for those dues except in some cases access to crappy high cost healthcare that might not otherwise be there.  Otherwise the vast majority make minimum wage or less (happy to explain that you to if you like) from which they pay dues for nothing.

Would they have access to, or more importantly, be able to afford healthcare at all without the union contracts. Many of these jobs are seasonal, part time jobs, that provide access to healthcare unavailable in their other jobs. And I am quite aware of why they may make less than minimum wage in some jobs. Tips.

NancyJE:

They didn't "choose" a union it chose them.  

They did choose a union, since they chose to work at these jobs that were represented by a union since the 50s. And as I've mentioned before, they chose to work at these jobs because of the pay and benefits. Would many of them choose not to pay dues if they didn't have to? No doubt some would. Would many of them choose to make less money, give up their health insurance? No, not a one.

NancyJE:

MEANWHILE, the unemployed in Michigan deserve a shot at whatever will bring jobs to Michigan.

The unemployed in Michigan need good jobs. Jobs they can support families with.

NancyJE:

So why not create the proposed "Right to Work" zone on the west side of the state

Michigan doesn't need to be divided down the middle like a pie.

NancyJE:

And you just won't address the question of how unions can thrive and new organizing drives can be going on right now in existing Right to Work states.

I don't address it because it isn't true. These statistics are from the US Dept. of Labor. Note how the lowest rate of union membership is in right to work for less states.

In 2009, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary
workers who were members of a union--was 12.3 percent.
In
1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available,
the union membership rate was 20.1 percent.
Six states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2009, with
North Carolina having the lowest rate (3.1 percent). The next lowest
rates were recorded in Arkansas (4.2 percent), South Carolina (4.5
percent), Georgia (4.6 percent), Virginia (4.7 percent), and Mississi-
ppi (4.8 percent). Four states had union membership rates over 20.0 
percent in 2009--New York (25.2 percent), Hawaii (23.5 percent), Alaska 
(22.3 percent), and Washington (20.2 percent). 

 

gypsy:

Would they have access to, or more importantly, be able to afford healthcare at all without the union contracts. Many of these jobs are seasonal, part time jobs, that provide access to healthcare unavailable in their other jobs. And I am quite aware of why they may make less than minimum wage in some jobs. Tips.

Actually, no I wasn't referring to union members paid under minimum wage because of tips; I was referring to union members who are paid minimum wage and then have chunks of money deducted from their wages every shift because shared registers turn up short.  Sadly, they effectively often make a dollar or two under minimum wage because of the practice of charging workers for cups stolen by fans and forcing several workers to use the same drawer and with no oversight of the counting out of drawers by lower level management.  The union does nothing about it and thus these people make far below minimum wage and, as counter help, do not get enough tips to make up anywhere near the difference.  

As for healthcare, it is completely out of their reach with typical copays of over $300 a month on under minimum wage -- or unavailable entirely if they are working under 30 a week, which most of course are.

They did choose a union, since they chose to work at these jobs that were represented by a union since the 50s. And as I've mentioned before, they chose to work at these jobs because of the pay and benefits. Would many of them choose not to pay dues if they didn't have to? No doubt some would. Would many of them choose to make less money, give up their health insurance? No, not a one.

You do realize I'm talking about workers in the city of Detroit, yes?  There are no other jobs in Detroit and it is next to impossible to either move out of Detroit without a job or take public transportation to a job outside the city.  So where do you work?  The casinos, the hotels and the arenas and they are all union -- bad do-nothing union.  They do not have affordable health insurance or any other benefits.  Your callousness to people who have poor union representation is stunning -- it's the typical union "I got mine so everyone else can get their own too" mentality.  It's sickening.  

The unemployed in Michigan need good jobs. Jobs they can support families with.

Michigan doesn't need to be divided down the middle like a pie.

Well, the opportunity to perhaps work two jobs or have a lower standard of living is far preferable to having NO JOB and ending up homeless.  And why not divide Michigan down the middle like a pie?  What harm would that do to test Right to Work with a group of residents that seem open to the concept and leave the rest of the state as is?   Right to Work zones could be created where the residents are willing to take a chance on real change.    Shouldn't they have that choice?

NancyJE:

And you just won't address the question of how unions can thrive and new organizing drives can be going on right now in existing Right to Work states.

I don't address it because it isn't true. These statistics are from the US Dept. of Labor. Note how the lowest rate of union membership is in right to work for less states.

In 2009, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary
workers who were members of a union--was 12.3 percent.
In
1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available,
the union membership rate was 20.1 percent.
Six states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2009, with
North Carolina having the lowest rate (3.1 percent). The next lowest
rates were recorded in Arkansas (4.2 percent), South Carolina (4.5
percent), Georgia (4.6 percent), Virginia (4.7 percent), and Mississi-
ppi (4.8 percent). Four states had union membership rates over 20.0 
percent in 2009--New York (25.2 percent), Hawaii (23.5 percent), Alaska 
(22.3 percent), and Washington (20.2 percent). 

So, again, how can unions survive and thrive in Right to Work states like Nevada (17%) and Montana (18%)?  And I would be curious as to what the private sector unionization rates look like in a state by state comparison if you take public sector unions out of the equation.  Of course forced unionization states have far more public sector unionized workers because the unions control local and state government.  

 

Your position seems to have morphed from opposing unions in general to criticizing a particular union for not doing enough for it's members. Would the bad management practices you enumerate go away if the the employees left the union? Would management offer any kind of health care at all if not required to by union contract? Would management increase wages as a good will gesture? If you believe so, you are delusional, or are being deceived. If the members of the union are not satisfied with it's performance, they can vote out their representatives, or even entertain joining another union. I realize that takes effort and time, but change of any kind usually does.

NancyJE:

Your callousness to people who have poor union representation is stunning -- it's the typical union "I got mine so everyone else can get their own too" mentality.  It's sickening.

I am certainly not callous to union members who have less than adequate union representation, but It is their responsibility to make sure they do, through the unions election process if possible, or through legal means if needed. Apathy is just as rampant in union elections as in government elections. I am also certain that having a weak union, as would be the case if right to work for less were passed, is the worst situation overall for workers. Hope that makes you feel better.

What choice would this bill give workers? The choice between a union with no teeth, and no union at all.

Michigan's laws should apply to all it's population within it's geographic boundary's. To start dividing the applicability of state laws to regions within the state would open a can of worms we don't need.

Please explain to me why the Republicans would less jobs and lower wages for everyone.

BeirutVet83:

The Tea Baggers are fighting to save the USA but the only thing they're doing is creating racism and poverty.

I think the Tea Party folks are trying to bring back what this country was founded on, freedom, liberty and limited government.  I believe it is the views of people like you with your union entitlement mentality that are destroying this country.  BeirutVet83, have you ever stopped to think about the comments you make? 

BeirutVet83:

If it wasn't for Unions no one would make a living.

  Really!?  How is it then that the fastest growing, most profitable companies are non-union?  And before you go on about the evils of profit, please consider that grow creates more jobs and the more talent a person brings to the table the more they get paid in a free enterprise system.  Perhaps the problem is you don't have any talent so the only way you can get paid more is get subsidized by your more talented coworkers who are forced to join the union in order to keep their job.

If you big union supporters want to know why the rest of the workforce is tired of your threats and rhetoric, follow this link to the latest story about UAW workers drinking and smoking pot on the job.   http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/chrysler-auto-workers-busted_20100923_dk

 

 

Union hypocrisy -- if you object to being forced to join a union the unionists tell you to just go find another job.  But you dare not tell a unionist that if he doesn't like how his employer treats him he should just go look for another job.  You'd think that job was the last job on earth and it was the union guy's God given right to work there.  

Or to listen to Bob King today in the Free Press, the minute domestic auto makers start turning a profit they need to, before all else, give back to the UAW members -- not the shareholders, not the white collar workforce, not the suppliers, not the community, not the taxpayers -- but those jacka$$es drinking in the park on their paid lunch hours.  And how many taxpayer bailout dollars will go towards drug and alcohol treatment for these bozos?  

 Pete Hoekstra was the ONLY GOP gubernatorial candidate that DIDN'T want to make "right-to-work" a priority. Since Granholm did such a piss-poor job as governor, the GOP was GUARANTEED to win the seat, reguardless of who won the primary. Since Snyder WILL BE our next governor and there is at least a 75% chance (if not greater) that the GOP will take back the house, it's only a matter of time until Michigan is a "right-to-work" state.

gypsy:

I am certainly not callous to union members who have less than adequate union representation, but It is their responsibility to make sure they do, through the unions election process if possible, or through legal means if needed. Apathy is just as rampant in union elections as in government elections. I am also certain that having a weak union, as would be the case if right to work for less were passed, is the worst situation overall for workers. Hope that makes you feel better.

What choice would this bill give workers? The choice between a union with no teeth, and no union at all.

Michigan's laws should apply to all it's population within it's geographic boundary's. To start dividing the applicability of state laws to regions within the state would open a can of worms we don't need.

You still don't get it and you never will.  You simply refuse to accept that there are people out there more afraid of their union rep than they are of their boss.  And you fail to grasp the possibility that it's not apathy that keeps them paying dues to a corrupt union, but genuine fear and inadequate tools to self organize.  Remember, when you decert it's against the law for the employer to help you in any way so that means (unlike in an organizing drive) no paid organizing help, no mailings, no union hall, no high paid union lawyers.  The typical minimum wage union victim isn't even aware there's a process, never heard of the NLRB and his union sure as hell isn't going to explain those rights to him.  And when you try to decert or take a run at the union bosses the workers are on their own, forced to figure it all out themselves and unable to defend themselves legally from their union.  

And I think Right to Work offers this option -- the choice between a union that has earned your support or freedom from a blood sucking predatory "union" that corrupts and craps on everything unions are supposed to stand for.

As for the horrors of testing state laws in some areas and not others your arguments make zero GD sense.  More than anything I think you fear what so many of us would celebrate -- the concrete undeniable evidence that Right to Work is right for Michigan. 

 

You are mistaken, I very much do "get it". I get that the true reason behind this push for the right to work for less law is not your professed concern for members of a less than upstanding union. The real agenda is to weaken unions in Michigan, take away their political strength, and thus give big business even more influence in our government, not to mention greater profits through lower labor cost.

NancyJE:

And I think Right to Work offers this option -- the choice between a union that has earned your support or freedom from a blood sucking predatory "union" that corrupts and craps on everything unions are supposed to stand for.

Right to work for less offers an option alright. An option of contributing to a union that bargains for higher wages, more benefits, and safer working conditions, or letting just a few carry the burden. There is a legal process to deal with bad unions without having a right to work for less law. You underestimate the abilities of union members to use this system. Typical attitude of a pro-big business person. Union members, even minimum wage union members, are quite intelligent. By the way, they wouldn't even be making minimum wage without unions pushing for the minimum wage law and increases. An example of our political victories you so despise, along with social security, unemployment compensation, workmen's compensation, and let's not forget our role in the battle for civil rights.

If you would like to "test" a state law, may I suggest you move to a right to work for less state and do a little testing yourself. That would make a lot of GD sense to me.

 

Very well stated!! I have worked for both Union and Non union employers and now I work for an Arrogant power hungry manager that has no respect for any of his employees and runs the company as if it were a prison. Like a lot of people, I remain there because I need a job. If it weren't for the protection of the UAW which I am a proud member of. I can't imagine what my working conditions would be like. We do currently have a large turnover rate at my company but it has nothing to do with the Union. Salaried employees when interviewing for a position negotiate their wage, personal days, vacation time etc. We do it in a group, why do we not have this same right!

 united we bargain,divided,we beg! Vote 'no' on right-to-starve law!

Lora:

Very well stated!! I have worked for both Union and Non union employers and now I work for an Arrogant power hungry manager that has no respect for any of his employees and runs the company as if it were a prison. Like a lot of people, I remain there because I need a job. If it weren't for the protection of the UAW which I am a proud member of. I can't imagine what my working conditions would be like. We do currently have a large turnover rate at my company but it has nothing to do with the Union. Salaried employees when interviewing for a position negotiate their wage, personal days, vacation time etc. We do it in a group, why do we not have this same right!

Unfortunately you have things backwards, probably because of UAW propaganda.  Without the protections of Right to Work you have lost the right to negotiate your own wages and benefits the same way your managers do.  You must accept union representation whether you want it or not.  In many union shops this means outstanding workers cannot be rewarded for their performance.  

 

And regardless of all the hot air blown around by unionists, Right to Work would NOT make unions illegal or impinge in any way on your current rights and ability to organize or join a union.  Right to Work would ONLY do away with mandatory unionism and insure every worker has the right to turn down union protection and negotiate their own pay and working conditions.  IT would also return control of unions to their members who could withhold due from do-nothing unions.  

Those unions that have the support of their members have nothing to fear under Right to Work.  As a matter of fact, unions still organize in Right to Work states and there are many successful unions.  Nevada, for one example, is Right to Work and 16.8% of the workforce is unionized, not much lower than Michigan at 17.3%.  

mark.s:

 united we bargain,divided,we beg! Vote 'no' on right-to-starve law!

Funny but if I was looking for third world poverty or hungry people I'd look in Detroit, Saginaw or Flint before I'd look in North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Florida or Tennessee where Right to Work has helped those economies to flourish.   

 

Funny, if you were actually looking for third world poverty or hungry people, you would look in Florida and Texas. Both of those right to work states have higher homeless populations than Michigan. But that would really have nothing to do with the misnamed right to work law, just like your statement doesn't. Michigan's economy thrived when auto manufacturer"s and their employees thrived. Contrary to your theory, the American auto industry didn't collapse because of unions, it collapsed because of poor management and global pressures from foreign auto makers. Those foreign auto makers built their factories in the South to avoid unions for sure, but paid their workers comparable to union workers in the North. The workers benefited from years of union bargaining without having to sacrifice a penny. Right to work is nothing more than an attempt to take labors voice and influence out of politics, and give corporations a free reign. Worker safety would suffer, as it has in the mining industry, and the gap between the middle class wages and the wealthy would increase even more, as it has done since the Reagan administration.

I am certainly not opposed to businesses making a profit. That's the only reason for them to exist. Likewise, workers have a right to collectively bargain for better wages and safer working conditions. Only an extremely naive person would think an hourly worker bargaining on his own behalf rather than as a member of a union, would have any chance of getting health care, a decent wage, and safe working conditions from a multi-national corporation.

All the states you mention with "flourishing" economies are struggling in this downturn, to varying degrees, and for various reasons. Michigan's struggle is for a very obvious reason, the collapse of the American auto industry. Not being a "right to beg" State had little to do with it, but like vultures on a carcass, the business community sees an opportunity to pick the working class' bones.