Michigan "Right-To-Work" Legislation Is Bad Legislation!

[JimofPennsylvan]

The one thing that really gets me about Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's grandstanding about the need for a "right to work" law is that he is so one sided in his analysis of the issue and many of the bills supporters act the same way. Governor Snyder is all over the place in front of TV cameras saying things like workers have rights they should be free to not join a Union if they so choose and workers should not be forced to join a Union. However, the public doesn't hear word one from the Governor and supporters of this bill about if this bill becomes law for these Michigan workers who chose not to join the union at their employer they will still receive the "benefits" of the union contract but "won't be paying" to maintain the union and that isn't fair, it isn't right; America doesn't stand for free loading and taking advantage of coworkers! Let's look at what will be going on if this bill is enacted into law, do you think that your going to see unionized employers pay the workers that avail themselves of this law and not join the union eighty or seventy percent of unionized wages, you think these employers will be giving these non-union workers eighty or seventy percent of vacation and sick leave days that unionized workers get, you're damn right their not going to otherwise these workers would just join the union and get the better union wages and benefits. The point here is in "right to work" states where workers of unionized employers avail themselves of the law not to join the union they are still benefiting from the union's hard work in securing wages and benefits but these workers are not paying for the cost to operate the union and negotiate the contracts their free loading their taking advantage of the union workers who make the financial sacrifice to pay union dues to maintain the union and this is unfair, unjust and outrageous!

If the Governor and all these freedom advocates want to enshrine in the law the right not to join a union if a worker so choses so be it but don't alleviate from that worker the obligation to pay a fair share or pro rata share of the cost to maintain the union because that is plain wrong! If a person wants to claim their pro-collective bargaining rights they have to be pro giving those workers who chose to join the collective bargaining group the ability to raise revenue to operate such a group otherwise their claim isn't true, its a charade! Let's look at this "right to work" legislation from a practical standpoint, what this law does is give workers the right to opt out of paying union dues by not joining a union however due to the alternatives facing the employer these "opt out" workers still enjoy the wages and benefits gained by the union, as a practical matter if such a law is put into effect one will see a significant numbers of workers drop out of the union because they will save money on not having to pay union dues with little down side in lesser wages and benefits (human nature calls for this conclusion) so as a practical matter this weakens unions and increases the likelihood of their failure because it takes away revenue (union dues) they need to function well. So truth and honesty indicates clearly that if someone is a supporter of this Michigan "right-to-work" law their not pro-collective bargaining rights!

The other thing that is outrageous and completely anti-union is the provisions in this Michigan "right to work" legislation providing that employers do not have to deduct union dues from workers pay who are in the union. This is outrageous because unions need these union dues to pay their staff and maintain their operations and if the employer doesn't take them out the union is left in the position of any other bill collector for that worker they send a bill for the union dues and some bills will be paid and some won't, the union will incur a significant loss of revenue and therefore its effectiveness will be impaired. For elected officials that propose or support these provisions it is very hypocritical and double standard like to make such provisions law. The law recognizes and supports other instances where an employer can remove monies from employees checks even if they haven't consented to such removal, employers remove monies from employees pay in response to court orders for child support and some employers remove monies from employees pay to pay for employer uniforms and the like. It really is completely unreasonable and unfair employers can escape such obligation to remove union dues because union activities have to deal with the employer-employee relationship they have to deal with the work and activities of the employer's business the law should view such removal of union dues as a necessary duty to fulfill their duties to their workers and the community!

 

[MikeK]

"Right-To-Work" is euphemistic language for union busting.

Right-To-Work enables an employer to hire what essentially are "scabs." When the employer has a sufficient number of scab workers the union is rendered impotent.

The Right-To-Work law is enacted by corrupt legislators who are bribed by corporatists like the Koch brothers, et. al.

The Right-To-Work law is insidious. Its intended effect is not immediately manifest, nor will it be seen until the union movement is sufficiently undermined by it. Once the unions are eliminated a progressive reduction in wages and worker benefits will commence. Where it will lead may be determined by tracing the history of the union movement to its earliest stage. Because that is where this insidious Right-To-Work policy is headed.

 

[OKTexas]

Poor babies, the poor little unions will have to prove their value to a worker just like any other business who wants their money. Can't have that. The only reason the left has a problem with it is the unions may lose monies they would give to leftist politicians. A union having to compete for the workers loyalty, what a freaking concept. Let the bastards EARN their dues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Right to work is just one more scheme to make Americans work for less money. It's not any more complicated than that.

 

[kiwiman127]

Chart of the Day.
In the future will our children be working for Walmart sized wages? Will it even be worse for their children?

 

[Gadawg73]

Union workers have to have a union to protect their weakest element, the ordinary lazy, fat and incompetent worker that does mediocre work at best.
The "scab" worker is smart enough to negotiate his skills HIMSELF and does not need mob rule to educate himself for the job that the market demands.
Unions fucked themselves. They protect their weakest element, the incompetent workers in their midst.
All workers want is a right to work without being forced to join a union. What is wrong with that?

 

[Gadawg73]

Chart of the Day.
In the future will our children be working for Walmart sized wages? Will it even be worse for their children?

My oldest son, age 26, just bought his first house Friday at 170K.
He does not need a union to negotiate for him. He trained and educated himself for what the market demands and makes 50K + a year.
Unions are for low skilled bottom of the barrel workers that refuse to train and educate themselves for what the market demands in many instances.
In many industries if a business favors having union employees for whatever reason then that is great.
Business never sets the wages, ever. THE MARKET AND DEMAND FOR SKILLED LABOR ALWAYS SETS THE WAGES.
Do not like the wage you make. Educate thyself for what the market demands.
HVAC, plumbing, auto repair, marine repair, welding, tool and die and on and on and on and on of unfilled jobs that pay 36K a year to start for a 20 year old.
No cry babies.

 

[Gadawg73]

"Right-To-Work" is euphemistic language for union busting.

Right-To-Work enables an employer to hire what essentially are "scabs." When the employer has a sufficient number of scab workers the union is rendered impotent.

The Right-To-Work law is enacted by corrupt legislators who are bribed by corporatists like the Koch brothers, et. al.

The Right-To-Work law is insidious. Its intended effect is not immediately manifest, nor will it be seen until the union movement is sufficiently undermined by it. Once the unions are eliminated a progressive reduction in wages and worker benefits will commence. Where it will lead may be determined by tracing the history of the union movement to its earliest stage. Because that is where this insidious Right-To-Work policy is headed.

NO, union busting is right to work.
Get used to it. We won, you lost.

 

[MikeK]

Right to work is just one more scheme to make Americans work for less money. It's not any more complicated than that.

Succinct but right on.

 

[MikeK]

Chart of the Day.
In the future will our children be working for Walmart sized wages? Will it even be worse for their children?

My oldest son, age 26, just bought his first house Friday at 170K.
He does not need a union to negotiate for him. He trained and educated himself for what the market demands and makes 50K + a year.
Unions are for low skilled bottom of the barrel workers that refuse to train and educate themselves for what the market demands in many instances.
In many industries if a business favors having union employees for whatever reason then that is great.
Business never sets the wages, ever. THE MARKET AND DEMAND FOR SKILLED LABOR ALWAYS SETS THE WAGES.
Do not like the wage you make. Educate thyself for what the market demands.
HVAC, plumbing, auto repair, marine repair, welding, tool and die and on and on and on and on of unfilled jobs that pay 36K a year to start for a 20 year old.
No cry babies.

While it is true there are union jobs for unskilled workers, such as the Building Employee's Union, which includes janitors, porters, doormen, etc., and it serves to maintain a living wage and to prevent those employees from being treated like slaves.

As for your assertion that unions are for "low-skilled, bottom of the barrel workers" have you never heard of Carpenters' Unions, Electrical Workers' Unions, Plumbers' Unions, Bricklayers' and Masons' Unions, etc.? These unions consist of highly skilled tradesmen and they will not accept one who cannot pass a certification test.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, without these unions, whether for skilled or unskilled workers, wages in all fields would be driven down by competitive scabbing. For example, most Americans believe the only kind of workers who "jump the fence" from Mexico are fruit pickers. Not so. Believe it or not there are skilled tradesmen in Mexico who can make three to four times as much by scabbing construction jobs in the U.S. But the unions keep them locked out. Once these union-busting "Right-To-Work" laws become prevalent the American wage standard will drop significantly below that of just about every other developed nation in the world -- and the general standard of living will be sucked right down the drain with it.

There is a lot to dislike about unions. But there will be a hell of a lot more to dislike when they are gone. So let's be careful to avoid tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[kiwiman127]

Chart of the Day.
In the future will our children be working for Walmart sized wages? Will it even be worse for their children?

My oldest son, age 26, just bought his first house Friday at 170K.
He does not need a union to negotiate for him. He trained and educated himself for what the market demands and makes 50K + a year.
Unions are for low skilled bottom of the barrel workers that refuse to train and educate themselves for what the market demands in many instances.
In many industries if a business favors having union employees for whatever reason then that is great.
Business never sets the wages, ever. THE MARKET AND DEMAND FOR SKILLED LABOR ALWAYS SETS THE WAGES.
Do not like the wage you make. Educate thyself for what the market demands.
HVAC, plumbing, auto repair, marine repair, welding, tool and die and on and on and on and on of unfilled jobs that pay 36K a year to start for a 20 year old.
No cry babies.

My point is simple. The unions helped develop a strong middle class. As unions were weakened so was the middle class as evident of their ever shrinking of the National Income. This is the result of over 30 years of flat wages despite increased productivity, increased corporate profits and increased gains for the stockholder. The US economy is driven by 70% by consumer spending. The middle class has been the backbone of the consumer class. The middle class has less expendable income than they have ever had since the Great Depression. The economy is slow in recovering because of lack of demand. Now put two and two together and tell me this all is good for the country and the economy.
Secondly, Europe has a more upwards mobility than the US, in other words, the American Dream is becoming just that, a dream. Prove me wrong.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah, because freedom of choice is such an evil thing.

 

[Politico]

If this crying keeps up I will need to install a sump pump.