This would be the first case of a state typically associated with Democrats to pass such a law, which has up until now been more commonly passed in conservative areas. It would join Indiana as another Midwestern state to have done so and the 24th state in the US to do so.
There were two sets of laws- one concerning workers in the private sector (including the auto-industry) and others in the public field that would pass right-to-work provisions. This was unsurprisingly passed mostly along party lines, with the public sector one passing 58-51 and the private sector one 58-52.
There was criticism in the way the bill was passed during a lame duck session of the Michigan legislature. The Republican governor, Rick Snyder, for his part upon being elected promised he would not allow consideration of any such bill, due to their divisive nature after similar anti-union bills were considered in Ohio and Wisconsin. So there was a lot of outrage when the state legislature decided to consider such bills, in a lame duck session no less, essentially jamming it through the course of one day with no consultation or public hearings.
This caused some demonstrators to gather outside the state capitol where they were met with the usual police presence. Several were arrested for trying to barge their way into the state legislature where the closed hearings were taking place.
Michigan Bills Limiting Union Power Pass in Legislature
By MONICA DAVEY
LANSING, Mich. — The Michigan Legislature approved sweeping legislation on Tuesday that vastly reduces the power of organized labor in a state that has been a symbol of union dominance and served as an incubator for union activity over decades of modern American labor history.
The two bills, approved by the House of Representatives over the shouts of thousands of angry union protesters who gathered on the lawn outside the Capitol building, will among other things, bar both public and private sector workers from being required to pay fees as a condition of their employment.
The bills have already been approved by the State Senate, and Gov. Rick Snyder has said he intends to sign the legislation as soon as this week. Procedural maneuvering could still briefly delay the bill through calls for reconsideration.
Lisa Posthumus Lyons, a House Republican, who said her family included union members, said the legislation gave workers the freedom to make their own choices. “Yes, we are witnessing history,” she said. “This is the day when Michigan freed its workers.”
Mark Meadows, a House Democrat, had a different take. “I was hoping that this day would never come,” he said. “In the last two years there’s been a chipping away at bargaining. But today, the corporations delivered the coup de grâce.”
From a distance, there would seem no more unlikely a success for such legislation than Michigan, where labor, hoping to demonstrate strength after a series of setbacks, asked voters last month to enshrine collective bargaining into the State Constitution.
But that ballot measure failed badly, and suddenly a reverse drive was under way that has brought the state to a moment startling in its symbolism. How the home of the United Automobile Workers finds itself on the cusp of becoming the 24th state to ban compulsory union fees — and only the second state to pass such legislation in a decade — is the latest chapter in a larger battle over the role of unions in the industrial heart of the nation.
As the debate over the bills intensified Tuesday, the authorities closed the Capitol after saying the building had reached its capacity of more than 2,000. That left thousands of noisy union members — many dressed in red — on the lawn outside, although the doors to the building were opened again later in the morning.
Streets around the Capitol were also closed to traffic and clusters of state police, some equipped with riot gear, kept posts throughout the building and along nearby streets.
At least two school districts around the state announced that they would close for the day, as word spread that teachers and other workers planned to protest in Lansing.
As Republicans in the state House moved uncommonly swiftly to pass the measures, union demonstrators outside — the sound of their drumbeats becoming progressively louder inside the chamber — chanted, “Kill the bill! Kill the bill!”
Once the first bill — related to public employees — was approved by a 58-to-51 vote, union supporters cried out from the gallery, “Recall! Recall! Recall!”
Republicans hold a 64-to-46 majority in the state House, and aside from a few dissenters, the vote was generally along party lines.
The second bill, covering private sector unions, was passed by the House about an hour and a half later by a 58-to-52 vote.
Democrats around the nation, including President Obama, have denounced the measures in recent days.
“You know, these so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have to do with economics,” said Mr. Obama, during a visit to a truck factory outside Detroit on Monday. “They have everything to do with politics. What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”
Before the first House vote Tuesday, Democrats had sought to slow down the proceedings by employing whatever tactics they could dream up. One was to offer an array of amendments with the idea of destabilizing the bill by a thousand cuts. Among the suggestions: Send the question to a public vote. Each amendment however, was quickly rejected.
“This is being forced down people’s throats,” said Jon M. Switalski, a Democrat . “It’s being done so in a very poor way — in lame duck with no committee meetings.”
Then, Democrats, one by one, recalled their family histories in labor unions and reminisced about what unions once meant to the country. But primarily, they spoke about their objections to the speed at which the bills had made their way through the House and about the methods used by their Republican colleagues to win approval for the measures.
Joan Bauer, a Democrat, said she was saddened and sickened by what was happening.
“I cannot believe this legislation was rammed through in one day,” Ms. Bauer said.
But Rick Olson, a Republican, said the legislation was a matter of worker choice, not of harming unions. Mr. Olson described the move as “tough love” for unions.
The success of the legislation is a reflection of mounting tension between labor leaders and Michigan Republicans — who took control of the state two years ago — and the result of a change of position by Mr. Snyder, a political novice who had long avoided the issue because, he had said, it was too divisive.
It is also an effort being closely watched — and fueled, labor leaders say — by national conservative groups who see the outcome in Michigan as an emblem for similar measures in other states with far thinner union histories.
“Everybody has this image of Michigan as a labor state,” said Bill Ballenger, the editor of Inside Michigan Politics. “But organized labor has been losing clout, and the Republicans saw an opportunity, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.”
Since the wave of Republican wins in 2010 in statehouses in the Midwest, campaigns to limit unions have boiled over in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere. But in Michigan, where Republicans also won control, those efforts had seemed more muted, with some in the party, including Mr. Snyder, shying away from the broadest measures.
As it has throughout the country, membership in unions has fallen here in recent decades — about 17.5 percent of Michigan residents are members — and the statewide ballot proposal failed by 14 percentage points on Nov. 6, even as Mr. Obama won the state.
Outside the Capitol, the protests continued even after the voting was finished.
“This has been a union state for a long time,” said Jim Scarlett, 62, from Ann Arbor, who retired as a union telephone worker last month. “I think with this legislation the standard of living is going to drop, wages will drop, and health care may go away for workers.”
Mary M. Chapman contributed reporting in Lansing, and Steven Yaccino in Chicago.
In my opinion, Right-to-work laws were sold as a "good" measure by arguing that a non-member should be forced to pay union dues in a workplace which is running under a contract. Of course this sounds good on paper- why should you be forced to pay dues for an organization you are not a part of, much less be "bullied" by said organization in a workplace?
No longer being required to pay dues essentially cuts the funding out of a union and makes it more difficult to make meaningful contracts, especially to be burdened down by a "free rider" problem where someone who hasn't paid the dues for the union would still get the benefit of a contract.
As by its naming "Right-to-Work" is painted as a means to remove obstacles and hindrances in for people seeking employment and make it more "productive", though indicators have shown that workplaces in states with right-to-work laws are on the whole paid less and receive less benefits than their counterparts in states without these laws. It also doesn't help in their attempts to pitch it to the populace that it's more beneficial to them as an employee, when by and large these bills were drafted and written by business interests, typically from the State's Chamber of Commerce.
It's little room to maneuver though. Unions have had a losing battle for a long time in the US, both from within by complacent if not corrupt officials and from outside by increasingly corporate dominated media to jilt popular perception of them. Despite the ever tired complaints that they have "too much" power, they were not able to get a ballot measure passed that would have protected collective bargaining as a right within the state constitution.
It almost reminds me of a Stockholm Syndrome to sympathize with these bills drawn up by the corporate interests- we'll benefit from it we are told, we'll get paid higher when we get rid of the rest of those "bums" in the union that hold you back. Of course the irony here is that everyone thinks they're that "skilled" and efficient worker that'll get the pay rise, and everyone else is the undeserving bum. Oh boy.
There is also the political side to this, in that many unions do tend to be centers of support for Democratic politicians in the state and on the federal level. By weakening them, the Republicans do stand to gain from such laws. Unsurprisingly, this state legislature was also filled with its share of teabaggers, so it is expected that they would show the strings of the special interests pulling them with their pseudo-populist nonsense.
Obama has waded into the firestorm also agreeing that the right-to-work laws are sugarcoated, but it is ironic that Obama would take such a hard position on it, after essentially leaving unions out to dry on many occasions, notably when the Employee Free Choice Act was not passed by a Democratic-dominated Congress.
The Democrats have been just as much a stooge for special interests over workers as the Republicans have been- there is not much room to manuever here. The only thing they could cook up was a half-assed attempt to recall Governor Walker in Wisconsin which unsurprisingly ended in failure and had the effect of demoralizing all the people who were energetic only months before to On one hand, a dying system and on the other, opening yourself up to the fullest wrath of the economy's storms and hoping for the best.
In my opinion, Right-to-work laws were sold as a "good" measure by arguing that a non-member should be forced to pay union dues in a workplace which is running under a contract. Of course this sounds good on paper- why should you be forced to pay dues for an organization you are not a part of, much less be "bullied" by said organization in a workplace?
No longer being required to pay dues essentially cuts the funding out of a union and makes it more difficult to make meaningful contracts, especially to be burdened down by a "free rider" problem where someone who hasn't paid the dues for the union would still get the benefit of a contract.
It also sounds good in practice. It's a basic right to choose not be a member of a union, church, NGO or whatever – that is the freedom of association. If unions provide good contracts or offer benefits in case of unemployment, everyone is able to join.
I don't think their contracts are much of a benefit. Who gives a hoot if you get a 20 cent payraise to your hourly wage? Employers should rather reward good employees than give small raises for everyone. That doesn't make any difference except advancing monetary inflation as well.
A liberatarian might as well ask: why are you forced to oblige to a pay contract made up others without the freedom to make a one by yourself?
It seems many young leftists don't really like trade unions these days either. Unions have consolidated power to people who have jobs. Union contracts mean that there are no low-pay jobs at better sectors for young people. Instead of ending up at McDonalds, you could get a low-pay job at some industrial sector for example and start advancing. But as I said, unions are for consolidating power to people who already have long-term jobs.
But I was surprised such requirements even existed in the US. Many European countries are promised lands for unions but I don't recall hearing of regulatory memberships. Rather bizarre that the BBC made a newsarticle on this titled 'anti-union laws passed'.
Last edited by Rikupsoni; December 11th, 2012 at 03:59 PM.
I don't think their contracts are much of a benefit. Who gives a hoot if you get a 20 cent payraise to your hourly wage? Employers should rather reward good employees than give small raises for everyone. That doesn't make any difference except advancing monetary inflation as well.
Except when you look at the way this tends to end up in the United States, everyone ends up being brought down when we go by the illusion that we'll get by better on our own merit. Maybe a few, but for the most part everyone gets dragged down.
On average the difference in the amount of money a worker makes at a workplace in a right-to-work state and one that doesn't have such a law can amount to thousands per year. That's not as trivial as a couple of cents to the paycheck.
According to the US Bureau of Labor's data- gathered here - there is a significant difference in the way wages are between states that have these laws and those that don't. There are differences in cost of living between these states, but still there is a difference than can go from a dollar or so an hour for lower level jobs to a couple thousand a year for salaried professionals.
Quote:
A liberatarian might as well ask: why are you forced to oblige to a pay contract made up others without the freedom to make a one by yourself?
A libertarian might also ask if it's the place of the government to make such a massive intrusion into the way an association of workers handles itself.
Then again libertarians in the US tend to be supportive, if not apologetic, to the actions of business so I would say they are hardly the most understanding of most blue-collar workers.
Plus if a libertarian would defend the way this law was passed, then they are a sorry individual.
-The bills were introduced and voted upon in a span of few hours, altogether bypassing committee and discussion as it was a lame-duck session. There was no criticism of the bill by professionals, just a formal introduction and a vote by those present.
There was very little warning or announcement that these bills were being considered at all. So they could jam this through with out much time for those opposing it to gather strength.
-The RTW bills were split into three components for the legislature. This was to bypass Michigan rules on voting on the same bills in both houses less than five days apart. Another was attached to a spending bill in the House, which makes it immune from being overturned by a voter referendum.
-The state legislature was closed down by police to the public after some demonstrators tried to enter the floor of the senate. In Michigan law, the State capitol is to remain open in order to be able to be scrutinized by the public. It was not opened to the public using the previous incident as a pretext.
-A number of Senate Democrats attempted to walk out of the Michigan Senate in order to prevent the bill from reaching a quorum when the bill was announced on the agenda. The Republicans locked them in so as to force them to be a part of the quorum to allow for voting to proceed. The State Supreme Court later ruled that this was illegal, but the law had already passed by that point.
-The Republicans passed this as an emergency law, which allows the bill to take effect immediately as opposed to the 1 year + for normal legislation. Emergency Laws require a 2/3rds majority though, and it seems that along with this one, they have not been passing them with 2/3rds majority that is required for it.
The whole thing was passed rather oddly, and in a lame-duck session no less. The state legislature that returns in 2013 is going to have less Republican clout, so it was essential to jam this thing through before they recessed for next year.
Now if Libertarians are fine with shitty politics like this, then they can join tea baggers for doing the same thing that the Democrats did in Congress to jam through the healthcare "reform".
Quote:
It seems many young leftists don't really like trade unions these days either. Unions have consolidated power to people who have jobs. Union contracts mean that there are no low-pay jobs at better sectors for young people. Instead of ending up at McDonalds, you could get a low-pay job at some industrial sector for example and start advancing. But as I said, unions are for consolidating power to people who already have long-term jobs.
There is a lot of problems with unions, particularly with the way some get better treatment and especially with the way officials handle themselves (bloated paychecks for officials, working in tandem with management, etc.). There are better ways to deal with this though that don't entail themselves in laws which are catered by business interests for business interests. There is little benefit in it for those who are at the bottom, though they say it will be so because it helps certain people who "deserve" pay raise to get them.
So far the only "benefit" really is that you allow more workers into the workplace and it might lower unemployment, but you are also looking at a possibility for underemployment and trying to lower wages as far as possible. AFAIK there hasn't been a successful action initiated by members individually without some mutual organization to fight such decisions.
Quote:
But I was surprised such requirements even existed in the US. Many European countries are promised lands for unions but I don't recall hearing of regulatory memberships. Rather bizarre that the BBC made a newsarticle on this titled 'anti-union laws passed'.
There is no mandatory membership in the US. AFAIK most European countries don't allow for a closed shop arrangement either, if they do I'm not aware of it. The law doesn't concern itself with this because it is redundant- it's already prohibited by the Taft-Harley Act.
What they look at is whether a union can raise dues on a non-member if they are the ones behind the current contract with the company. This is what varies between countries. The reasoning behind RTW is that these fees are unfair and shouldn't be levied, and that an employee should be free to join a workplace without any obstacles.
I think minimum wage laws, or at least the agreed upon wage by businesses in Europe when no such law exists, tend to be more generous than the federal minimum wage in the US. There's also the fact that most European countries tend to have slightly better forms of health insurance, old age pensions, and what not provided through the government rather than the employer, so these arrangements in the US tend to be more fiercely fought over because the collapse of a contract can be detrimental to a blue collar worker.
The BBC article is correct because this is an anti-union law. Everywhere RTW has been passed, there has been a significant decline in union activity compared to their counterparts in other states. The brunt of the attack is at the unions and when people argue for it, it's often on the point that unions are more unproductive and harmful for the business when it has to recognize a contract with it, ergo they are bad. So yeah, "Anti-Union" would be accurate.
What they look at is whether a union can raise dues on a non-member if they are the ones behind the current contract with the company. This is what varies between countries. The reasoning behind RTW is that these fees are unfair and shouldn't be levied, and that an employee should be free to join a workplace without any obstacles.
The idea makes sense, but is there any practical difference to forced membership? Unions are involved in all contracts, so they just need to agree to current conditions in order to get money from all employees. It seems to me that this would take away all incentives from an union to do their work.
This is basically aimed at destroying American unions, perhaps these states should next offer the "right-to-spend" thus allowing american workers to refuse to pay income tax.
Any union worker who agrees to this or refuses to pay dues is basically asking for their early retirement to be replaced by someone they'll be forced to train themselves before being fired and any non-union worker is basically asking to be stuck at a low paying low raise career for the rest of their lives.
How quickly people forget what social movements like the american unions did for them, while the rest of america's biggest manufacturing jobs went to china, union ones did not, what do they think will happen when the Unions are forced to shrink? American automakers took bailout money only then to turn around and invest into their offshore manufactures, won't be long till they decide it's cheaper to ship cars on cargo vessels to the smaller market than to a growing one like china then it is to pay a few hundred thousand workers with pensions and 30-years worth of salary with raises.
Doesn't surprise me, most unions could give a rip about their members. Once upon a time they had a purpose, but many of the larger ones, like my union, are worthless and corrupt. They are only concerned with the collection of their precious union dues in order to promote political agendas contrary to their member views, wants and needs and do little if anything other than get people laid off. The bad publicity unions have had the past 10 years or so hasn't helped either.
Unions exist in right-to-work states. I know, cause I live in one - Colorado.
Last edited by AlDaja; December 12th, 2012 at 02:27 PM.
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
1Likes
Michigan legislature passes right-to-work law 
.gif "Sad at the sad color")
Linear Mode
