The Wall Street Journal and other publications are reporting that both legislative bodies have now passed a right to work bill that will become law with the signature of the Governor. The Governor has pledged to sign the bill making Michigan the 24th right to work state and joining Indiana that was the first Midwestern state to adopt right to work laws earlier this year.
Organized labor rigorously opposed the bill and put over 10,000 people into the streets of Lansing today to demand this not be passed. President Obama made a trip to Michigan yesterday to voice his opposition to the bill. An analysis by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance finds that Michigan is now the 35th state in overall prosperity measured by per capita income. Had Michigan adopted a right-to-work law in 1977, the group estimates, per capita income for a family of four would have been $13,556 higher by 2008.
“As impressive as all of this evidence is, the best case for right to work is moral: the right of an individual to choose. Union chiefs want to coerce workers to join and pay dues that they then funnel to politicians who protect union power. Right to work breaks this cycle of government-aided monopoly union power for the larger economic good” stated the Wall Street Journal in the article on the following link.
We are now only 26 states left to go in protecting the rights of employees to determine whether they want to join a union…or not. Sounds like Democracy, doesn’t it?
You nailed it, Dr. J. It baffles me how these unions around the country continue to rely on their “old school” tactics of bullying and trying to put together a PT Barnum style objection to right-to-work… they do this only because a sensible, logical debate of the facts and merits or disadvantages of such a law doesn’t give them much of a chance. Because the simple fact of the matter is that “right-to-work” only 1.) forbids any union or employer from FORCING a free-will employee to join a union as a condition of employment, and 2.) allows union members to hold their representatives (union) accountable by refusing to pay dues when said union does not represent their interests well and/or when they feel they receive no benefit from the union’s “representation.”
The article is exactly right… far too often, union’s main function is to take dues and turn them into major political contributions to protect the union’s “boss” jobs. It’s a viscous cycle! Good for Michigan in ultimately better protecting their labor force from this coercion by passing this law.
sorry… spell error. Meant “vicious” cycle!
I’m going to go Victoria National this spring and become a member!!
I’ll waltz right up to the starter and if he/she asks me if I’m a member I’ll say “Yes but I didn’t pay my dues, they’re optional because I have a right to golf”!! I wonder how long it will take before the cops show up??
The good thing is that if you don’t like Victoria’s golf course or the way they run their club, you can get out and not have to pay dues. …optional participation in membership for a service is one thing… required membership and dues payment to work for an employer is communism.
Yet if there is a labor dispute/grievance over hours, safety, benefits etc. the Union is required to represent the non-dues paying member just like the dues paying member.
Further, the non-dues paying member reaps the hard fought benefits of collective bargaining without paying dues.
What say you?
Steven, you and the rest of your union buddies are shooting yourselves in the foot by arguing in this way. Your arguments should hinge on the RIGHTS of employers. Ironic, huh?
You’re screwing up because you’re not arguing that employers should have a right to enter into whatever kinds of contracts they want and expect those contracts to be honored by government.
Obama showed us just how much he values contracts, bonds, and even publicly traded shares when he shredded one agreement after another to hand the wealth of others to his cronies at the UAW when GM was needing a structured bankruptcy. It is already backfiring as GM is sucking wind again. With leaders like this we should all be dancing around the maypole celebrating the new worker’s paradise. This attitude is turning the US into a communist country. Folks like Steve are pro choice when it comes to killing babies but anti-choice on union membership. That is so conflicted and ignorant that it makes you wonder just how far up their asses they keep their heads.
Yeah NoBama, that’s why the Appeals Court unanimously(2 Cons 1 Lib, 3-0) said Mourdock’s case was without merit on all counts and even our ultracon SCOUTUS refused to hear his pathetic case.
Nobama, I agree Obama doesn’t respect contracts. That much is evident. You just described the crony relationship between Obama and unions, but that still doesn’t resolve the fundamental problem of contract rights as it relates to Right to Work legislation. While I like the net effect of RTW, the principle goes against my general philosophy.
The problem of unions is one of education and morality. Workers should be educated in business enough to understand their role in creating a profitable enterprise. Company executives should not enter into contracts which would cripple the company with the hopes that when the time comes government will bail them out.
BOTH groups are displaying a mentality of collectivism that is a moral hazard. BOTH are thinking of themselves and their own job security at the expense of the company first, and ultimately the US taxpayer when they get bailouts or subsidies to remain in business.
RTW doesn’t address or fix that problem of education and morality endemic to the system. In fact, it could be argued it just papers over the problem in a heavy-handed, centralized way that conservatives and libertarians should think twice about.
That was a really dumb argument. The Union dues are the teats the Obama, Pelosi, Reid types feed off. It’s that simple.
I also plan to join the Chamber of Commerce and go to all their meetings!!
Dues are optional, of course.
That would be a good example if the Chamber had a pact with all of the good paying local businesses to black ball you from doing business or from employment unless you paid your dues. That is not how the Chamber works. That does sound like local politics though.
I’m torn on Right to Work. I agree with the concluding statement to this article, yet I also see where protection of contract rights is an essential role of government, one of the FEW it legitimately has. If a contract is signed by an employer and individual employee or group of employees, it should be honored. Unless coerced or defrauded, that employer had a free will to sign or refuse any contracts containing exclusivity clauses.
Right to Work is a regulation on business at its essence. I agree, it is a regulation that will have positive effects, but there is a negative. It restricts what kinds of contracts an employer can enter into, and it goes against the grain of libertarian principles.
Comments are closed.