Michigan joins 23 other states in passing union-busting laws

[Correction]

http://www.freep.com/article/2012121...text|FRONTPAGE

LANSING -- The word historic kept coming up Tuesday as the state House of Representatives considered and ultimately passed controversial right-to-work legislation for public- and private-sector employees.

It was a historically large crowd outside, estimated at 12,500 people by police. Most of the folks were loudly protesting the bills that would make it illegal to require a financial contribution to a union as a condition of employment. Plenty of right-to-work supporters were on hand, too, leading to heated words between the pro- and anti-forces, and the dismantling of tents erected to shield the right-to-work supporters.

Some background: http://www.freep.com/article/2012120...ight-Work-bill

AFP was founded by wealthy industrialists Charles and David Koch. Their business interests in Wisconsin include a branch of their pulp and paper giant Georgia-Pacific, a coal subsidiary, timber plants and a pipeline network.
“Michigan passage of right-to-work legislation will be the shot heard around the world for workplace freedom," AFP said in a press release Thursday. "A victory over forced unionization in a union stronghold like Michigan would be an unprecedented win on par with Wisconsin that would pave the way for right to work in states across our nation."
The organization's sister organization, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, has produced a 15-page booklet titled "Unions: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: How forced unionization has harmed workers and Michigan."
AFP also recruited 300 supporters to demonstrate in favor of Gov. Snyder's proposed bill, just as organized unions rallied their members in opposition.

Looking familiar yet? It happened in Wisconsin and guess who was behind that?

The governor and this increasingly notorious lame-duck Michigan legislature seem to be trying everything before the new year to continuously fuck over the middle class in a state chronically unable to beat the national average income.

[archibaldcrane]

I think we should amend the US constitution to prohibit gerrymandering.

[Ksandra]

I just...I just don't understand how there aren't enough people out there that realize taking away leverage for the lower employees just gives CEOs more power, and that's the last thing this country needs.

[archibaldcrane]

It's simply the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

[Ksandra]

It's simply the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

lol thanks for that, I say that shit all the time, but never knew there was a term for it. Back when the whole automobile fiasco was happening and people were screaming, "why are these people getting paid so much!" I kept retorting, "instead you should be saying, 'why can't I get paid as much as them?'"

It's just mind-boggling stupid.

[Icywave]

I am conflicted, because I feel people should have right to decide whether or not they want to join union.
But these arrays of politically motivated attacks on unions are simply wrong display of democratic values.

I think, unions are still necessary at the end because bargaining power disparity and asymmetric information constraints.
"Right to Work" will quickly turned to "Right to Work being trumped by Boss' Right to Exploit"

[Mazmaz]

If people could decide whether they wanted to join a union or not, there would be no unions.

[Outlaw]

I guess I'm ignorant. I didn't know you had to pay union dues just to keep a job at some places. That seems bad to me. Like your paying bribes to them. I'm not anti-union though. I just don't see how this hurts workers rights.

[Correction]

I guess I'm ignorant. I didn't know you had to pay union dues just to keep a job at some places. That seems bad to me. Like your paying bribes to them. I'm not anti-union though. I just don't see how this hurts workers rights.

When employees can demand union representation without paying dues, they will always elect to do so, which drains funds from unions who will increasingly be unable to pay for: talented contract negotiators, worker needs during stoppages, political efforts to counter those of large business interests like the Koch Brothers. All of these things will erode workers rights because they won't be able to fight back when employers dick them over on hours, wages and benefits.

[quannum]

I guess I'm ignorant.

most people dont get the deeper meaning behind "like weekends, thank a union".

These "job creators" also want poor kids to do janitor work to pay for lunch programs, they just need to market it to the american people correctly.

[Kalmado]

I guess I'm ignorant. I didn't know you had to pay union dues just to keep a job at some places. That seems bad to me. Like your paying bribes to them. I'm not anti-union though. I just don't see how this hurts workers rights.

My wife worked for Meijer while going to school to get her Cena certificate and we thank god there was a union to back her. Long story short she got accused of price fixing a pack of Hanes T-Shirts and then purchasing them. They were normally I think $13, but the package was open which the fashion dept. puts open packages to 30% off. She bought the shirts after her shift for me and was pulled into the managements office before she got out the doors like a criminal.

They suspended her indefinitely without pay while the union conducted an investigation. They of course found no proof of the accusation and she was allowed to return to work. Later on she learned from her dept. manager the accuser was a self-serve checkout lane clerk and she saw the clearance tag so she figured my wife was trying to save herself money by marking something down. Without the union, my wife could've been terminated for a job because some bitch decided she wanted to be lucy law and accuse my wife (who had been a respected employee of Meijer for 3 years) of price fixing to save a lousy $3.90.

I've noticed on my FB republicans love this while dems hate it. Not surprised.

[Milkster]

[Ksandra]

I guess I'm ignorant. I didn't know you had to pay union dues just to keep a job at some places. That seems bad to me. Like your paying bribes to them. I'm not anti-union though. I just don't see how this hurts workers rights.

The reason you have to pay union dues to keep your job is to help the security of your job.

Think about it this way:

Unions need money to survive and do their job. Their job is to create better work places/pay/ protect rights for the lower-level workers. Imagine if a union fought to improve working conditions at an office, but only those in the union paid. The rest who didn't are still getting a better office for free. "why should I pay if he doesn't?" it's going to devour itself and disappear.

Really unions are not perfect, but not having them is so much worse. Especially in a capitalist economy. A CEO is out for themselves, and will do whatever it takes with the least amount of money. Unions try to break that by giving workers more than what a CEO wants to give.

[Talint]

I'd like to see the libertarians come out against this. After all, this is big gubbermint at work

[Icywave]

Damn, Michigan, Srsly?

[Komm Suesser Tod]

I'm in a union. I pay 4 dollars a week in union dues. It's not a big deal.

[Outlaw]

Unions need money to survive and do their job. Their job is to create better work places/pay/ protect rights for the lower-level workers. Imagine if a union fought to improve working conditions at an office, but only those in the union paid. The rest who didn't are still getting a better office for free. "why should I pay if he doesn't?" it's going to devour itself and disappear.

That makes sense to me. I hope there is some other way unions can raise money cause so many states have these laws now.

[shaggnix]

I'm in a union. I pay 4 dollars a week in union dues. It's not a big deal.

6$/week, and well worth it. the horror stories going around of the pre-union days here pretty scary. the big one was being mandated almost routinely (i work in a hospital). apparently it made management look better if they didn't tap the per diem budget and instead mandated full timers to fill schedule gaps. ppl would work 5 days a week but were forced to stay 16 hrs 2-3 times a week despite having a position for 8hr shifts. our union is fairly weak compared to many others (looking at you nurses union) but its light years better than no union. allowing a mix of union and non union ppl to hold the same positions will be the start of draining the unions coffers like Ksandra said, and without money its hard to do anything.

[Ashmada]

If people could decide whether they wanted to join a union or not, there would be no unions.

/wave. We can choose whether to join a union or not (and which, as they're not sector-specific but ideologically-themed: socialist union, catholic union, economically liberal union,...) and they're still pretty strong.
Note, I'm not arguing they should be facultative everywhere, just pointing out that your point was hyperbole: sure there's patronal pressure against joining a union, but it's not sufficient to destroy or even trivialise them.

[ringthree]

If people could decide whether they wanted to join a union or not, there would be no unions.

Its not even that. It's a free-rider problem. I wouldn't be surprised if unions stayed strong in Michigan because many workers believe they do good for them, but in the end many will get the benefits of collective bargaining without paying anything to help those negotiating on their behalf.