Log in

View Full Version : Michigan right-to-work legislation



Klaatu
7th December 2012, 03:23
Michigan lawmakers fast-track right-to-work legislation during chaotic day at the Capitol
9:45 PM, December 6, 2012 |


LANSING — Michigan, considered the birthplace of the American organized labor movement, was on a fast track to becoming the nation’s 24th right-to-work state late today after the state House and Senate passed bills as part of a package to pass the law.

Labor and Democrats were pushing back hard against the Workplace Fairness and Equity Act, but the efforts seemed futile as the controversial measures moved like greased lightning — and without going through committees or public debate — and could land on Gov. Rick Snyder’s desk by next week.

The debate raged across Michigan, and the country today, as to whether the legislation would do what proponents say, bring fairness to workers and spark economic growth; or do as opponents claim, lower wages and benefits and destroy the middle class.

“The goal isn’t to divide Michigan, it is to bring Michigan together,” said the governor, who previously had said the issue was not on his agenda.

The issue sparked vociferous protests and caused brief skirmishes on the Capitol steps between right-to-work backers and opponents. Inside, police arrested several protesters and sprayed mace at labor activists who tried to rush the Senate floor. But the protests were mostly peaceful.

Democrats in the Senate walked out of the chamber before the vote was taken.

•RELATED: Police arrest several protesters, spray mace into crowd inside Michigan Capitol (video)

• RELATED: Protesters allowed back into state Capitol after being locked out for hours

Police took the unusual and controversial step of locking Capitol entrances and blocking citizens’ entry for several hours until labor representatives obtained a court order from Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk to reopen the seat of state government and grant access to the “democratic process.”

State Police officials said the Capitol was closed for safety reasons because the building was filled to capacity. Those locked out, including UAW President Bob King, said the move was an affront to democracy.

Right-to-work legislation makes it illegal to require financial support of a union as a condition of employment. Snyder and Republican leaders characterized the bills as giving workers a choice about whether they want to financially support a union. Democrats said the initiative is about union-busting and retribution for Proposal 2, a failed Nov. 6 labor-backed ballot initiative that would have barred a right-to-work law and enshrined collective bargaining in the state constitution.

The bills cover all public and private workers, except police and firefighters, who would be allowed to maintain closed union shops.

No committee hearings were planned, and by late today, the House had passed one of the three bills in a 58-52 vote and the Senate had passed two others — one for private-sector workers and one for public-sector workers — by votes of 22-16 and 22-4, respectively.

The Senate and House passed bills that would impose right-to-work on private unions. But House Democrats, through a procedural move, asked for a reconsideration of bill HB 4054, which technically can’t take place until the next day the House meets, which will be Tuesday.

The Senate bill, SB 116, is identical to the House bill, so the House could just consider the Senate bill on Tuesday instead of worrying about a reconsideration vote on the version of the bill it passed.

The Senate also passed a bill that would impose right to work on public-sector employees, and that bill also now moves to the House, which could vote on the bills as soon as Tuesday.

The bill that passed the House includes a $1-million appropriation. By making it an appropriations bill, the Republicans made it ineligible for repeal through a ballot initiative.

• RELATED: State e-mail warns its employees to be careful, 'avoid walking alone at night'

• RELATED: UAW President Bob King tried to talk Snyder out of right-to-work push

Snyder and GOP legislative leaders rejected charges the bills were being rushed through.

“This topic has been out there for a significant amount of time,” Snyder said. “I think it’s a well understood issue” and “when it arrives on my desk, I plan on signing it.”

Rep. Steve Bieda, D-Warren, said the haste was “an affront to the constitution,” and “all pieces of legislation deserve thoughtful discussion and debate.”

Snyder said the recent passage of right-to-work legislation in neighboring Indiana put Michigan at risk for losing business to the Hoosier State. And while he told the Free Press in an interview that he personally didn’t consider it such a high priority that it needed to be dealt with now, Snyder said he supports the principle that workers should be free to choose whether to support a union.

Now, he said, is “time to be a good leader and stand up and take a position.”

He said unions have done a lot of good in Michigan and he hopes the new law will cause unions to do a better job of selling themselves to potential members.

Democrats accused Snyder of selling out to Republican powerbrokers, such as Amway heir Dick DeVos and other CEOs who avidly support the change.

“This bill is not about giving people choice; this bill is about breaking unions,” said state Rep. Steven Lindberg, D-Marquette.

In the Senate, four Republicans — Tory Rocca of Sterling Heights, Tom Casperson of Escanaba, Mike Nofs of Battle Creek and Mike Green of Mayville — joined with Democrats in opposing right to work. Democrats left the Senate chamber before one of the two bills passed there.

The vote on the first Senate bill came after more than three hours of debate, including a nearly hour-long speech from Sen. Bert Johnson, D-Detroit, railing against the bill.

Today’s move on right-to-work followed intensive negotiations involving Snyder, House Speaker Jase Bolger and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville on one side of the table, and the UAW’s King and other labor leaders on the other. The talks broke off on Wednesday.

Snyder said there were concessions that organized labor could have put on the table that would have headed off the right-to-work legislation. But he wouldn’t say what those concessions were or give any details of negotiations.

Some right-to-work proponents said they were strongly opposed to carving out any exceptions in the law.

But Snyder said police and firefighters would be excluded because of the dangerousness of their jobs and the need for a “special bond” among them.

Bolger also cited special provisions given to the Michigan State Police in the state constitution and binding arbitration laws that apply to public safety workers.

State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, said the right-to-work issue was poisoning the environment in Lansing and threatens any cooperation between Republicans and Democrats going forward.

“President (Barack) Obama won the election and the Republicans lost five seats in the House,” she said. “And still, these guys don’t think their agenda is extreme enough.”

Snyder unveiled the plan, surrounded by union workers who said they support the legislation.

“Freedom-to-work is really worker friendly,” said Terry Bowman, a UAW member who is president and founder of Union Conservatives. Today, union leaders “really don’t have to work very hard for their rank and file members, forced as a condition of their employment to continue to support them.”

Outside the news conference, the protests raged.

They carried signs that read: “Right to work: nobody wants it. Nobody needs it.” and “Workers’ rights, not right to work.”

Daniel Mouradian of Southfield got off a 10-hour shift at his electrician’s job in Flat Rock at 3 a.m. and came to the Capitol to join in the protest.

“I’m here for my family, your family and all work people,” he said. “I’m going to be here every chance I get. If that means camping out here, I’ll do it. I already told my wife that she needs to be ready to bail me out.” Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or [email protected]
http://www.freep.com/article/20121206/NEWS06/121206088

fgilbert2
7th December 2012, 04:03
shit just became real, folks. if it can happen in Michigan, it will happen everywhere.

Ocean Seal
7th December 2012, 04:59
“The goal isn’t to divide Michigan, it is to bring Michigan together,” said the governor, who previously had said the issue was not on his agenda.
Bring us together is code work for fuck you, you doorstep.
For what its worth, I'll come together when we hang these bastards from the gallows.

CryingWolf
7th December 2012, 05:16
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped." MLK
-fka Redbrother

Holy crap, I was just thinking about the alternatives to this bullshit "right-to-work".

How about we put forth an opposing "right-to-organize"?

Meh, that's not as catchy... how about "right-to-unite"? Any ideas?

Klaatu
7th December 2012, 06:45
Holy crap, I was just thinking about the alternatives to this bullshit "right-to-work".

How about we put forth an opposing "right-to-organize"?

Meh, that's not as catchy... how about "right-to-unite"? Any ideas?

Right to a fair wage
Right to protection
Right to collective bargain
Right to truth in politics

:)

Klaatu
7th December 2012, 07:07
This crap legislation is going on in my own state (Michigan)

It was literally rammed through in a day, with no debate, no public comment, no committee recommendations, no nothing.
I hope and predict that this will be struck down by the courts, since there is no compelling reason to have passed this
nonsense in such an emergency fashion, as if the sky were on fire or there was an alien invasion or god-knows-what!
This was done purely as revenge by the governor and his snake-in-the-grass RE-THUG-LICAN henchmen as payback
for the ballot referendum of Prop 2, which failed anyway due to the malicious libel put forth by wealthy out-of-state
capitalist fear-mongers and propaganda ministers

This is one more example of Conservative-Mafia Government and puts us one step closer to the Socialist Revolution

CryingWolf
7th December 2012, 09:08
and puts us one step closer to the Socialist Revolution


I fail to see how. This is a defeat, not a victory.

fgilbert2
7th December 2012, 15:05
Well, over on dailykos one of the memes is "this is what you get when you sit out the midterm, this is what you get when you vote for a Republican legislature and governor."
They're right. Voting for the lesser evil would have prevented this. What would have happened instead would be a continuation of the slow leak of union power.

Now, after this crushing defeat, we have a dangerous opportunity. If enough of us here in Michigan and anywhere else where people care about labor are radicalized by this fascist victory, we can end up stronger and we are one step closer to revolution.

Grenzer
7th December 2012, 15:18
All seems quiet around here so the protest must be confined to the environs of the capitol building itself. The state's economy has been hard hit for about a decade. Far from causing an increase in the class struggle, most workers I encounter seem to be incredibly resigned to the situation, and barely display any displeasure at all towards the current state of affairs since "it's just the way it is".

Prometeo liberado
7th December 2012, 15:28
Tell me now how electoral politics is not at least one effecetive tool in our arsenal?

Klaatu
8th December 2012, 01:49
I fail to see how. This is a defeat, not a victory.

I see your point. What I meant was that this event will piss off enough people, who will start thinking seriously about radical change (revolution)

keystone
9th December 2012, 08:08
Does anyone from Michigan have more information about what went down in the capitol building? What is the feeling that people on the streets have about this?

Klaatu
9th December 2012, 17:52
Does anyone from Michigan have more information about what went down in the capitol building? What is the feeling that people on the streets have about this?

PHOTO GALLERY
Protesters gain access to Michigan Capitol
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Site=C4&Date=20121206&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=212060806&Ref=PH

PHOTO GALLERY
Protestors rally against right-to-work legisation
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Site=C4&Date=20121206&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=212060804&Ref=PH

note: no guarantee that these links will work after a few days, because this newspaper blocks access (becomes PayPerView)

Grenzer
9th December 2012, 18:01
The impression I'm getting from people is that most of them didn't know this even happened. I only live like 10 miles away from the capitol building and no one I knew had even heard about it, but most people I know are bored by politics.

Klaatu
10th December 2012, 04:21
most people I know are bored by politics.

But I'll bet they know all about Fox News' Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas" :p

KurtFF8
10th December 2012, 23:54
This is one more example of Conservative-Mafia Government and puts us one step closer to the Socialist Revolution


What on earth are you talking about?

zimmerwald1915
11th December 2012, 00:42
I see your point. What I meant was that this event will piss off enough people, who will start thinking seriously about radical change (revolution)
Consciousness does not develop that way.

Klaatu
11th December 2012, 01:52
Consciousness does not develop that way.
You're not understanding why revolutions happen. People get dissatisfied, disgusted, and they eventually revolt.
What do you expect, a Gandhi approach? I only wish that were true. But no. People here in Michigan are PISSED


What on earth are you talking about?
Are you familiar with American Republicans? 'Mafia' is the closest analogy I can think of. (You know, like criminals?)

Klaatu
11th December 2012, 02:39
Here are two of the anti-union organizations which are mainly responsible for lobbying for the so-called 'right-to-work' law in Michigan
(Notice the affiliation with Fox News) Despite their 'pro-union' claims, believe me, these people are foaming-at-the-mouth, rabidly ANTI-union
Their goal is to completely destroy unions and workers' rights. Ironically, the founder of the 'unionconservatives' site is a UAW member!

http://www.mackinac.org/

http://unionconservatives.com/Home_Page.html

keystone
11th December 2012, 03:50
The UnionConservatives thing looks like an astroturf internet organization with one guy, Mr. Bowman, acting as the "dues paying union member" stooge mouthpiece for the anti-union business interests.

We should note the rationale behind the group's strategy, as noted on their website:


Bowman, who is an active, dues-paying UAW member himself, also says that this would send a permanent message to businesses looking to relocate. "If the initiative passes in November, Michigan's future will be dark and uncertain. This would send a message to businesses that if you come to Michigan, there will be an immediate adversarial relationship guaranteed by union officials. When we have bordering states like Indiana who just passed business and worker-friendly Right to Work legislation, Michigan's prospects for new jobs and investment would be gone. Union jobs in both the private and government sector would suffer as a result.


It's trying to recast this kind of legislation as "worker-friendly" and destroying the remaining power of the unions in these right-to-unionize states. As globalization-fueled austerity pushes for the restructuring of the US working class into more precarious, lower-paid sectors, businesses have to threaten workers with the loss of jobs if they don't consent to tearing up union protections.

Working people can get swept up by this misleading propaganda if we don't present an alternate solution to capitalism and its enforced immiseration of the working class. We need a revolutionary agenda to agitate both within the unions -- who seem to have acquiesced to this by organizing candlelight vigils across the country to deflect anger rather than strengthen opposition -- and towards unorganized workers and the unemployed, pointing out how this attack is part of a larger trend towards driving down wages and exploiting workers even more for higher profits even while businesses profit more than ever from workers' labor, here and abroad.

We need to put forward bold demands: while I'd want to hear what many others have to think, some places to start would include demanding quality jobs with living wages for all, free childcare for all workers, heightened standards for firing workers, extensions of unemployment benefits as well as improved welfare benefits. All this should be done while pointing to the collective interests of workers to organize for their interests and how big business (particularly aiming at the corporations and banks) are behind this effort.

KurtFF8
11th December 2012, 17:32
Are you familiar with American Republicans? 'Mafia' is the closest analogy I can think of. (You know, like criminals?)

Very familiar with them. I was referencing your bizarre claim that this somehow makes socialist revolution more likely though.


You're not understanding why revolutions happen. People get dissatisfied, disgusted, and they eventually revolt.
What do you expect, a Gandhi approach? I only wish that were true. But no. People here in Michigan are PISSED

They sure are, but that doesn't mean that socialist organizing automatically follows. The Democrats will put themselves front and center as the "opposition" to this move by the GOP and people will see that as the way forward (as happened in Wisconsin). This is not inevitable of course, but the chances of a socialist revolution coming from this are slim to none. What major socialist organizations are playing a relevant role in this battle right now? Are those organizations able to actually achieve hegemony over the opposition thus taking it from the Democrats? These are important questions that folks who say "yay things are bad so now socialist revolution will happen!" often fail to even address.

Red Commissar
12th December 2012, 00:17
What major socialist organizations are playing a relevant role in this battle right now? Are those organizations able to actually achieve hegemony over the opposition thus taking it from the Democrats? These are important questions that folks who say "yay things are bad so now socialist revolution will happen!" often fail to even address.

It's difficult even if socialist groups were present to be taken seriously. The complete control of the media by business interests over what is considered to be the norm and acceptable makes it an uphill battle. I mean if there were socialist groups really active in the protests, I don't think it would be unreasonable to say a lot of the unions would have probably tried their best to distance themselves from those groups, worried about how the media would react to them working with socialists. They don't have a strong backbone and are weakened as it is, they would fear the inevitable right-wing backlash over it.

I just wonder how long will self-styled progressives keep putting so much hope in the Democrats only to be let down by them so much? So far this strategy has not really paid off dividends for union members seeing how much they've fallen apart in the past 40 years or so.

Comrade Samuel
12th December 2012, 00:20
Well according to the local news Snyder signed it about 45 minutes ago, it's official folks.

MEGAMANTROTSKY
12th December 2012, 00:35
This is one more example of Conservative-Mafia Government and puts us one step closer to the Socialist Revolution

So, the proletariat will spontaneously revolt and form a worker's government? Preposterous. Socialist class consciousness cannot and does not necessarily develop in correlation with capitalism's sharpening contradictions.

Just as there's no royal road to science, the same goes for a class-conscious worker's party, and the revolution itself. If you sincerely think that this piece of legislation aids our cause, where does it end? Would you end up saying that further pay cuts are necessary to bring the workers "closer" to revolution? You're just pragmatically adapting to bourgeoisie's playbook instead of advocating reaching out to the workers and aiding their struggles. To me, your attitude reeks of opportunism.

Klaatu
12th December 2012, 02:02
I might argue the contrary view: Will a Socialist Revolution happen if people are satisfied and pacified with strong, untouchable unions? If that were true, it would have happened already when unions were strong, back in the 1960s. You are all forgetting human nature: happy and content people do not revolt. And just simply educating people about Socialist causes will not accomplish enough for us.

I acknowledge that this malfeasant legislation is a setback. Of course we have to fight to get back to where we were before. But that is the whole point: people get screwed, therefore they fight back.

And yes, I agree that the present Democratic Party are basically a bunch of wimps who are beholden to Capitalist Gangsterhood Overlords. Perhaps getting money out of politics might help remedy this somewhat? No one should have to be rich to be in political office.

Unapologetic
12th December 2012, 03:32
>Midwest unions are notoriously corrupt and in bed with the capitalist Democratic party.
>Unions want to force all workers to be a part of them and to pay dues.
>Unions forcing themselves on workers is not any different from any other form of tyranny.

:thumbdown:

A Revolutionary Tool
12th December 2012, 07:09
>Midwest unions are notoriously corrupt and in bed with the capitalist Democratic party.
>Unions want to force all workers to be a part of them and to pay dues.
>Unions forcing themselves on workers is not any different from any other form of tyranny.

:thumbdown:


That "tyranny" is at present the only organized thing that exists to defend workers wages, pensions, healthcare, and employment in an age of austerity. That's the sad part of the situation but no socialist organization can bring out 12,000 workers in one place, no socialist organization can seriously call for a strike without first getting some nods from the unions. Have they become beholden to the Democratic Party. It would seem that way. But destroying unions is just going to make it that much harder for workers to struggle against the coming battles that will be fought in the near future.

Klaatu
12th December 2012, 07:10
>Midwest unions are notoriously corrupt and in bed with the capitalist Democratic party.
>Unions want to force all workers to be a part of them and to pay dues.
>Unions forcing themselves on workers is not any different from any other form of tyranny.

:thumbdown:


No one is "forcing" you to join. Go get a job at WalMart if you dislike unions.

How are you enjoying your new-found poverty from lowered wages in RTW State of Indiana ?

John Stewart (The Daily Show) calls your state "India, N. A." (India, North America) :lol:

Unapologetic
12th December 2012, 08:48
No one is "forcing" you to join. Go get a job at WalMart if you dislike unions.
I am in absolutely no way an apologist for the eradication of labor rights. I am however completely against any move that forces workers to pay into a corrupt labor bureaucracy that accomplishes little except cosmetic improvements to the worker's situation and filling the pockets of labor lobbyists and the bureaucracy. I work part-time as a forklift operator and the union I am [forced to be] a part of keeps on demanding for the most inane of things like a $25 union fee increase for new workers (it's already $75) and I haven't seem the union leaders do jack shit except go out to dinners at restaurants I could never afford after every weekly meeting.

I was forced to join because I needed a job and my only labor-related marketable skill is that I have a license to operate heavy machinery and I can drive a bus. Walmart pays pennies compared to what I make at my current gig and I can promise you it's not because of the union.


That "tyranny" is at present the only organized thing that exists to defend workers wages, pensions, healthcare, and employment in an age of austerity. That's the sad part of the situation but no socialist organization can bring out 12,000 workers in one place, no socialist organization can seriously call for a strike without first getting some nods from the unions. Have they become beholden to the Democratic Party. It would seem that way. But destroying unions is just going to make it that much harder for workers to struggle against the coming battles that will be fought in the near future. That's the kind of vanguard mentality that absolutely disgusts me and belittles the average worker. Workers, hell- nobody, should be forced into something that they don't want to participate in- period. The actual situation is that unions are corrupt and they accomplish little- I've witnessed it first hand in my job and I have working class friends with the same attitudes.

All this bill does is give people the choice to join a union or not and I can't say I disagree with that.

A Revolutionary Tool
12th December 2012, 20:54
That's the kind of vanguard mentality that absolutely disgusts me and belittles the average worker. Workers, hell- nobody, should be forced into something that they don't want to participate in- period. The actual situation is that unions are corrupt and they accomplish little- I've witnessed it first hand in my job and I have working class friends with the same attitudes.

All this bill does is give people the choice to join a union or not and I can't say I disagree with that.
Vanguard mentality? No that's just looking at the current situation and understanding that right-to-work laws are designed to further destroy what power unions may have which directly effect the lives of workers. It's not a coincidence that on average workers lose wages, pensions, and healthcare benefits in right-to-work states. So you may say you know the union isn't benefiting you in any way but the facts tell us differently. And what you're telling Klaatu is just a boldfaced LIE. It is illegal for you to be forced to join a union to work somewhere(Thank Taft-Harley, you support that anti-worker legislation too?) and if you live in Indiana, as your profile suggests, you already live in a right-to-work state. Which means that's another boldfaced lie about how you're forced to join a union and pay dues at your workplace.

GoddessCleoLover
12th December 2012, 21:08
Right-to-Work-for-Peanuts legislation will have a negative impact on the working class. I don't deny that Unapologetic may have a legit beef with his union, but support Right-to-Work legislation would be a serious error for any leftist.

Unapologetic
12th December 2012, 22:41
Vanguard mentality? No that's just looking at the current situation and understanding that right-to-work laws are designed to further destroy what power unions may have which directly effect the lives of workers. It's not a coincidence that on average workers lose wages, pensions, and healthcare benefits in right-to-work states. So you may say you know the union isn't benefiting you in any way but the facts tell us differently. And what you're telling Klaatu is just a boldfaced LIE. It is illegal for you to be forced to join a union to work somewhere(Thank Taft-Harley, you support that anti-worker legislation too?) and if you live in Indiana, as your profile suggests, you already live in a right-to-work state. Which means that's another boldfaced lie about how you're forced to join a union and pay dues at your workplace.

Not a lie- right at employment the human resources department said they couldn't hire me without joining the union (union is half-on the board of directors and apparently that's a loop hole).

Maybe that's illegal but that's what it says in my employment contract.

Klaatu
13th December 2012, 04:00
Unapologetic


I am however completely against any move that forces workers to pay into a corrupt labor bureaucracy that accomplishes little except cosmetic improvements to the worker's situation and filling the pockets of labor lobbyists and the bureaucracy.
Union dues pay (mostly) for your strike fund (did you know this?)


I work part-time as a forklift operator and the union I am [forced to be] a part of keeps on demanding for the most inane of things like a $25 union fee increase for new workers (it's already $75) and I haven't seem the union leaders do jack shit except go out to dinners at restaurants I could never afford after every weekly meeting.
you and others should bring up your dissatisfactions with your labor local's leaders. If you feel as though
they are not doing their jobs, take a vote to cast out that local and install a new one that is more honest.
But for godsakes, do NOT advocate that The State pass LAWS which weaken union rights for EVERYONE


I was forced to join because I needed a job and my only labor-related marketable skill is that I have a license to operate heavy machinery and I can drive a bus.
WalMart has truck drivers too, you know (really!)


Walmart pays pennies compared to what I make at my current gig and I can promise you it's not because of the union.
So you think you deserve high pay for your extraordinary skills. Or do they pay you well because of your good looks?
Or maybe the company owner is your rich uncle?


That's the kind of vanguard mentality that absolutely disgusts me and belittles the average worker. Workers, hell- nobody, should be forced into something that they don't want to participate in- period.
THEN GET A JOB AT WALMART (they will not FORCE you to join a union - guaranteed!)


The actual situation is that unions are corrupt and they accomplish little- I've witnessed it first hand in my job and I have working class friends with the same attitudes.
You and your friends really need to study the HISTORY of unions, and find out how working conditions were in the
19th century, before unions had protections. Learn about how Henry Ford hired thugs to beat up union organizers.
Ford would put big husky workaholic guys at the front of the assembly line to set the pace of everyone on the line
and if you could not keep up, you were fired. Men came home from work exhausted after their twelve-hour shifts.

Children as young as eight labored in dangerous jobs for 14hour days. Workers exposed to white phosphorus in
matchmaking, or mercury in felt making or carcinogens in coking ovens, heavy metals vapors (linked to prostate cancer)
in ironworks foundries... the list goes on. Need a vacation? HAH! Quit the job and look for a new one the following week.
Forget potty breaks.

In the 1930s, my grandfather's thumb was accidentally ripped off in a machine. Since there was no union to make sure
the company was held responsible (they were) he was fired. And since there was no workman's comp, nor
unemployment pay then, he had to rely on welfare... which was, in those days, administered only by his local church.
(There were no government programs then.) He had to sue in court just to get a meager settlement.

Unhappy with unions? You have no idea, grasshopper.


All this bill does is give people the choice to join a union or not and I can't say I disagree with that.
There are about five to ten times as many non union jobs available as there are union jobs. You DO have a choice.
Get a Non-Union job, because no one is FORCING you to apply for the union job (don't you get it?)

I have worked in a shit-hole shop for over twenty years. Believe me, I have had some serious disagreements with the union
over seniority rights, overtime rights, etc. I felt like strangling some of my coworker diehard by-the-book, self righteous
"you can't do that" union brothers and sisters... because of their unfair and insensible opinions... believe me I have had
my problems over this or that.

But AT NO TIME did I ever advocate (or even think about) the idea of throwing my union under the bus, because I am
smart enough to know what the alternatives were. That is, a bend-over-for-me mentality of pretty much what you are
advocating: a complete divorce and destruction of our only means of representation in this era of increasing big-brotherism
from the increasingly-powerful plutocratic empire.

Now go learn some things and come back when you have your degree in labor history.

Red Commissar
13th December 2012, 06:10
Looking more at the way this law was jammed through, even if you're an apologist for the liberal democratic system this was wrought with crap.

Firstly, these laws were passed in a lame-duck session of the Michigan legislature. While the Republicans are still going to control the House when the new session starts next year, they lost some legislators and from what I'm told they were mostly hardline Republicans. There's a handful of Republicans who've been known to vote common with Democrats on some issues, so they've been pushing some shit legislation through before they lose their more dependable legislators.

-The laws were abruptly announced and then introduced in a short span of days so as to take the opponents of the measure by surprise. More "shocking" since the Governor had promised he wouldn't let the party consider such legislation when he was voted in.

-The bills were split up into different components so as to bypass some requirement in Michigan state legislature about debating similar bills in different houses in a short span of time. There were two bills considered by the senate affecting private and public sector employees, while the House ended up attaching their bill on to a yearly spending bill. The latter is particularly bad because this means that particular law can't be overturned by referendum, as anything in a spending bill is immune from referendum. Even if the normal RTW bills are taken to referendum, the one in the spending bill can't be touched.

This also put pressure on the governor, basically "we're doing this with or without you" from the party.

-In order to achieve quorum in the Senate, the chamber was locked down to prevent legislators opposed to the bill from walking out. The State Supreme Court ruled this was an illegal action, but the bill was already passed by this point.

-The State Capitol was closed down to the public, using the pretext of some protestors who tried to storm the senate floor. The state capitol is technically supposed to be open in some form in order to allow for the public to scrutinize the action of their representatives.

-The RTW legislation was passed under some special form, which allows for it to be implemented immediately rather than the usual one year + implementation. This requires a 2/3rds majority, though by some way the Republicans have been passing these laws without following that, including this one. There's apparently some other stuff they're trying to jam in before they lose their current clout, including some abortion-related measures that they were unable to do so earlier in the session.

So yeah, really underhanded way they went about it, even by the standards we've come to expect from them. All the more reason to show the bankrupt nature of bourgeois "democracy", serving the economic interests of the ruling class above all.

Klaatu
13th December 2012, 23:24
Exactly, Red Commissar. That is how dictatorships work.

The Proposal 2 referendum in Michigan would have prevented this (because it would have put union rights in the state constitution) But the vote failed because too many people were fooled into believing that prop2 would be "bad for Michigan." Prop2 enjoyed majority support as late as August, when polling put it as passing by a wide margin. But once the right wing spin-machine got going, with such political ads such as "teachers will be allowed to be drunk in the classroom" (I am not making this up) the referendum then failed, as support dropped off (I guess there are a lot of stupid people out there that believe the drivel)

Another thing, Gov Snyder has stated since his election two years ago that a RTW bill would be "too divisive." Well last week he was claiming that "this bill will bring workers together." (huh?)

The law exempts police and firefighters, because they "did not want to divide those whose lives depend on their fellow workers' support"

(but it's OK to start animosity between assembly-line workers?)

And some say "We did not see this coming" Well I saw this coming!

blake 3:17
20th December 2012, 00:25
Unions are imperfect organizations.

The current attacks on unions in Michigan is crazy. Michigan was the heartland of the US labor movement, and it is hard not to see this as primarily ideological.

Unions in Canada are currently under attack from both the hard Right federal government and the centrist Ontario government.

Klaatu
20th December 2012, 03:43
One thing I am sure of: this anti-union aggression will not stand.

Most people here are surprised and in disbelief that this happened,
especially since the governor said he would not sign RTW legislation.
(Same thing happened in Indiana earlier this year)

Thus the Mich. governor (as well as the Indiana governor) turns out to
be a two-faced liar. Recent polls indicate that support for him has dropped
off precipitously. At this time, it looks like he is out on his keister in 2014.

Furthermore, I predict that this new law will be struck down in court, and/or
be repealed by voters (as happened in Ohio earlier this year)

KurtFF8
20th December 2012, 15:05
One thing I am sure of: this anti-union aggression will not stand.

Most people here are surprised and in disbelief that this happened,
especially since the governor said he would not sign RTW legislation.
(Same thing happened in Indiana earlier this year)

Thus the Mich. governor (as well as the Indiana governor) turns out to
be a two-faced liar. Recent polls indicate that support for him has dropped
off precipitously. At this time, it looks like he is out on his keister in 2014.

Furthermore, I predict that this new law will be struck down in court, and/or
be repealed by voters (as happened in Ohio earlier this year)

Do you think it will be struck in court because of illegal procedures of how it was passed?

Klaatu
21st December 2012, 03:26
Do you think it will be struck in court because of illegal procedures of how it was passed?

Kurt, here is an article from The Detroit News (my own opinion on this later)


December 20, 2012 at 1:00 am
Lawsuits expected over right to work
Indiana could be precursor to what happens in Michigan

By Jim Lynch
The Detroit News

Indiana endured the height of right-to-work madness less than a year ago, when state officials passed legislation similar to laws finalized in Lansing this week.

So the Hoosier State affords Michigan a peek at what might be on the horizon as labor unions look to bounce back from their most bitter defeat.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the state's right-to-work law Feb. 1, and within weeks the first of two legal challenges had been filed. The paths of those lawsuits may be duplicated here in Michigan, and right-to-work supporters are preparing for the fight.

Last week, the Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced it would create a task force to uphold Michigan's law against court challenges.

"Although we anticipate several union court challenges, we're confident that our legal team will be able to defend Michiganders' right to work … ," said Ray LaJeunesse, the foundation's vice president, in a statement. "Foundation attorneys stand ready to defend the new … law and help any Michigander who wishes to refrain from paying dues to a union he or she doesn't voluntarily belong to."

About 180 miles away from the drama in Lansing is Hammond, Ind., where the International Union of Operating Officers Local 150 last week went to U.S. District Court in the latest stage of the chapter's legal fight against the legislation there. The federal court challenge argues federal statutes, particularly the National Labor Relations Act and the subsequent Taft-Hartley Act, pre-empt Indiana's right-to-work law.

"Those rulings say the states are allowed to prohibit the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in labor organizations as a condition of employment," said Dale Pierson, general counsel for Local 150.

"But it doesn't go beyond that in terms of what levels of regulation a state can enact."

The argument, Pierson said, boils down to an infringement on the union's right to free speech created when not all of those who benefit from collective bargaining are required to pay union dues.

"When a right-to-work law is passed, it creates freeloaders," Pierson said. "But federal law still requires unions to represent them. That means it causes the unions and its members to spend money to represent people who aren't contributing. That takes away money from the union's right to engage in political activity."

The second legal challenge in Indiana is moving through the state courts. That lawsuit, filed by United States Steelworkers, claims the law violates the state's constitution.

Like the federal suit, it hinges on the union's legal responsibility to represent everyone in a work setting, whether they pay dues or not.

"The Indiana state constitution says that a person cannot be compelled to provide services to another without just compensation," said Jim Robinson, a district director with United Steelworkers. "But the right to work law in Indiana … has the effect of requiring us to provide services to the people who aren't paying for those services."

Wisconsin, meanwhile, has gained notoriety in the past two years as a right-to-work battleground state. But that state's Act 10, passed in 2010, did not go as far as the legislation passed in Michigan this week — applying only to public sector employees. And parts of the act have been struck down in the courts.

This week, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said a right-to-work law similar to Michigan's would be a "huge distraction." Theodore St. Antoine, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has also worked as a labor arbitrator for more than 40 years, said he foresees legal challenges to Michigan's right-to-work law on several fronts.

"The one I think is strongest would be a challenge over right to work supporters tying an appropriation measure to the bill," he said. "To my mind, it appears the only reason for that measure was to prevent the people from overturning the law through a referendum."

The $1 million in appropriation attached to the law was purportedly for implementation. Appropriated items aren't subject to referendum. They are subject to constitutional amendments, St. Antoine said, but that process is lengthier and more expensive.

[email protected]
(313) 222-2034

source
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121220/POLITICS02/212200365/Lawsuits-expected-over-right-work?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

blake 3:17
21st December 2012, 19:56
The current anti-teacher union legislation in Ontario is probably uncoonstitutional. That's part has what has kept either side (in the legal sense) to going in more aggressive directions.

Even with the lousy economy, Michigan must have a relatively high union density a pro union sentiment. If the state needs to start having hearings on every single contract with each individual.

There are many reasons employers respect unions, the biggest is that they make life simpler.

Klaatu
1st February 2013, 07:23
Pass a law without public debate or comment, and then fast-track your partisian-dominated Supreme Court to approve it.

This is the modus operandi of a dictatorship



January 29, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Gov. Snyder asks Supreme Court to rule on right to work
Snyder seeks Supreme Court's opinion on constitutionality as it applies to public sector workers

Lansing — Gov. Rick Snyder on Monday took the rare step of asking the Michigan Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the new public and private sector right-to-work laws before labor unions try to tie them up in court.

In a letter to Chief Justice Robert Young Jr., Snyder asked the high court to decide whether the public sector right-to-work law applies to the 35,000 unionized state workers because of the Michigan Civil Service Commission's autonomy to negotiate wages, benefits and working conditions with labor unions.

Snyder also asked the court to consider whether the private and public sector right-to-work laws violate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause of the United States Constitution "because the legislation does not apply to all employees in public or private sector bargaining units."

Republican lawmakers exempted the Michigan State Police and unionized police and firefighters, citing their special binding arbitration rights and concerns that making union membership optional would fracture police squads and firehouses.

Since Snyder and GOP lawmakers rushed right-to-work bills through the lame-duck Legislature in six days last month, legal questions have been raised about whether the law can force the Civil Service Commission to remove union security contract clauses requiring financial support of a union as a condition of employment. Right to work outlaws such provisions.

Snyder said he wants a Supreme Court advisory opinion before labor unions tie up the issue in protracted court battles and the state's current collective bargaining contract expires Dec. 31. Contract negotiations are set to begin this summer, Snyder said.

"This is a very time-sensitive question," Snyder wrote to the chief justice. Snyder said he wants the Supreme Court to consider the matter before its term ends July 31.

Going straight to the Supreme Court and sidestepping lower courts, particularly the Ingham County Circuit where Democrats often find favorable rulings, could be politically advantageous for Snyder, said Bill Ballenger, publisher of Inside Michigan Politics, a Lansing newsletter.

"He's kind of taking the bull by the horns and saying, 'OK, I hear the mutterings out there and we need to get this thing settled,'" Ballenger said.

With the recent resignation of Justice Diane Hathaway, Republicans hold a 4-2 majority on the Supreme Court, which could decide not to take up the case or not back the governor, GOP attorney Richard McLellan said.

"You might be very surprised at this opinion — it might not be partisan at all," said McLellan, who first raised questions about how the public sector law could apply to classified state employees under the Civil Service Commission's purview.

Bob McCann, spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing, said it's "probably not a coincidence" Snyder would ask for a Supreme Court opinion as he's preparing to give the GOP a 5-2 advantage with Hathaway's successor.

"It seems like he's trying to short-circuit the legal process on this one," McCann said.

The law goes into effect March 27.

Snyder appealed to the high court on the same day the Michigan State Police said troopers racked up an $802,956 tab guarding the state Capitol grounds during protests of right-to-work legislation in December.

In total, the State Police said it incurred $901,132 in added costs for overtime, travel, lodging, supplies and equipment for troopers dispatched Dec. 5-12 to the Capitol from across Michigan. Troopers logged $464,317 in wages for regular hours, bringing the agency's cost to beef up Capitol security during the lame-duck session to more than $1.7 million, according to a report released Monday.

"We mobilized troopers from every part of the state so as not to overly strain any one area," said Shanon Banner, spokeswoman for the Michigan State Police. "One of the reasons so much overtime was utilized was that most of the troopers who were mobilized were off-duty, as we did not want to leave other regions of the state unprotected."

On Dec. 6, Snyder announced he was reversing his position against passing a right-to-work law and the Republican-controlled Legislature moved quickly to send him the legislation Dec. 11 — when 12,500 people descended on the Capitol, mostly in protest of the law.

During the protests, State Police were helped by sheriff's deputies from Ingham and Clinton counties, police from Lansing, East Lansing and Michigan State University and the Department of Corrections. Ingham County provided volunteer deputies on horse-mounted patrol, while MSU police provided 40 officers through mutual aid.

Lansing police spent $31,404 on regular pay, overtime, equipment and supplies on Dec. 11, said Officer Robert Merritt. The Department of Corrections incurred $15,513 in overtime and $540 in vehicle expenses transporting state troopers, department spokesman Russ Marlan said.

[email protected]

source
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130129/POLITICS02/301290359/-1/7daysarchives/Gov-Snyder-asks-Supreme-Court-rule-right-work