Here is the summary of this story.
I endorse this move. Unions are welcome to convince people they add some value, but they won’t be able to force people to join. Outstanding.
I’m surprised.
Surely you understand that if you can work somewhere and get the benefits of union membership, but not have to pay union dues, you damage the union, right? Are’t conservatives supposed to be against freeloaders?
Don’t you find the “convince people they add some value” argument to be highly dishonest? That isn’t remotely what’s happening. What’s happening is that you are giving the benefits of the unions away for free and then batting your eyes and saying, “Oh, is membership down? How odd!”
I tell you what, you don’t have to pay to eat at restaurants. Let them prove to you they’re worth the money. Get back to me with how well this works for the restaurant’s bottom line.
Well sure, no longer being forced to provide money to a third party is certainly going to hurt the third party’s bottom line. You can’t do business with me unless you pay off my friend Vinny, and now Vinny is hurting.
But what’s interesting here is that this is happening in Michigan, and not other states that I have perceived as less union-friendly. The article doesn’t provide a ton of background.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Surely you understand that if you can work somewhere and get the benefits of union membership, but not have to pay union dues, you damage the union, right?
[/QUOTE]
Well…yeah. Of course it will. I’m trying to resist saying ‘bummer’, but surely you understand that Bricker doesn’t think that unions ARE value added service wrt labor…right? I’m not a big fan of unions either, of course (I’m sure that’s a big surprise)…I think that in today’s labor market in the US they do more harm than good, and have done so for a long time, pricing American labor out of the low and mid-range markets for manufacturing…which is why so many companies have either increasingly automated or moved their low end manufacturing and services offshore.
BTW, Michigan has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (a quick Google search shows them ranked 46th…or 6th highest rate in the country). Perhaps…just perhaps…it’s time to try something else and see if that works?
I don’t see the analogy here. Could you explain how it works wrt breaking unions in Michigan where labor HAS to join a union in certain job categories currently, but won’t have too if this legislature passes? Is labor free in all the other right to work states? New Mexico is right to work state, and we don’t have free labor, so I’m puzzled how your analogy works.
That’s all well and fine but I was under the understanding that the United States is a free country. Why shouldn’t a union be allowed to negotiate a closed-shop arrangement with a private employer? Is it not a contractual matter between two parties that should be free of government interference?
Whether you think it’s good for the workers or not strikes me as being irrelevant. It’s their business. If Local 123 can negotiate a closed shop contract, why should the government pass a law saying they can’t?
[QUOTE=RickJay]
That’s all well and fine but I was under the understanding that the United States is a free country. Why shouldn’t a union be allowed to negotiate a closed-shop arrangement with a private employer? Is it not a contractual matter between two parties that should be free of government interference?
[/QUOTE]
Fight my ignorance here…I thought this was geared towards negating unions forcing people to HAVE to join in certain labor categories. So, unless I’m mistaken (always a possibility), what’s happening here is to free labor from having to join a union…i.e. it’s giving labor more options, not less.
Are unions going to be completely disallowed and outlawed under this legislation?
Again, does this legislature forbid unions? If so, then you have a point. Perhaps I’m not understanding what’s being proposed here.
It was a surprisingly stealthy maneuver. The fact that Michigan s so strongly union ended up helping it really because nobody expected it, it just kind of popped up into the public conscience a few days before the vote as a done deal, and no time to organize opposition, or buy TV ads.. It not a surprise Snyder supports the Bill, but I think he thought it was a battle not worth fighting because of the decisiveness, and just wanted it ignored.
But now that it has been given on a silver platter, he has a difficult decision. If he doesn’t sign it he is a traitor to the cause. and if he does he will still have the partisan shitstorm he wanted to avoid for the next few years. I’m pretty sure he will sign it, unless he gets a huge concession to not, and I can’t even imagine what that would be.
I have no doubt that breaking unions would increase the amount of jobs.
They wouldn’t be nearly as good jobs. Shit, I bet if slavery were legal, there would be tons of jobs too. 
The union is the restaurant.
If a job has a union, then the union bargains to increase the compensation of the workers. If you go to that job, and don’t join the union you should still have to pay dues, because they still give you the value. You are perfectly free to seek out a non-union shop.
Now if the Michigan law does pass, then you will go to that job and say, “Wait, I get to have the union benefits, but don’t have to pay them? Woo hoo!”
This destroys the union and puts strong negative pressure on the compensation.
So in the analogy you eat at the restaurant (union) and you don’t pay. So the restaurant (union) goes out of business.
My point, is that I would prefer if conservatives would truthfully say what they want. They want to destroy unions. They are for a fixed game where employers don’t have labor to push against them.
Of course not; he’s a right winger, and will therefore support anything that hurts ordinary people and oppose anything that helps them.
If the right wing supports something, it’s never a good idea. Especially for the common people.
An argument that doesn’t hold water; we aren’t going to win a race to the bottom against prison labor or some third world hellhole using slave labor without becoming one ourselves. You’re basically arguing that unions keep workers from being treated as slaves, and that this is a bad thing.
Since when has reducing the power of working people benefited working people?
Of course it isn’t free, slavery isn’t legal (if you discount prison labor). But that doesn’t mean they won’t be paid worse, treated worse, and work under worse conditions since they no longer have any bargaining power.
I hadn’t seen this when I posted, but to clarify my previous post:
Shops with unions pay better in general. If you join that shop you pay the union dues because you gain the benefit of the union’s actions. They are the reason you’re paid so well.
If you make paying optional, the unions will death spiral, because people will stop joining and thus, the unions will have no leverage to bargain for compensation.
If this really is about freedom to choose and whatnot (which is what the governor and conservatives are claiming), why is the legislature ramming this through in lame duck, with no public debate, with an appropriation attached ensuring that it can’d be brought before the people via referendum? If this really, truly is best for Michigan, why the less-than-upfront manner of passing it? This has nothing to do with economics or jobs or freedom or democracy, but everything to do with politics.
By the way, I’ll be in Lansing tomorrow bright and early. Nothing glamorous like getting arrested for civil disobedience or marching through the streets with a sign, but just ushering people onto buses which will take them off to the glamorous protests. Still I reckon it’s gonna be a long, cold day, and I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else.
For a guy who said he didn’t want Michigan to end up as divisive a state as Wisconsin, he sure is doing everything in his power to make that happen.
Hopefully, like Wisconsin, this includes a recall vote as well.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
I have no doubt that breaking unions would increase the amount of jobs.
[/QUOTE]
Why? Do you think that unions are protecting the number of jobs in Michigan, and that without unions (WILL there be no more unions allowed? I don’t see how that’s even legal) Michigan will somehow go from 46th to 51st in unemployment??
Leaving aside the slavery bit, when you say they wouldn’t be ‘nearly as good jobs’ what you mean is salary/benefits wise, correct? So, what unions are really doing, ISTM, is protecting salaries and benefits, not the number of jobs..and, at least based on Michigan they aren’t doing a very good job of that either. Certainly not doing a very good job of keeping unemployment down.
Is this what happens in other states with similar laws? I guess the disconnect between us here is that I see this as a feature, not a flaw. Labor is a market resource like any other. To me, it’s being under-utilized in states like Michigan because unions have artificially kept salaries and benefits (for those in the union and still working) high, which has driven businesses to look elsewhere to put their plants…either into other states without the laws in question, or to other countries. Or, to automating in places like Michigan that still has manufacturing. All because labor costs more than it’s worth to the companies bottom lines.
I’d say, rather, that conservatives (well, some of them) want to break the strangle hold unions have on labor. The slavery hyperbole is just ridiculous, as there are plenty of non-union jobs in the US that aren’t sweat shop hell holes. The fact of the matter is that because of labor laws adopted in the US, the actual need for unions has mostly gone away today. The only real purpose they serve is to protect the high salaries of those who are in the union…at the cost of driving out a lot of businesses who can find cheaper labor elsewhere, either through going to another state with similar laws as those being proposed in Michigan or going to other countries…or automating heavily and cutting their work force back.
I realize that none of this is a popular viewpoint around here, which is why I don’t get into these debates very often, but I’ve seen no evidence that laws such as are being proposed in Michigan have caused other states to go to virtual slave labor and sweat shop-esque status.
Unions are the reason labor laws exist. And union jobs put pressure on the rest of the workforce, increasing all compensation.
As an aside, the point of the slavery comment, is driving down compensation is of course good for the business. It’s bad for the people working, though.
As for the conservative position, they don’t want free markets. They want markets where employers have nothing to stand against them.
Not sweatshops. But certainly walking backwards towards them.
The reason I’m paid so well is because I’m worth it. Hell, the last time I worked a job where unionization was even an option, the union was pushing for a wage that was lower than what I had negotiated for myself. Plus they were pushing for benefits that did me no good (e.g. “free” childcare).
The job before that where I chose not to join the union, I was paid at a different rate from the union members, and I had different terms of employment. That was my choice, and I was glad that Texas prohibited anticompetitive collusion that would have forced me to give up my pay to an unrelated third party.
But the thread is about Michigan. Thank you wolfman for your post. I know this snuck up me, but I’ve been busy with work and thought I just hadn’t been paying attention. Any indication how the general public in Michigan perceives the issue? I see that Michigan has higher unemployment than the rest of the country, but not by much. I also see that both halves of the legislature are Republican majority and the governor is Republican. I take it this wasn’t a big campaign issues?
It’s a bit hard to compare states with and without right-to-work laws. While wage earners in states that disallow compulsory union membership generally have greater buying power and lower unemployment rates, the very different economies, geographies, populations, etc., make it a poor comparison IMO.
You think those laws exist, and continue to exist, out of the goodness of politicians’ hearts? You don’t think corporate lobbyists would love to get their regressive pro-business anti-labor laws passed for the sake of the bottom line and their CEO’s wallet?
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Shops with unions pay better in general. If you join that shop you pay the union dues because you gain the benefit of the union’s actions. They are the reason you’re paid so well
[/QUOTE]
Certainly. What it’s doing is artificially inflating the costs of labor by forcing companies with unions to pay more per employee in salary and benefits. That’s fine if labor is scarce and if all companies have to pay similar costs. Once that is no longer the case though, companies who have unions are paying more for labor than their competitors, which means they are at a disadvantage unless they have some sort of value add to their products. For instance, German workers make a lot of money in manufacturing, and also receive kick ass benefits (Germans also highly automate, but let’s leave that aside). They can get away with that because German products are perceived (rightfully IMHO) as being of superior quality, and so can command premium prices.
Sadly, US manufacturing no longer automatically commands premium prices just by having the Made in the US label on it, as it once did…so, though US labor is one of the highest prices all things considered in the world, the value add just isn’t there. That’s what we get for not periodically bombing competing nations back into the iron age as they started to overtake us quality wise. 
Probably so…in fact, I’d say that’s a very distinct possibility. However, I assume that means that unions aren’t being barred from Michigan, but instead it’s just that the government isn’t enforcing their monopoly and propping them up anymore. You wouldn’t put it that way I know, but it seems accurate from my perspective.
Nope, I don’t. I think that many (hell most or all) of them exist because of the struggles labor and unions went through starting as far back as the beginning of the 20th century.
But, what have they done for us lately? It’s great that they gave us much of what we have today. Republicans gave us freedom from slavery and settled the states verse federal question, but that’s no reason to support them today, right?
It was not, and in fact, until last Thursday, the governor said that it was not on his agenda, would be to divisive, not in the best interest of Michigan, he had no interest in passing it or pushing for it, didn’t want to see Michigan become Wisconsin, etc.
You don’t want a union? Decertify. It is possible to do so; you could probably even get a nice wealthy right-wing sponsor to fund it. Or organize against it during an organizing drive. But why should the government legislate a negotiable term? If people really didn’t want a closed shop, they could negotiate it out of the next contract and then vote for that contract. That’s democracy, that’s choice. Having Lansing tell workers what they can and can not negotiate for is not freedom or choice. It’s government overreach, and I thought you conservatives wanted government out of your lives. Or is it only when it suits your causes?