# Michigan Contemplates Becoming Right-To-Work **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673 "2012-12-11T02:56:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/241 "2012-12-14T15:25:00Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > [So apparently the Michigan law violates the state constitution, and was an unmodified ALEC boilerplate bill that nobody read.](http://www.politicususa.com/oops-michigan-republicans-passed-work-law-unimplementable.html) (biased source, but they give cites) Ha. It’s funny that this tactic seems very familiar. And it’s funny what they say, and don’t say. > [@](#): > > Just as the Wisconsin law violated their state constitution, so it appears the Michigan law does the same, albeit for different reasons. In addition to the violation of the state constitution, just as in Wisconsin, we also have a lawsuit filed over the violation of the Michigan Open Meetings law. But to the constitutional issue… Um… in Wisconsin, the open meetings law issue was indeed the subject of a lawsuit, and a county judge ruled that the legislature violated the open meetings law. This was an amazing ruling, since the clear text of the open meetings law gave an exception to the legislature itself. Ultimately, of course, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law and overturned that county judge. Oddly, the page does not reveal that ending. This strikes me as the same kind of desperately hopeful nonsense that arose in Wisconsin. The relevant section in Michigan’s constitution is Article IV § 48: > [@](#): > > The legislature may enact laws providing for the resolution of disputes concerning public employees, except those in the state classified civil service. But there are a number of decisions from the state supreme court that show that “resolution of disputes” does not extend to making rules concerning union activity and the lack. See, e.g., _Judges of 74th Judicial Dist. v. Bay County_, 190 NW 2d 219 (Mich 1971); see also _Bd. of Control of Eastern Mich. Univ. v. Labor Mediation Board_, 184 NW 2d 921 (Mich 1971) for the proposition that the constitutional provision does not conflict with the rule at hand: > [@](#): > > It must be remembered that the Act under consideration does not impose an obligation on parties (employer or employee) to agree to any proposal or to require the making of a concession. Neither party is forced under the act to enter into any agreement. The Act mainly deals with the rights of employees. It sets forth procedure for employees to elect exclusive bargaining units to represent them and to meet with employers. Employers must meet with them but are not compelled to agree. That’s strikingly (ha!) similar to the current Act. Sorry, desperados. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/242 "2012-12-14T16:00:47Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Obviously union jobs will provide upward pressure on other jobs in the same area. A non union shop has to compete with the union shop for workers. So that’s one thing they do. > > The people who bring up, “Unions were great once, but we don’t need them any more.” are acting like anti-vaxxers. > > _Yeah, why should you vaccinate your kid against measles? You’ve never even heard of anyone with measles._ That’s the fucking point! > > Unions made it possible to have the worker rights we have today. Don’t think in their absence that employers won’t walk back increases. Stagnant wages and shrinking benefits already show this. Man, the other 85% of Americans who hold jobs must be the downtrodden? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/243 "2012-12-14T16:12:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But there are a number of decisions from the state supreme court that show that “resolution of disputes” does not extend to making rules concerning union activity and the lack. See, e.g., _Judges of 74th Judicial Dist. v. Bay County_, 190 NW 2d 219 (Mich 1971); see also _Bd. of Control of Eastern Mich. Univ. v. Labor Mediation Board_, 184 NW 2d 921 (Mich 1971) for the proposition that the constitutional provision does not conflict with the rule at hand: Could you point to the specific language in either case that you believe addresses the constitutional issue _here_? The first case appears to stand for the unrelated proposition that separation of powers limits a legislative body’s ability to make rules for the judicial branch, and the second simply establishes that state colleges are public employers within the meaning of the constitutional provision you describe. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/244 "2012-12-14T16:35:24Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > …These two posts seem to reflect a romantic view of unions on your part. The struggle you describe was between two groups trying to gain the advantage in the marketplace… Yep. Sure was. But one side had all the advantages, and the other side wanted some of them. > [@](#): > > …Both used whatever tools were at their disposal. Thankfully, for the most part this meant political lobbying and getting out the vote… Thankfully indeed. It worked. Now, it appears that one side of the argument wants to say “Hey, no fair! You guys won!” > [@](#): > > …But violence certainly did occur, but please don’t kid yourself by thinking it was only on the side of the employers… Never said any such thing. But if you want to think you’ve made a point, you are welcome to it. Free country, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/245 "2012-12-14T16:38:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Could you point to the specific language in either case that you believe addresses the constitutional issue _here_? The first case appears to stand for the unrelated proposition that separation of powers limits a legislative body’s ability to make rules for the judicial branch, and the second simply establishes that state colleges are public employers within the meaning of the constitutional provision you describe. The first case doesn’t rest on separation of powers: it looks at the same state constitutional provision we’re (presumably) discussing here (see FN1) and it affirms both that court employees are public employees, AND nonetheless judges retain their statutory ability to fix compensation and terms for those court employees. In other words, Sec. 48 does not result in the Civil Service Commission, and only the Civil Service Commission, setting compensation and working conditions for public employees. So whatever Sec. 48 means, it doesn’t mean that. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/246 "2012-12-14T16:53:29Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Man, the other 85% of Americans who hold jobs must be the downtrodden? I think you’re having trouble communicating what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/247 "2012-12-14T16:57:39Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I think you’re having trouble communicating what you mean. No, I think it’s fairly clear that less than 15% of the American workforce belong to the union and the rest get along just fine without it. It’s the hyperbole from the union side that is incoherent. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/248 "2012-12-14T16:58:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Yep. Sure was. But one side had all the advantages, and the other side wanted some of them. We have the same situation today in non-RTW states, except it’s the unions with the advantages now. That doesn’t make it any more right. > [@elucidator](#): > > Thankfully indeed. It worked. Now, it appears that one side of the argument wants to say "Hey, no fair! You guys won! Isn’t that what the labor movement did? “No fair, you guys won!”, and off to push for legistalation to change the rules of the game? Why shouldn’t business and non-union labor keep fighting for their interests? Also, the law that permits RTW laws is from 1947, so I don’t know about the “now” part. “Now” in Michigan, certainly, but not “now” in America. > [@elucidator](#): > > Never said any such thing. But if you want to think you’ve made a point, you are welcome to it. Free country, and all that. Your post included references to “a struggle against selfish and heartless men”, “Capitalists of the Dark Days” who were not “humane and conscientious,” and “American workers being exploited and bullied by their employers.” If that doesn’t seem one-sided to you, and hagiographical toward union leaders like Debs, then I don’t know what to tell you. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/249 "2012-12-14T17:01:30Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > No, I think it’s fairly clear that less than 15% of the American workforce belong to the union and they get along just fine without it. > > It’s the hyperbole from the union side that is incoherent. I’d hope we can all agree that: 1. Unions are not strictly _necessary_ for all workers to have rights and pursue their interests. 2. Unions should be an option for workers who desire to join and be represented by one. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/250 "2012-12-14T17:05:40Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’d hope we can all agree that: > > 1. Unions are not strictly _necessary_ for all workers to have rights and pursue their interests. > > 2. Unions should be an option for workers who desire to join and be represented by one. Bullshit. If it wasn’t for unions, many people wouldn’t have health insurance or safe working conditions. The reason that companies ever gave in and started giving fair wages and benefits was that union men in the early 20th century were willing to be beaten and killed by company thugs and didn’t give in until they got union shops. If you want to give the US slave labor like they have in China and India, then keep voting Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/251 "2012-12-14T17:07:33Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > No, I think it’s fairly clear that less than 15% of the American workforce belong to the union and they get along just fine without it. I suspected that’s what you meant, but it was phrased weird. “must be the downtrodden?” is clunky. In any case, you think the American workforce is getting along just fine? You think wages going down over the last 40 years is fine? [http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-american-wages/](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-american-wages/) > [@](#): > > It’s the hyperbole from the union side that is incoherent. I think the magical thinking of the anti-union side is the problem, personally. I should mention that I agree there are problems with union power in some cases. Not being able to fire teachers and whatnot. Attacking those problems is the logical thing to do, not destroy collective bargaining. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Made_French_Toast_For_You)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/252 "2012-12-14T17:35:01Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’d wager that **XT** (and I) would disagree with your definition of “worker exploitation.” Would you care to give it? Unfair wages, unfair benefits, and/or bad working conditions. The most prominent example right now would probably be the controversies around [Walmart’s treatment of its workers](http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/11/20121121121853283410.html). The worst examples you’ll find usually involve [low-skill and immigrant labor](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/opinion/forced-labor-on-american-shores.html). (And Walmart again, apparently.) Disrupting all unions in a state with right to work, in order to curb the supposed “advantages” of some specific unions, is bizarre. I may have missed some earlier in the thread, but do you have any cites concerning the exploitation of a corporation by its workers? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/253 "2012-12-14T18:01:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The first case doesn’t rest on separation of powers: it looks at the same state constitutional provision we’re (presumably) discussing here (see FN1) and it affirms both that court employees are public employees, AND nonetheless judges retain their statutory ability to fix compensation and terms for those court employees. In other words, Sec. 48 does not result in the Civil Service Commission, and only the Civil Service Commission, setting compensation and working conditions for public employees. So whatever Sec. 48 means, it doesn’t mean that. > > Correct? It doesn’t appear that either case says it doesn’t mean that. Neither purports to interpret the extent of the phrase “resolution of disputes”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/254 "2012-12-14T18:07:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It doesn’t appear that either case says it doesn’t mean that. Neither purports to interpret the extent of the phrase “resolution of disputes”. But by allowing judges to set salaries, and not the Civil Service Commission, it definitively removes those activities from the realm of “resolve disputes.” Yes? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/255 "2012-12-14T18:17:11Z")
Eh? No. There wasn’t a dispute involving a union. The whole issue was that the county’s collective bargaining agreement did not apply to the judicial district’s employees because they weren’t part of the collective bargaining unit (not being employed by the county). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/256 "2012-12-14T18:32:49Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Bullshit. If it wasn’t for unions, many people wouldn’t have health insurance or safe working conditions. The reason that companies ever gave in and started giving fair wages and benefits was that union men in the early 20th century were willing to be beaten and killed by company thugs and didn’t give in until they got union shops. If you want to give the US slave labor like they have in China and India, then keep voting Republican. So we **can’t** all agree that unions are not strictly necessary for all workers to have rights and pursue their interests. Fair enough. Do you agree with my second point? > [@Lobohan](#): > > In any case, you think the American workforce is getting along just fine? You think wages going down over the last 40 years is fine? Can you tie this (disputed) trend to the decline of union membership specifically? Your cite does not. > [@Lobohan](#): > > I think the magical thinking of the anti-union side is the problem, personally. Can you give an example of this magical thinking? > [@Lobohan](#): > > I should mention that I agree there are problems with union power in some cases. Not being able to fire teachers and whatnot. Attacking those problems is the logical thing to do, not destroy collective bargaining. I agree, but at the state level, this is not a remedy forthe problems inherent in federal labor laws. The only option for reform is RTW. I would much prefer the unions, non-union labor, and employers supporting some basic federal reform. > [@I Made French Toast For You](#): > > Unfair wages, unfair benefits, and/or bad working conditions. The most prominent example right now would probably be the controversies around Walmart’s treatment of its workers. The worst examples you’ll find usually involve low-skill and immigrant labor. (And Walmart again, apparently.) I think we need for specificity for further discussion, so I’ll ask this: are there unfair wages, benefits, and working conditions that are not presently illegal? For instance, your first cite was about Wal-Mart employees protesting “disrespectful treatment by managers, low wages and alleged retaliation by the company against workers who speak out against abuses.” Is this exploitation? Your second cite clearly was, but it was also illegal, coercive conduct that was punished. I’m fine with people working for a wage they freely negotiate, but does anyone advocate for criminal confinement? > [@I Made French Toast For You](#): > > Disrupting all unions in a state with right to work, in order to curb the supposed “advantages” of some specific unions, is bizarre. I don’t think “disrupting” is an apt description of what RTW laws do to unions. They are still free to operate, after all. See above for discussion about why states pass these laws: because it’s all they can do. > [@I Made French Toast For You](#): > > I may have missed some earlier in the thread, but do you have any cites concerning the exploitation of a corporation by its workers? I mentioned the [Flint Sit-Down Strike](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_Sit-Down_Strike) and the UAW [job bank program](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSycPoOxFsrg) earlier. I can post more a bit later. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/257 "2012-12-14T18:56:01Z")
> [@I Made French Toast For You](#): > > I may have missed some earlier in the thread, but do you have any cites concerning the exploitation of a corporation by its workers? Furthermore, efforts to use intimidation and force against strikebreakers would also qualify. As does featherbedding. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/258 "2012-12-14T18:58:01Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > …Your post included references to “a struggle against selfish and heartless men”, “Capitalists of the Dark Days” who were not “humane and conscientious,” and “American workers being exploited and bullied by their employers.” If that doesn’t seem one-sided to you, and hagiographical toward union leaders like Debs, then I don’t know what to tell you. First off, let me introduce you to a concept called “humor”. All in all, I hold Eugene V. Debs to be a darned good human being. I don’t know any saints. So, my reference to him should be taken in that context, of affectionate respect for a man who actually stood for something. A lefty would most likely have gotten that. I’d rather endure ten minutes of Sean Hannity than listen to Joan Baez sing “Joe Hill”. OK, five minutes. On the other hand, I think Tom Joad’s soliliquoy at the end of _The Grapes of Wrath_ is maudlin and overdramatic. Still kinda like it. Read it sometimes when I can clearly remember _what_ I believe but not as sure\* why\*. As for my depiction of the capitalists of that day as being brutal and inhumane, I stand by that without so much a qualm. But it wasn’t personal, Sonny, it was strictly business. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/259 "2012-12-14T19:07:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > First off, let me introduce you to a concept called “humor”. All in all, I hold Eugene V. Debs to be a darned good human being. I don’t know any saints. So, my reference to him should be taken in that context, of affectionate respect for a man who actually stood for something. A lefty would most likely have gotten that. I’d rather endure ten minutes of Sean Hannity than listen to Joan Baez sing “Joe Hill”. OK, five minutes. I didn’t realize you were being humorous. I apologize. It can be difficult to recognize subtle humor in the written word, without the context that the material is likely meant to be humorous. > [@elucidator](#): > > On the other hand, I think Tom Joad’s soliliquoy at the end of The Grapes of Wrath is maudlin and overdramatic. Still kinda like it. Read it sometimes when I can clearly remember what I believe but not as sure why. I use _Capitalism and Freedom_, and of course _Human Action_, in much the same way. > [@elucidator](#): > > As for my depiction of the capitalists of that day as being brutal and inhumane, I stand by that without so much a qualm. But it wasn’t personal, Sonny, it was strictly business. I’ll stipulate that it was a brutal time, without portioning blame, so as not to hijack the thread. Agreed? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/260 "2012-12-14T21:20:02Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Can you tie this (disputed) trend to the decline of union membership specifically? Your cite does not. A quick google turns this up: > **[Study: Boost In Union Membership Would Be A Boon To Middle Class](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/union-membership-middle-class-income_n_983702)** > > Study: Boost In Union Membership Would Be A Boon To Middle Class But I think we’d all agree that union membership increases compensation for the union members. Reducing union membership will reduce overall compensation some amount. > [@](#): > > Can you give an example of this magical thinking? The idea that right to work is about freedom. And that unions will have to show value to compete for workers who can get their benefits for free. > [@](#): > > I agree, but at the state level, this is not a remedy forthe problems inherent in federal labor laws. The only option for reform is RTW. I would much prefer the unions, non-union labor, and employers supporting some basic federal reform. The Republicans control the house, if they actually cared about reform they would be able to bring a bill to the floor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=14)