# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/301 "2012-12-19T02:52:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Is opening the field to even more intimidation via a non-secret ballot really the way to remedy that? You’ve already indicated that you don’t think the EFCA is a god way to remedy the problem. What is your suggestion for a remedy? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Where’s the line between “your terms are unacceptable” and “I have already decided that no deal will be made”? Why should the FMCS be legally empowered to force a deal on an unwilling party? Because it’s become obvious that without prodding, many employers will simply never make a deal. Note that the reason a deal is not being arrived at is not due to what the employer sees as unfair terms for employment except for the fact that employees want to deal with him as a group instead of one at a time. You don’t see an imbalance of power in that situation? The mediation clause was an attempt to rectify that and bring both sides to an agreement. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I looked into the Blue Man Group situation, it seemed like BMG had a reasonable case that the newly certified union wasn’t representative of their actual crew, though the NLRB ruled against them. Clearly they did not have a reasonable case, since they lost when they argued it before the NLRB and a judge. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > But either way, it should again be noted that requiring an employer to negotiate with a solitary, certified union is an unfair advantage unions enjoy. An employer SHOULD be free to refuse to deal with a union, which is in turn then free to strike, quit, or take whatever course they deem prudent. Because constant and continual labor struggles and the drawing of lines and resultant animosity has been decided to be bad overall for society. The employer isn’t being asked to negotiate with some big scary entity of strangers; he’s being asked to negotiate with his employees as a group, instead of individually. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I think it’s yet another salvo in a battle of regulation vs. counter-regulation to try and tip the balance of power one way or the other. As stated, I am in favor of getting the government out of the labor business. EFCA was counter to that goal, so I am glad it did not pass. And yet this Michigan bio, which gets in the way of the employer and the worker is favorable to you. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Again, the issue is that such union security agreements are **not** freely negotiated, due to this country’s labor law. Once that law is reformed, I would gladly support the repeal of RTW laws. Better still, an omnibus federal labor reform law that would preempt state law. I have expressed very tepid, limited support for RTW in this thread, they are a clumsy and imperfect solution to a thorny problem. > > The middle, equitable ground only exists in a free market. Then you should support things which support a free market, and denouce that which does not. Yet you support laws that favor the employer which decrying laws that seek to help the worker. FTR, I don’t have a problem with RTW laws as a rule. I’v elided in RTW states most of my life, and had no problems working as a union member. Michigan’s RTW law, tho, is a piece of crap that seeks not to level and playing field in any way, shape or form; it is written mainly with the intent of disrupting unions. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I only had time to read the first thread, but the remarks by **Happy Scrappy Hero Pup** about needing to know who management “got to” are fairly chilling. It speaks to a tendency by pro-union folks to view the matter as strictly union vs. employer. Lost in the shuffle are the non-union workers. Some might not want to believe it, but there are many legitimate, compelling reasons that could lead one to refrain from joining a union, and “management got to them” isn’t one of them. My industry, financial services, is not unionized to any degree, but even if it were, I would refrain from joining. **This is because I wish to negotiate on my own behalf, and I reject the union view of seniority as the arbiter of employee worth, and the desire to treat all employees as being of equal worth. Frankly, any employee who is better than average might well be better off on their own.** The bolded part, IMO, shows that you really know less about unions and how they work (and why they exist) than I previously thought. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/302 "2012-12-19T04:27:33Z")
Actually the free market is absolutely dependent upon regulations for its well-being, the most fundamental of which is property rights. If I can get your goods by stealing them, why should I trade for them? Property rights are of course of much more value to those who have a lot of property than to those who have little, which is why they mostly became a class thing. And unregulated free markets are parasites that inevitably destroy the economies that harbor them. A free market is just a filtering mechanism that sorts out people who are good and/or lucky at making money. The people who succeed use their money to bribe politicians to give them unfair advantages in the marketplace. If the people who succeed are not carefully regulated, they will eventually absorb most of the wealth in any economy (Hello one percent!). And because the economic engines that are corporations care only about profits (as free market proponents repeatedly assure us the only purpose of corporations) they are sociopaths, and will tend to pay employees absolutely as little as the market will allow. And with the politicians in their back pocket, the market will allow very little indeed. Basically, we are in a race to the bottom, and people like Human Action with their worship of the Free Market are just greasing the skids … no matter what he THINKS he’s doing. ---
**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 19, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/303 "2012-12-19T14:16:04Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > You’ve already indicated that you don’t think the EFCA is a god way to remedy the problem. What is your suggestion for a remedy? The problem being defined by you as “an employer has a captive and dependent audience who are subject to intimidation and other forms of coercion.” Your solution was to (seemingly) make coercion much easier through open voting, so that union intimidation would balance employer intimidation. Is that correct? My solution would be to remove the NLRA certification process. Let any group of employees organize as they will, with no 30% minimum or one exclusive bargaining group per group of employees. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Because it’s become obvious that without prodding, many employers will simply never make a deal. Note that the reason a deal is not being arrived at is not due to what the employer sees as unfair terms for employment except for the fact that employees want to deal with him as a group instead of one at a time. You don’t see an imbalance of power in that situation? The mediation clause was an attempt to rectify that and bring both sides to an agreement. In a free market, transactions must be voluntary, which ensures that they are mutually beneficial. Yes, an employer (and employees) should be free to not make a deal. Would you advocate your approach in any other area of life? Any time two parties are unable to reach a deal, force them into binding arbitration by government? > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Clearly they did not have a reasonable case, since they lost when they argued it before the NLRB and a judge. As I noted. I thought it germaine that their arguement wasn’t “The union can screw off!”, it was “This union doesn’t truly represent our employees.” > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Because constant and continual labor struggles and the drawing of lines and resultant animosity has been decided to be bad overall for society. The employer isn’t being asked to negotiate with some big scary entity of strangers; he’s being asked to negotiate with his employees as a group, instead of individually. “Being asked” implies being able to refuse. Isn’t “being forced” more accurate? If it was decided in 1935 that a free labor market was “bad overall for society”, thus legal coercion was needed, then we got the decision wrong, and it’s time to revisit it. Making unions illegal would have achieved the same result of labor peace, would it not? But that is equally wrong. The price we pay for freedom is that the other guy gets to make free choices too, even if you disagree with them. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > And yet this Michigan bio, which gets in the way of the employer and the worker is favorable to you. Not sure what “bio” means here, but this law is marginally acceptable, because it seeks to counteract the stacking of the deck in favor of the unions. As I have maintained, broad labor reform should replace RTW laws. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Then you should support things which support a free market, and denouce that which does not. Yet you support laws that favor the employer which decrying laws that seek to help the worker. > > FTR, I don’t have a problem with RTW laws as a rule. I’v elided in RTW states most of my life, and had no problems working as a union member. > > Michigan’s RTW law, tho, is a piece of crap that seeks not to level and playing field in any way, shape or form; it is written mainly with the intent of disrupting unions. Only in the broader context of labor law. RTW laws shouldn’t be considered in a vacuum. Does Michigan’s law substantially differ from similar ones, like the Alabama statute I linked to? > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > The bolded part, IMO, shows that you really know less about unions and how they work (and why they exist) than I previously thought. Not sure how to take this…was I over-broad? I know that different unions in different industries have different practices. But the philosophy I mentioned is very much alive in many unions: [Boston.com : Unions Split on Boston Teacher Seniority](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/09/unions_split_on_boston_teacher_seniority/) > [@Linked article](#): > > Opening a rift in the state labor movement, several leading unions vowed Friday to fight a new agreement backed by the state’s largest teachers union that would allow managers to prioritize teacher evaluations over seniority when making school staffing decisions. [SF Weekly: Union ‘Bumping’ Rules Spell Trouble For Outer Mission Elementary School](http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/12/school_secretary_bumped.php) > [@Linked article](#): > > Rios is on the block to be a casualty to the Service Employees International Union practice of “bumping.” According to union work rules, laid-off employees have the opportunity to displace, or “bump,” other union members with less seniority from their jobs. [USA Today: United Continental pilots OK joint union contract](http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2012/12/17/united-continental-pilots-ok-joint-union-contract/1774371/) > [@Linked article](#): > > Seniority is important to pilots because it governs who gets the most desirable schedules and who gets to fly which planes, which is a big factor in their pay. [Inland Valley Daily Bulletin: Healthcare workers in Fontana protest Kaiser staff cuts](http://www.dailybulletin.com/breakingnews/ci_22217880/healthcare-workers-fontana-protest-kaiser-staff-cuts) > [@Linked article](#): > > Registered nurses and other employees crowded street corners near Kaiser Permanente Medical Center on Tuesday, fighting against what union officials call unfair cuts in medical staffing…Workers argue that cuts will jeopardize patient care. They’ve also protested that employees - some working for the organization for as many as 40 years - were among the people on the list, while other employees with less seniority were not cut…Resch-Silvestri said Kaiser disagrees that the contract requires consideration of seniority with regard to staff cuts. ---
**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 19, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/304 "2012-12-19T14:36:44Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Actually the free market is absolutely dependent upon regulations for its well-being, the most fundamental of which is property rights. If I can get your goods by stealing them, why should I trade for them? You are correct. A free market is only possible under the rule of law; it is impossible under a state of anarchy. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Property rights are of course of much more value to those who have a lot of property than to those who have little, which is why they mostly became a class thing. I think property rights are important to all, regardless of “class.” > [@Evil Captor](#): > > And unregulated free markets are parasites that inevitably destroy the economies that harbor them. A free market is just a filtering mechanism that sorts out people who are good and/or lucky at making money. The people who succeed use their money to bribe politicians to give them unfair advantages in the marketplace. If the people who succeed are not carefully regulated, they will eventually absorb most of the wealth in any economy (Hello one percent!). Has anyone here advocated for unregulated markets? The dispute is over _which_ regulations are beneficial to all, and which favor certain groups at the expense of others. A good rule of thumb: regulations that prevent or interfere with voluntary exchange should be avoided, regulations that prevent coercion should be embraced. As to using politicians to gain unfair advantages in the market, that is exactly what I am against. It is wrong, whether it’s done on behalf of millionaires, or masses of laborers. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that only the wealthy have political influence in a democracy. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > And because the economic engines that are corporations care only about profits (as free market proponents repeatedly assure us the only purpose of corporations) they are sociopaths, and will tend to pay employees absolutely as little as the market will allow. And with the politicians in their back pocket, the market will allow very little indeed. Basically, we are in a race to the bottom, and people like Human Action with their worship of the Free Market are just greasing the skids … no matter what he THINKS he’s doing. Sociopathy is defined as making rational economic decisions in a free market of voluntary transactions? That can’t be right. DSM-IV defines antisocial personality disorder as “…a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.” What disregard for and violation of the rights of others is taking place, exactly, in offering competitive wages? Can you demonstrate that a “race to the bottom” is occuring? If so, how should we counteract the effect? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/305 "2012-12-19T14:38:09Z")
I think I can avoid typing anything else in this thread and simply endorse **Human Action** ’s cogent analyses. ---
**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 19, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/306 "2012-12-19T15:11:27Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Can you demonstrate that a “race to the bottom” is occuring? If so, how should we counteract the effect? Stop busting unions? 😃 Look, I agree with you, generally, that voluntary agreements are better than coerced ones, or even managed ones. However, what other mechanism is there for rebalancing the vast gulf in negotiating power between an employer and an employee? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/307 "2012-12-19T15:17:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Stop busting unions? 😃 Look, I agree with you, generally, that voluntary agreements are better than coerced ones, or even managed ones. However, what other mechanism is there for rebalancing the vast gulf in negotiating power between an employer and an employee? The imbalance is tempered by the employee’s ability to go work elsewhere. Beyond that, it’s simply a fact of life. In the same way, if I ask Megan Fox out on a date, what’s the mechanism for rebalancing the vast gulf in negotiating power between us? Answer: none. She’s a hot twenty-something actress and I’m a middle-aged paunchy middle-class professional. The situation is inherently unbalanced, and that’s just the way life is. ---
**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 19, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/308 "2012-12-19T15:20:16Z")
Will you let that go? Dating and employment are utterly, utterly different, and it makes no sense to compare the two. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/309 "2012-12-19T15:37:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Will you let that go? Dating and employment are utterly, utterly different, and it makes no sense to compare the two. Why? Both are private relationships, entered into voluntarily between two people (legal or natural). Why are they so utterly different that no comparison is possible? ETA: I think I know why you say this. Because we recognize that a person’s dating decision is not a matter of social welfare to the extent that we’d intrude on it by mandating any aspect of it. We all agree it’s private. But employment seems to be different. You seem to view employers as filling some sort of social welfare role as well as (or perhaps instead of) a personal role. Employers have some social responsibility that you’re willing to mandate by law, and dating doesn’t. Yes? ---
**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 19, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/310 "2012-12-19T16:16:48Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > Look, I agree with you, generally, that voluntary agreements are better than coerced ones, or even managed ones. However, what other mechanism is there for rebalancing the vast gulf in negotiating power between an employer and an employee? I dispute that this gulf is so unmanageable that it requires government intervention. Employees compete with one another for jobs; employers compete with one another for employees. There is a tendency to view businesses as monolithic, self-perpetuating entities that dictate terms to the rest of us and accrue undue power. The truth is that, in a free society, a business is a fragile thing, which exists only so long as its products and services are of value to its customers. [Here](http://smallbiztrends.com/2012/09/failure-rates-by-sector-the-real-numbers.html) are some five-year survival rates by sector, covering the period 2005-2010, using the Census Bureau’s Business Dynamics Statistics data. After five years, the survival rate for the best of the sectors (mining) stood at 51.3%. The worst, construction, stood at 36.4%. What gulf there is in negotiating power is a result of the business assuming the bulk of the risk in the relationship. Only one party is spending money, after all. When a business fails, the employees are free to move on to another. The owners shoulder the burden of debt. So, I posit that: a) the gulf isn’t vast; b) what gulf there is is reasonable to be expected; and c) no rebalancing mechanism is required. > [@Bricker](#): > > But employment seems to be different. You seem to view employers as filling some sort of social welfare role as well as (or perhaps instead of) a personal role. Employers have some social responsibility that you’re willing to mandate by law, and dating doesn’t. I don’t speak for **Really Not All That Bright** , but I think the idea of employers as agents of social welfare is fairly widespread on the political left. Their ideas seem to assume that workers are interchangeable victims with no power over their lives, rather than voluntary partners in a mutually-beneficial relationship to which both parties contribute greatly. The fact that employers are competing for employees goes unnoticed, as well. The sum total of this outlook is that businesses **really** exist to provide jobs, rather than to make a profit on goods and services desired by the public, with jobs being a side-effect. Note **Evil Captor** ’s characterization of businesses as sociopathic for seeking only profits. Once you’ve decided that businesses should serve the public, not their owners (who are facing the risks), then the idea of trying to manage them via government suddenly becomes not just palatable, but necessary. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/311 "2012-12-19T16:25:19Z")
“Right to Work” is a nauseating euphemism, originally coined by a racist Texas political huckster named Vance Muse. He wanted to bust unions because he saw them as a venue for integration. As he put it: > [@](#): > > “From now on, white women and white men will be forced into organizations with black African apes whom they will have to call ‘brother’ or lose their jobs.” Muse’s “Christian American Association”, which was associated with the Texas KKK and the American Legion (who in those days were total red-baiting fascists), was formed to lobby for these “Right to Work” laws, and was an early example of Southern strategy-style politics. Fred Koch was one of the leaders of the Kansas “Right to Work” effort, after which he helped co-found the John Birch Society. [http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/right-to-work](http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/right-to-work) I really will never understand the motives of non-plutocrats who want to see organized labor crippled (well, crippled even more than it is). Do they think these sleazy, rich pricks are going to see their supportive internet posts and hook them up with a job or something? ---
**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 19, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/312 "2012-12-19T16:39:55Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > “Right to Work” is a nauseating euphemism, originally coined by a racist Texas political huckster named Vance Muse. He wanted to bust unions because he saw them as a venue for integration. As I pointed out in post 298, one of the goals of organized labor was to keep African-American and female labor from competing with them. By your logic, you should be fighting against minimum wage laws. Are you? > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > I really will never understand the motives of non-plutocrats who want to see organized labor crippled (well, crippled even more than it is). Do they think these sleazy, rich pricks are going to see their supportive internet posts and hook them up with a job or something? I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. “Subject to market forces” is not crippled, it’s **normal**. Also, as an aside, one’s personal values and ideals should transcend their temporal economic situation. If I could increase my income by stealing credit-card numbers, I still wouldn’t, because it’s wrong. If I could keep my wages artificially high by throwing bricks at strikebreakers until they stop showing up to work, I still wouldn’t, because it’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/313 "2012-12-19T17:05:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …and that’s just the way life is. Because something has been is not good enough reason to assume that it must be. It is Written? Will of God? Precisely what authority are you appealing to? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/314 "2012-12-19T17:11:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > As I pointed out in post 298, one of the goals of organized labor was to keep African-American and female labor from competing with them. By your logic, you should be fighting against minimum wage laws. Are you? David E. Bernstein is a professor at well-established hack mill George Mason University, and wrote a book purporting to “rehabilitate” Lochner. I’ll view his claims regarding the positive civil rights value of “freedom of contract” with much skepticism, thank you. > [@](#): > > I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. “Subject to market forces” is not crippled, it’s **normal**. Ah, so unfettered free markets are “normal.” Which makes organized labor abnormal. And up is down, and black is white. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/315 "2012-12-19T17:12:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Because something has been is not good enough reason to assume that it must be. It is Written? Will of God? Precisely what authority are you appealing to? I believe Adam Smith brought them down on stone tablets. ---
**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 19, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/316 "2012-12-19T17:22:20Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > David E. Bernstein is a professor at well-established hack mill George Mason University, and wrote a book purporting to “rehabilitate” Lochner. I’ll view his claims regarding the positive civil rights value of “freedom of contract” with much skepticism, thank you. That’s your privilege. Do you deny that a) African-Americans were explicitly denied memberships in labor unions, and b) minimum-wage laws were advocated as a means of protecting organized while labor from African-American labor? Because both assertions are easily proven, if you’d like. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Ah, so unfettered free markets are “normal.” Which makes organized labor abnormal. Not so. I don’t know if you’ve read the entire thread, but this has been addressed. The issue isn’t the existence of unions, which can be beneficial, and are not contrary to a free market. The issue is certain union practices and legal advantages, which restrain trade and prevent free negotiation. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/317 "2012-12-19T17:24:45Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The issue is certain union practices and legal advantages, which restrain trade and prevent free negotiation. Sure they do. Just as I’m sure your objections to unions are entirely principled. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/318 "2012-12-19T17:29:14Z")
If this is all so very high-minded and proper, why was it necessary to do this legislation in stealth? When, exactly, did the Republicans there campaign on a promise of curbing union power? When did they campaign on the necessity to undermine Democrat power? Why was it necessary to include an appropriations clause in order to short-circuit a referendum? I invoke the principle of aquatic fowl taxonomy: if it walks like a duck, has feathers, quacks and swims, the highest probability is that it is, in fact, a duck. ---
**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 19, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/319 "2012-12-19T17:30:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Both are private relationships, entered into voluntarily between two people (legal or natural). Why are they so utterly different that no comparison is possible? Well, only natural persons can enter into one of these relationships. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Do you deny that a) African-Americans were explicitly denied memberships in labor unions, and b) minimum-wage laws were advocated as a means of protecting organized while labor from African-American labor? Because both assertions are easily proven, if you’d like. African-Americans were explicitly denied membership in just about every voluntary association at the time. ---
**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 19, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/320 "2012-12-19T17:36:43Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Sure they do. Just as I’m sure your objections to unions are entirely principled. Once more, I have no objections to “unions.” I object to certain union practices and legal advantages. As an analogy, in post #252, **I Made French Toast For You** linked to a report about a seafood company locking its workers in its plant, and violated wage and hour laws. Can I condemn this company’s actions without objecting to businesses in general and as a concept? Also, I am assuming you have no objection to my points a and b. While one RTW advocate may have had racist, discriminatory motivations, many labor unions did as well, so at worst it’s a wash. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=17)