# 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:** 17
**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, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/321 "2012-12-19T17:42:32Z")
Union-busters: the _ **real** _ defenders of civil rights! ---
**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, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/322 "2012-12-19T17:48:27Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > African-Americans were explicitly denied membership in just about every voluntary association at the time. This is true. However, there is a tremendous difference between being excluded from a social club, and a union that does not allow you to join signing a security agreement that ensures only union members will be hired in your industry. > [@elucidator](#): > > 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? The law enjoys 58% support from Michiganders, so I don’t think this is some sort of elite cabal sneaking in a law against the public trust. ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/323 "2012-12-19T17:53:36Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > This is true. However, there is a tremendous difference between being excluded from a social club, and a union that does not allow you to join signing a security agreement that ensures only union members will be hired in your industry. Right, but unions were mostly integrated long _before_ society in general. ---
**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, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/324 "2012-12-19T18:13:27Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > Right, but unions were mostly integrated long before society in general. Sure, in the case of CIO unions. I’m not hanging my hat on the racial past of the organized labor movement, I’ve brought it up twice: once to **elucidator** ’s arguement that laws like minimum wage were a response to the lack of “humanity and egalitarianism of employers” (I think that’s what he meant, there was sarcasm involved), and once to **MOIDALIZE** when he credited the Right-to-Work idea to a “racist Texas political huckster” with KKK affiliations, and thus dismissed it. It’s something of a sideline to the main issues. ---
**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, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/325 "2012-12-19T18:22:35Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Sure, in the case of CIO unions. I’m not hanging my hat on the racial past of the organized labor movement, I’ve brought it up twice: once to **elucidator** ’s arguement that laws like minimum wage were a response to the lack of “humanity and egalitarianism of employers” (I think that’s what he meant, there was sarcasm involved), and once to **MOIDALIZE** when he credited the Right-to-Work idea to a “racist Texas political huckster” with KKK affiliations, and thus dismissed it. > > It’s something of a sideline to the main issues. No, I dismiss it because it represents a feudalistic notion of how the economy should work. I brought up its racist origins in order to denounce the euphemistic language employed to describe it, and to highlight the scumbags who originally pushed this crap and what their motivations were. All this talk of free markets is the real sideline, because “Right to Work” laws have nothing to do with the economic well-being of workers and society. ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/326 "2012-12-19T18:23:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > …The law enjoys 58% support from Michiganders, so I don’t think this is some sort of elite cabal sneaking in a law against the public trust. Ah! So they did campaign on that promise, to curtail the power of unions? Then I am misinformed, and await your citation. ---
**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 19, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/327 "2012-12-19T18:39:39Z")
[QUOTE=Human Action] …The law enjoys 58% support from Michiganders, so I don’t think this is some sort of elite cabal sneaking in a law against the public trust. [/QUOTE] > [@elucidator](#): > > Ah! So they did campaign on that promise, to curtail the power of unions? Then I am misinformed, and await your citation. New [polling data](http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/rick-snyders-right-to-work-poll-crash-85239.html) in Michigan suggests that RTW is not as popular as we thought. And that Governor Snyder is terribly, terribly unpopular. ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/328 "2012-12-19T18:40:26Z")
> [@](#): > > …The law enjoys 58% support from Michiganders… [http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/snyders-popularity-plummets.html](http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/snyders-popularity-plummets.html) > [@](#): > > …Only 41% of voters in the state support the right to work legislation, while 51% are opposed to it. If voters got to decide the issue directly only 40% of them say they would vote to keep the law enacted, while 49% would vote to overturn it. This comes on the heels of voters overturning Snyder’s signature emergency managers law last month. The simple reality is that Michigan voters like unions- 52% have a favorable opinion of them to only 33% with a negative one… There’s mine. Yours? ---
**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, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/329 "2012-12-19T18:55:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Ah! So they did campaign on that promise, to curtail the power of unions? Then I am misinformed, and await your citation. I didn’t say that, because I don’t know if they did or not. The 58% figure came from earlier in this thread, post #73 from **I Made French Toast For You.** > [@I Made French Toast For You](#): > > New polling data in Michigan suggests that RTW is not as popular as we thought. And that Governor Snyder is terribly, terribly unpopular. And it seems that figure is obsolete. I was unaware. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > No, I dismiss it because it represents a feudalistic notion of how the economy should work. I brought up its racist origins in order to denounce the euphemistic language employed to describe it, and to highlight the scumbags who originally pushed this crap and what their motivations were. All this talk of free markets is the real sideline, because “Right to Work” laws have nothing to do with the economic well-being of workers and society. Oh, alright then. I was just going by the post I had to work with, which only brought up a racist angle. I reject the comparison to feudalism, which is utterly incomparable with free-market capitalism. They differ in nearly every way two economic systems _can_ differ. The talk of free markets comes from a desire to have a free market for labor, which neither existing federal labor law nor state-level Right-to-work laws achieve. I’ll agitate for the repeal of RTW once federal reform has been done. Until then, it’s a reasonable step for states to take, in the absence of other choices. ---
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/330 "2012-12-19T20:10:04Z")
About that appropriations “rider”. > [@](#): > > …However, any attempt to bring the proposal to referendum is complicated by the fact that the bill contained an appropriation – and under Michigan law, appropriations bills cannot be challenged by popular vote… [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/teachers-call-out-as-protests-rev-up-against-michigan-union-bill/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/teachers-call-out-as-protests-rev-up-against-michigan-union-bill/) Which is to say, the option of bringing this question to a referendum to the voters is thus neatly sidestepped. The appropriation so urgently required? > [@](#): > > …Because the new law is designed to include a $1 million appropriation to cover implementation, it can’t be repealed by voter initiative… > **[Right-to-work is the law in Mich., but it's not over](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/12/right-to-work-michigan/1762993/)** > > Protesters can't launch a referendum but can head to court and launch recall petitions. Well, now, isn’t that special? The appropriation that renders this bill immune to a voter referendum is the appropriation to implement the very same! Which is prudent, since there is little likelihood that the law will be turned back. Yes, that’s probably it. Prudence and restraint, the very hallmarks of Republicans everywhere. > [@](#): > > …I didn’t say that, because I don’t know if they did or not… Well, the very same cite offered above, from _Fox Gnaws_, characterized it as a “surprise move by Michigan Republicans”. I accept their observation relying upon their unblemished record for candor. (Oh, dear, that was sarcasm Sorry, **HA** , I will try to be mindful of your delicate sensibilities, but it is a burden for the innately ironic. Fish gotta sing, birds gotta swim, you understand…) ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/331 "2012-12-19T21:20:40Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Sure they do. Just as I’m sure your objections to unions are entirely principled. Just come on out and call him a liar. ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/332 "2012-12-19T23:53:38Z")
Well, now that you mention it, what are we to believe about this exercise in political judo? That it is all very high-minded, a noble effort to protect the Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it!)? Or is it, like so many of us darkly suspect, an effort by a sinking and floundering political party to shore up its waning prospects? Is it merely a coincidence that this follows along with efforts to restrict the voting rights of the undesirable? Accounts I have read suggest that if the Republicans in Michigan had not rushed this through during their ruptured duck session, they would not have been able to do it after the newly elected legislature takes office. Not that they won’t have a Republican majority, but not enough true believers, not enough Republicans willing to nail their pecker to a tree, and set the tree on fire for the Good of the Party. Now, I am not deep enough in the weeds of Michigan politics to appraise that. I tend to believe it, for reasons I deem sufficient. If anyone can offer a convincing rebuttal…which is to say, fact based rather than a witness of faith…then I am certainly willing to listen. Takers? Bueller? Boehner? **Bricker**? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/333 "2012-12-20T01:23:34Z")
> [@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? The Democratic process, by which the law in question was enacted. ---
**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 20, 2012, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/334 "2012-12-20T05:24:36Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 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. Well you were the one using the term “free market” and describing it in glowing terms. Clearly, regulation is needed for a free market. Now your rule of thumb indicates a fundamental difference the two of us have. I judge the effectiveness of an economic system by how well it contributes to the economic well-being of ALL members of a society, which is why for my money the best economic/political systems are the social democracies in Europe, particularly the Scandanavian ones. The matter of free vs. coerced transactions is all very nice, but if free transactions fuck people in a society up (looking at you, NAFTA), and more coerced ones are beneficial (looking at you, labor laws that permit unions to negotiate as a group with employers), I will happily go with coerced. I really don’t give a rat’s ass about some stupid abstract like "freedom’ applies to economic transactions. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m not fooling myself. I look at the recent Justice Dept. decision not to prosecute the execs of HSBC who oversaw billions of dollars laundered for Mexican drug cartels, for Al Qaeda, and for Iran, and I think, “Those motherfuckers have got some MOTHERFUCKING influence over our government!” > [@](#): > > Sociopathy is defined as making rational economic decisions in a free market of voluntary transactions? That can’t be right. Sure it can. In a person, as our Supreme Court has declared corporations to be, sociopathy is inability to feel emotion, to feel empathy for human beings, to care about the moral consequences of one’s behavior. I have been assured that the only responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders, who define that duty as increasing the value of their shares. Extend working hours, cut benefits, hold salaries for ordinary employees dead level while giving CEOS and top officers multi-million bonuses … corporations do all these things. It’s all about the shareholders, and the managers who serve them. Sociopaths, you bet. > [@](#): > > Can you demonstrate that a “race to the bottom” is occuring? If so, how should we counteract the effect? I can’t, others can and have. Not gonna make a run at it tonight, I’m tired. And there are several good ideas to counteract, I’ll mention those 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 20, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/335 "2012-12-20T13:35:40Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Now, I am not deep enough in the weeds of Michigan politics to appraise that. Nor am I. I’d rather discuss RTW laws and the state of U.S. labor law, which is easily divorced from the context of the passing of this particular example of a RTW work law. Far worse shenanigans accompanied the passage of the 13th Amendment, but that wouldn’t prevent a discussion on the merits of the Amendment, after all. If you really want to discuss the political background, the appropriations rider, and similar topics, feel free, but I don’t have much to contribute in that area. The bill was passed in a lawful manner, that’s all that I find particularly relevant. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Well you were the one using the term “free market” and describing it in glowing terms. Clearly, regulation is needed for a free market. Agreed. A free market can only exist with a government to enforce contracts, prohibit fraud and theft, and so forth. It does not follow that **all** regulations contribute to a free market, however. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Now your rule of thumb indicates a fundamental difference the two of us have. I judge the effectiveness of an economic system by how well it contributes to the economic well-being of ALL members of a society, which is why for my money the best economic/political systems are the social democracies in Europe, particularly the Scandanavian ones. > > The matter of free vs. coerced transactions is all very nice, but if free transactions fuck people in a society up (looking at you, NAFTA), and more coerced ones are beneficial (looking at you, labor laws that permit unions to negotiate as a group with employers), I will happily go with coerced. I really don’t give a rat’s ass about some stupid abstract like "freedom’ applies to economic transactions. That’s a fundamental difference, I agree. I would argue that a system of free choices is not only morally right, but produces better outcomes. You make a good point that the differences between the U.S. and Scandinavian systems are not only economic, but also political. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > I’m not fooling myself. I look at the recent Justice Dept. decision not to prosecute the execs of HSBC who oversaw billions of dollars laundered for Mexican drug cartels, for Al Qaeda, and for Iran, and I think, “Those motherfuckers have got some MOTHERFUCKING influence over our government!” Sure, but they aren’t alone. Look at the massive price support & subsidy programs that channel taxpayer dollars directly to farmer, a group that represents 3% of the population. Or, the aforementioned favoritism for unions. Resolved: regulation that economically favors select groups are wrong, and anathema to a free and equal society, regardless of which group benefits. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Sure it can. In a person, as our Supreme Court has declared corporations to be, sociopathy is inability to feel emotion, to feel empathy for human beings, to care about the moral consequences of one’s behavior. I have been assured that the only responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders, who define that duty as increasing the value of their shares. Extend working hours, cut benefits, hold salaries for ordinary employees dead level while giving CEOS and top officers multi-million bonuses … corporations do all these things. It’s all about the shareholders, and the managers who serve them. Sociopaths, you bet. That’s not the DSM definition. But regardless, none of the things you listed are morally wrong. I think this disagreement may stem from the businesses as economic actors vs. businesses as agents of social welfare division I mentioned earlier. What do YOU feel are the responsibilities of a business are? (Not sure why you’re focusing on corporations specifically, if there’s a good reason, please elaborate). > [@Evil Captor](#): > > I can’t, others can and have. Not gonna make a run at it tonight, I’m tired. And there are several good ideas to counteract, I’ll mention those later. Ok, I’ll wait. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/336 "2012-12-20T14:25:59Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Sure it can. In a person, as our Supreme Court has declared corporations to be, sociopathy is inability to feel emotion, to feel empathy for human beings, to care about the moral consequences of one’s behavior. I have been assured that the only responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders, who define that duty as increasing the value of their shares. Extend working hours, cut benefits, hold salaries for ordinary employees dead level while giving CEOS and top officers multi-million bonuses … corporations do all these things. It’s all about the shareholders, and the managers who serve them. Sociopaths, you bet. Those aren’t the DSM-IV characteristics. “By definition, Antisocial Personality cannot be diagnosed before age 18 years.” DSM-IV-TR, 301.7. If you’re going to myopically squeal that corporations are people, then how can you justify not applying [the actual diagnostic criteria](http://www.forskningsmetode.dk/arrangementer/psykopati_jan2008/02_DSM-IV-TR.pdf)? > [@](#): > > The essential features of Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. > > This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality disorder. Because deceit and manipulation are central features of Antisocial Personality Disorder, it may be especially helpful to integrate information acquired from systematic clinical assessment with information collected from collateral sources. > > For this diagnosis to be given, the individual must be at least age 18 years (Criterion B) and must have had a history of some symptoms of Conduct Disorder before age 15 years (Criterion C). Conduct Disorder involves a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated. The specific behaviors characteristic of Conduct Disorder fall into one of four categories: aggression to people and animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness or theft, or serious violation of rules. These are described in more detail on p. 93. Name a corporation that qualifies under the DSM-IV criteria. Go ahead. What? You say we can’t literally apply these because a corporation is not a natural person? Ahhhhh… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/337 "2012-12-20T15:41:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Democratic process, by which the law in question was enacted. You got me there, podnuh! The processes that the Republicans are perverting and twisting to their own partisan ends are one hundred percent Democratic processes. Must make you very proud. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/338 "2012-12-20T15:48:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Name a corporation that qualifies under the DSM-IV criteria. Go ahead. Goldman Sachs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/339 "2012-12-20T16:14:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You got me there, podnuh! The processes that the Republicans are perverting and twisting to their own partisan ends are one hundred percent Democratic processes. Must make you very proud. “Perverting and twisting” in your lingo must mean “passing legislation I don’t like.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/340 "2012-12-20T17:57:06Z")
Well, its certainly true I don’t like it. On the other hand, I have offered evidence that Michiganders aren’t thrilled to pieces either. If you have some evidence that this is a wildly popular legal maneuver, now would be a good time to offer it. “Will of the people”, right? See any evidence that this reflects that will? And if you think so, perhaps you can explain the extraordinary effort to rush this through, and to prevent any unseemly interference by the people. If someone is confident that the will of the people is reflected in one’s efforts, why would one go to the trouble of preventing a referendum? If you are acting in accordance with the will of the people, why is it necessary to block them from a referendum? I’m assuming, of course, that, like me, you hold the will of the people to be paramount, exceeding even the sacred status of “legal and Constitutional”. I confess that may be an entirely unwarranted assumption on my part, giving you the benefit of a doubt. Did they run on this issue, did they promise the voting public to free them from the crushing burden of union thugs? My sources say no, they didn’t. Even Fox News describes it as a “surprise”. Have you any countering evidence? Any explanation for why this needed to be done in such unseemly haste? My sources suggest its because they could not pass it except in a ruptured duck session. Have you any evidence to offer that this is not so? Or would you prefer to simply cast aspersions on my character and motivations? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=18)