# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/341 "2012-12-20T18:37:21Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > 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. Here in CA, specifically at the college where I work, the only reason we faculty–especially adjuncts, which are the majority of us–get any raises or benefits at all is that they are negotiated through collective bargaining. The experiences I’ve had over the past 20+ years, at three different campuses, has shown me that the districts would prefer not to acknowledge us otherwise, regardless of experience, evaluations, qualifications, etc. ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/342 "2012-12-20T19:49:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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? Excellent questions all. Funny that when Obamacare was being passed, you didn’t regard these kinds of concerns as legitimate. Funny that when the issue is same-sex marriage, you seem fine with the idea of blocking a referendum’s results. Freakin hilarious, in fact. ---
**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, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/343 "2012-12-20T22:50:37Z")
Well, you hadn’t used “liberal hypocrisy” yet. Now you have. So, you’re done, then? ---
**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 20, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/344 "2012-12-20T23:10:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Excellent questions all. > > Funny that when Obamacare was being passed, you didn’t regard these kinds of concerns as legitimate. Obamacare was passed over a filibuster. And Obama ran on it. > [@](#): > > Funny that when the issue is same-sex marriage, you seem fine with the idea of blocking a referendum’s results. I assume you think interracial marriage should have been left up to popular vote? Matters of rights for minorities shouldn’t be up to popular vote. Labor laws aren’t the same. > [@](#): > > Freakin hilarious, in fact. Maybe if you can calm down the chuckles you’d see that you’re offering a clumsy tu quoque. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/345 "2012-12-21T00:15:21Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Matters of rights for minorities shouldn’t be up to popular vote. Labor laws aren’t the same. I love these sweeping pronouncements of rules. Is there a book somewhere that lists them? Or is it an index card that reads, “Stuff Lobohan wants, that the majority might oppose, shouldn’t be up for popular vote?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/346 "2012-12-21T00:20:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, you hadn’t used “liberal hypocrisy” yet. Now you have. So, you’re done, then? No. It’s always worth highlighting that the arguments you make, which appear to be grounded in high-minded principle, are actually simply raw statements of what you want, dressed up in whatever principle is handy and might fit. Since it’s always easy to show that the principle you advance in one case is one you ignore or abhor in another case, as convenient, my task is never-ending, but quite simple. ---
**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 21, 2012, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/347 "2012-12-21T00:21:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I love these sweeping pronouncements of rules. Is there a book somewhere that lists them? > > Or is it an index card that reads, “Stuff Lobohan wants, that the majority might oppose, shouldn’t be up for popular vote?” Just rights. You said the right to marry should be up to popular vote… didn’t you? It’s hard to tell when you’re just using it as a bludgeon because the only argument you can form is, “you do it too!” I don’t mind if driving laws are put up for referendum. I do mind if rights for minorities are. ---
**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 21, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/348 "2012-12-21T00:23:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > It’s always worth highlighting that the arguments you make, which appear to be grounded in high-minded principle, are actually simply raw statements of what you want, dressed up in whatever principle is handy and might fit. Since it’s always easy to show that the principle you advance in one case is one you ignore or abhor in another case, as convenient, my task is never-ending, but quite simple. It’s also worth highlighting that your feeble tu quoque was utterly not equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/349 "2012-12-21T00:25:33Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s also worth highlighting that your feeble tu quoque was utterly not equivalent. It’s not a tu quoque. I know it’s tempting to characterize every vaguely likely candidate as a tu quoque, but the phrase has a meaning, and this does not fit. ---
**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 21, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/350 "2012-12-21T00:49:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not a tu quoque. > [@](#): > > Funny that when Obamacare was being passed, you didn’t regard these kinds of concerns as legitimate. Funny that when the issue is same-sex marriage, you seem fine with the idea of blocking a referendum’s results. [ > [@Some fallacy website](#): > > Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation. ]([Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque](http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html)) I suggest that in the second quote, you are saying that **'luci** supported enacting unpopular laws when he was for the law (Obamacare), but is against enacting unpopular laws when he is against them (Michigan right to work). This is simply calling him a hypocrite and not demonstrating a flaw in his positions. You toss in SSM enacted by referendum, which would be a popular law, not unpopular. So it doesn’t rightly belong there. Also, SSM deals with fundamental minority rights, which aren’t something that should be put up to popular vote. Since it would probably still be illegal to get interracialy married in Mississippi if that were the case. But that’s a separate issue. Also not mentioned is that Obama ran on healthcare reform, while Snyder said specifically that this issue was not something he was planning to deal with. This is fiddly, true, but am I wrong here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/351 "2012-12-21T00:59:48Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > [url=[Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque](http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html)] > > I suggest that in the second quote, you are saying that **'luci** supported enacting unpopular laws when he was for the law (Obamacare), but is against enacting unpopular laws when he is against them (Michigan right to work). This is simply calling him a hypocrite and not demonstrating a flaw in his positions. > > You toss in SSM enacted by referendum, which would be a popular law, not unpopular. So it doesn’t rightly belong there. > > Also, SSM deals with fundamental minority rights, which aren’t something that should be put up to popular vote. Since it would probably still be illegal to get interracialy married in Mississippi if that were the case. But that’s a separate issue. > > Also not mentioned is that Obama ran on healthcare reform, while Snyder said specifically that this issue was not something he was planning to deal with. > > This is fiddly, true, but am I wrong here? Yes. Here’s why – and here’s how I know you never studied debate in high school. It’s necessary to identify the purpose of the argument. In the description you quote, the text speaks of turning the critique back against the accuser. If the argument were simply that, then you’d be correct to call it tu quoque, and identify it as a special case of ad hominem. But that’s not what I am saying at all. I am pointing out that the clay of adherence to these open, transparent democratic principles is both not genuinely held by the rhetor, and not of universal value in any case. That is, I invite the audience to realize that they, too, supported Obamacare – or some other example – and were willing to see the process short-circuited when it was in their interests. In other words, I attack the basic claim that these principles are of universal value. That is not tu quoque, although it almost always happens that people who have not had debate coaching reflexively identify it as such, the same way first year law students reflexively shout, “Hearsay,” when a witness utters, “…and then so-and-so said…” ---
**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 21, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/352 "2012-12-21T01:07:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > Here’s why – and here’s how I know you never studied debate in high school. Very true. > [@](#): > > It’s necessary to identify the purpose of the argument. In the description you quote, the text speaks of turning the critique back against the accuser. If the argument were simply that, then you’d be correct to call it tu quoque, and identify it as a special case of ad hominem. > > But that’s not what I am saying at all. I am pointing out that the clay of adherence to these open, transparent democratic principles is both not genuinely held by the rhetor, and not of universal value in any case. That is, I invite the audience to realize that they, too, supported Obamacare – or some other example – and were willing to see the process short-circuited when it was in their interests. In other words, I attack the basic claim that these principles are of universal value. > > That is not tu quoque, although it almost always happens that people who have not had debate coaching reflexively identify it as such, the same way first year law students reflexively shout, “Hearsay,” when a witness utters, “…and then so-and-so said…” You paint a grand picture of that argument. I am, sadly unconvinced. You may think in your mind that you are, “…pointing out that the clay of adherence to these open, transparent democratic principles is both not genuinely held by the rhetor, and not of universal value in any case.” but in fact, what you are doing is saying, “You did it too!” I’m sure my hypothetical debate coach would be ashamed of my fumblefootedness. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/353 "2012-12-21T01:17:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Very true. > > You paint a grand picture of that argument. I am, sadly unconvinced. You may think in your mind that you are, “…pointing out that the clay of adherence to these open, transparent democratic principles is both not genuinely held by the rhetor, and not of universal value in any case.” but in fact, what you are doing is saying, “You did it too!” > > I’m sure my hypothetical debate coach would be ashamed of my fumblefootedness. No. That may be what distracts you, but it’s not what I am saying. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/354 "2012-12-21T01:33:32Z")
So, if someone else’s name appeared above my posts…say, Bertrand Russel or Norman Thomas…you would be entirely ready, willing, and able to rebut my points with evidence and citation. But since its me, my liberal hypocrisy cripples your keen argumentative skills? Awesome! I promise to use this terrible power for good. ---
**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 21, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/355 "2012-12-21T04:20:35Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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”. As a tangent, if you’re willing, could you expand on this idea? I feel like I have a decent grasp on where **Evil Captor** and I fundamentally disagree after a similar aside, so it’d be useful for that purpose. Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/356 "2012-12-21T04:56:06Z")
I’m guessing that you are asking about the phrase “legal and Constitutional”. Explaining something as obvious as “the will of the people” makes me apprehensive, its seems an insultingly condescending thing to do. The phrase is a signature characteristic of **Bricker** , one that he often offers in place of argument. For reasons best known to him, he regards that as some sort of trump card, that if a procedure is legally done and Constitutionally proper, it is by definition just and right. I disagree. It is seldom proper to lead people where they would not go. Michiganders were not clamoring for this law, crying out for relief from the union scourge and their dreadful habit of supporting Democrats. Quite a few of them are themselves Democrats. The Republicans did not run on this platform, they did not seek the approval of the electorate. In fact, with their clever appropriations maneuver, they blocked any such expression of approval or disapproval. These are not the machinations of statesmen, but the legal judo of political whores. And the technical fact of its legality is mere sophistry, and worse than mere hypocrisy, this is hypocrisy rendered into law. They pretend to bend to the will of the people as they try to bend the people into theirs. It is sordid and disgraceful. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/357 "2012-12-21T08:42:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, if someone else’s name appeared above my posts…say, Bertrand Russel or Norman Thomas…you would be entirely ready, willing, and able to rebut my points with evidence and citation. But since its me, my liberal hypocrisy cripples your keen argumentative skills? > > Awesome! I promise to use this terrible power for good. No. If someone else’s name appeared over your post, I would shift the example slightly, pointing out that a time might come when a favored proposal of his could pass only by such a method, and at that time he would come to realize that his affection for the process was not universal. He might deny that charge, of course, and I would have no means of proving it. With you, luckily, your record prevents your hiding in that way. ---
**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 21, 2012, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/358 "2012-12-21T12:56:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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”. > [@elucidator](#): > > I’m guessing that you are asking about the phrase “legal and Constitutional”. Explaining something as obvious as “the will of the people” makes me apprehensive, its seems an insultingly condescending thing to do. > > The phrase is a signature characteristic of Bricker, one that he often offers in place of argument. For reasons best known to him, he regards that as some sort of trump card, that if a procedure is legally done and Constitutionally proper, it is by definition just and right. > > I disagree. It is seldom proper to lead people where they would not go. Michiganders were not clamoring for this law, crying out for relief from the union scourge and their dreadful habit of supporting Democrats. Quite a few of them are themselves Democrats. Sorry, I should have been more specific. You seem to be saying that it is unethical for a legislature to pass a law that does not enjoy popular support, even if the law is lawfully enacted and Constitutional. Correct? If so, does it follow that a law that is popular, but NOT Constitutional, should be passed? Is that what “the will of the people [is] paramount, exceeding even the sacred status of legal and Constitutional” means? ---
**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 21, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/359 "2012-12-21T14:28:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Matters of rights for minorities shouldn’t be up to popular vote. Labor laws aren’t the same. > [@Bricker](#): > > I love these sweeping pronouncements of rules. Is there a book somewhere that lists them? > > Or is it an index card that reads, “Stuff Lobohan wants, that the majority might oppose, shouldn’t be up for popular vote?” I don’t think this is a particularly controversial idea. Even the most ardent labor advocate doesn’t think he has a fundamental right to make people join his union, or to work less than 34 hours a week, or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/360 "2012-12-21T16:59:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. If someone else’s name appeared over your post, I would shift the example slightly, pointing out that a time might come when a favored proposal of his could pass only by such a method, and at that time he would come to realize that his affection for the process was not universal. > > He might deny that charge, of course, and I would have no means of proving it. With you, luckily, your record prevents your hiding in that way. Hiding? Who’s hiding, here? I’ve laid out my arguments, why I find this action sordid and corrupt. You counter with the cogent observation that they are my arguments, and hence, you need not address them, since they are from a known poopy-head. So, who’s “hiding” here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=19)