# 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:** 3
**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 11, 2012, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/41 "2012-12-11T12:56:14Z")
> [@Try2B Comprehensive](#): > > Will we get cheaper cars? The best mainstream cars, [and the best selling](http://www.toyota.com/camry/awards.html), are made by non-union Japanese-owned companies, primarily built in right-to-work states in the South. The best cheap cars are made by non-union Korean-owned companies, primarily build in right-to-work states in the South. Yes, American cars will likely improve due to union concessions and management shakeups, Ford was doing quite well until the last couple years, as the auto industry hasn’t rebounded as it was hoped it would. > [@Try2B Comprehensive](#): > > Will the auto industry get more competitive in Michigan and need to hire lots of workers, even if for lower pay and worse benefits? That’s the core of the issue, right there. A coercive union like the UAW accrues benefits to its members, at the expense of every non-member. Is it better to have a free labor market, even if that means the wages for some decrease? Absolutely. For one thing, industries paying wildly-above market wages for union members are doomed, between foreign companies and new start-ups not beholden to decades of union agreements. So in the long term, unions with practices like the UAW and UMW will always fail, because the industries they are attached to will fail. ---
**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 11, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/42 "2012-12-11T15:35:29Z")
Well, sidestepping a lot of the arguments here, I have a lot of trouble believing that the voters of Michigan did not understand that this is exactly what Republicans would do when they voted them into power. This is what Republicans do, bust unions and generally make things more difficult for the middle class and the working poor. It is what Republicans have done for decades. The people of Michigan are getting what they have voted for, good and hard, as H.L. Mencken would say. ---
**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 11, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/43 "2012-12-11T15:46:58Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Of course not; he’s a right winger, and will therefore support anything that hurts ordinary people and oppose anything that helps them. > > If the right wing supports something, it’s never a good idea. Especially for the common people. Do you honestly believe this to be true? 60.7 million Americans voted for Mitt Romney in November, are they all millionaires, or are they fools? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > This is what Republicans do, bust unions and generally make things more difficult for the middle class and the working poor. It is what Republicans have done for decades. The middle class and working poor of the South owe laws like the one being considered in Michigan for making their manufacturing jobs possible. The interests of the middle class and working poor of the nation are not the same as those of the UAW; quite the contrary. ---
**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 11, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/44 "2012-12-11T15:52:42Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Do you honestly believe this to be true? 60.7 million Americans voted for Mitt Romney in November, are they all millionaires, or are they fools? > > The middle class and working poor of the South owe laws like the one being considered in Michigan for making their manufacturing jobs possible. The interests of the middle class and working poor of the nation are not the same as those of the UAW; quite the contrary. Oh, please, wages for the middle class have been stagnant for DECADES while the wealthy have done nothing but get richer. It’s pure class conflict, and the only weapons the middle class have are labor unions and the voting booth. It would do the US middle class a WORLD of good to have the unions strong in every area of employment, throughout the nation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/45 "2012-12-11T15:59:27Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Surely you understand that if you can work somewhere and get the benefits of union membership, but not have to pay union dues, you damage the union, right? Are’t conservatives supposed to be against freeloaders? Bad analogy. A “freeloader” in the welfare sense of the term is someone getting benefits from people who were forced to pay taxes. They had no choice. No worker is forced to join the union. A better analogy would be someone who accepted charity, which many conservatives prefer to government assistance. As for the OP, I am a strong supporter of unions, and think that, in a free market, every employee should have the opportunity to join one. But no one should be forced to. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/46 "2012-12-11T16:06:56Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Oh, please, wages for the middle class have been stagnant for DECADES while the wealthy have done nothing but get richer. It’s pure class conflict, and the only weapons the middle class have are labor unions and the voting booth. It would do the US middle class a WORLD of good to have the unions strong in every area of employment, throughout the nation. :dubious: Seriously, how do you figure this? If more US companies had unions, you figure that this would mean more jobs and higher salaries? How? Wages have been stagnant (even declining) in the US because it’s topped out, especially in the manufacturing sector…they need fewer manufacturing workers to have the same productivity that once needed many more, so many people who were making a lot before are having to take jobs for less now, which averages out to ‘stagnant’ wages when you look at things broadly. And our semi-skilled and unskilled (or even skilled) workers command a premium price in both salary and benefits…much more than people with similar skill sets in other countries, or in other parts of this country like in the South. In many cases, especially in the manufacturing sectors, labor is simply not worth what is being paid for it at the volumes previously needed (i.e. we need fewer workers in those sectors), so companies that can and aren’t anchored to unions are finding alternatives. They are either automating and going with fewer worker, or they are outsourcing/offshoring, either to other states or to other countries. It would only be if labor could hold a gun to our collective heads and force us to pay a premium for labor without any additional value add that salaries in the US wouldn’t be stagnant or falling…and then, it would only be as long as the companies anchored with such weight could continue to exist AND for those chosen few in the unions. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/47 "2012-12-11T16:11:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course not; he’s a right winger, and will therefore support anything that hurts ordinary people and oppose anything that helps them. In your charge into hyperbole you seem to have lost track of the rules of this forum. You can comment on the right-wing position, but you cannot make derogatory comments about other posters like this. You’ve been here long enough to know better, so I’m giving you an official warning. ---
**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 11, 2012, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/48 "2012-12-11T16:13:05Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Oh, please, wages for the middle class have been stagnant for DECADES while the wealthy have done nothing but get richer. Not so. The [Burkhauser-Larrimore-Simon](http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/009a9a91c225e83d852567ed006212d8/30212f14664082b1852579b5006904e1/$FILE/A01_Larrimore.pdf) study found a 37% increase in real median income from 1979-2007. The [Gordon study](http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/gordon/sfonber_combined_090902.pdf) found a 52% increase in real median income, 1979-2007. The [Meyer-Sullivan study](http://www.nd.edu/~jsulliv4/well_being_middle_class_poor4.3.pdf) found a 50% increase in real median income, 1980-2008, from a 69% increase in GDP. That gap is attributable to wealth inequality (the rich getting richer), but it’s false to say middle class wages haven’t grown in real terms. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > It’s pure class conflict, and the only weapons the middle class have are labor unions and the voting booth. It would do the US middle class a WORLD of good to have the unions strong in every area of employment, throughout the nation. Not all unions or union practices are equal, though. Have there been no union practices harmful to the nation as a whole? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/49 "2012-12-11T16:13:12Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > My objection stems from allowing two business entities, A and B, to collude and force a third entity to do business with A if it does business with B. You can look at it just the other way, too–it forces two business entities, A and B, to allow C to also contract with B using markedly different terms as A. As an employer, if I WANT to hire union workers (because they perform better, or guarantee a consistent level of quality, as is the case with the trade union workers I’ve worked with on the infrequent occasions I hire out construction or wiring work) I ought be able to do that without having to also deal with some schlub who doesn’t want to be in the union for whatever reason. What business does the government have with deciding how I negotiate with my workforce? Why should I be forced, as an employer, to negotiate multiple separate individual contracts rather than with one entity (the union) if I choose to do so? ---
**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 11, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/50 "2012-12-11T16:30:59Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > As an employer, if I WANT to hire union workers (because they perform better, or guarantee a consistent level of quality, as is the case with the trade union workers I’ve worked with on the infrequent occasions I hire out construction or wiring work) I ought be able to do that without having to also deal with some schlub who doesn’t want to be in the union for whatever reason. Then hire the union guys. Right-to-work laws are a restriction on union security agreements, the actual contracts between employers and unions. If you run a business and think union workers work harder, you can choose to hire only union workers. It just can’t be part of the security agreement that you **can only** hire union. So if union labor is actually better labor, these laws are no threat to unions. People are still free to form and join unions, and employers may or may not hire union workers. The stiff resistance to right-to-work laws by unions makes me suspect that they don’t have overmuch confidence in the real market value of their workers. > [@XT](#): > > It would only be if labor could hold a gun to our collective heads and force us to pay a premium for labor without any additional value add that salaries in the US wouldn’t be stagnant or falling…and then, it would only be as long as the companies anchored with such weight could continue to exist AND for those chosen few in the unions. Absolutely correct. And that time is ending. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/51 "2012-12-11T16:35:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Then hire the union guys. Right-to-work laws are a restriction on union security agreements, the actual contracts between employers and unions. If you run a business and think union workers work harder, you can choose to hire only union workers. It just can’t be part of the security agreement that you **can only** hire union. I sincerely doubt that. I predict any employer who tries to do this will get accused of having a de-facto union security agreement, and some lovely schmuck of a conservative judge will happily force me to hire some non-union toolbox who claims to be qualified. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/52 "2012-12-11T16:47:26Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Then hire the union guys. Right-to-work laws are a restriction on union security agreements, the actual contracts between employers and unions. If you run a business and think union workers work harder, you can choose to hire only union workers. Cite? That’s not my understanding. My understanding is that businesses are prohibited from requiring union membership as a condition of hiring or continued employment. Not just that they can’t have a security agreement. ---
**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 11, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/53 "2012-12-11T16:48:57Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I sincerely doubt that. I predict any employer who tries to do this will get accused of having a de-facto union security agreement, and some lovely schmuck of a conservative judge will happily force me to hire some non-union toolbox who claims to be qualified. A union security agreement is a very specific thing, a legal contract between the union and the employer. I don’t think a de-facto one could exist, by definition. You’re free to argue hypotheticals, of course, but this one doesn’t seem very persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/54 "2012-12-11T16:50:20Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Surely you understand that if you can work somewhere and get the benefits of union membership, but not have to pay union dues, you damage the union, right? Are’t conservatives supposed to be against freeloaders? > > Don’t you find the “convince people they add some value” argument to be highly dishonest? That isn’t remotely what’s happening. What’s happening is that you are giving the benefits of the unions away for free and then batting your eyes and saying, “Oh, is membership down? How odd!” > > I tell you what, you don’t have to pay to eat at restaurants. Let them prove to you they’re worth the money. Get back to me with how well this works for the restaurant’s bottom line. Virginia is a right to work state, and no restaurants have reported trouble. I think your analogy is useless. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/55 "2012-12-11T16:52:40Z")
I have worked in three districts that were union-option and none of the unions were broken although they were no where as powerful as the closed shop union. Pay is one issue but there is also the job protection and other benefits that only union members get that make it well worth it. In fact, the pay being by negotiated contract actually hurts me because working in a highly demanded field (math and sped) I should be paid more than many others. It also hurt me looking for jobs because during these tough economic times, I couldn’t negotiate down to a lower salary and I was told by a few principals that I was too expensive to hire. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/56 "2012-12-11T16:53:14Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That’s all well and fine but I was under the understanding that the United States is a free country. Why shouldn’t a union be allowed to negotiate a closed-shop arrangement with a private employer? Is it not a contractual matter between two parties that should be free of government interference? > > Whether you think it’s good for the workers or not strikes me as being irrelevant. It’s their business. If Local 123 can negotiate a closed shop contract, why should the government pass a law saying they can’t? Because the union has plenty of interferences with that concept already. There are laws limiting the circumstances in which an employer can fire a striking worker, and laws that limit an employer’s ability to oppose union formation efforts. Get rid of all those, and make it truly and completely a contractual matter between two parties, free of governmental interference. Then I will oppose laws like this one. ---
**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 11, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/57 "2012-12-11T17:01:33Z")
> [@Human Action](#): > > Then hire the union guys. Right-to-work laws are a restriction on union security agreements, the actual contracts between employers and unions. If you run a business and think union workers work harder, you can choose to hire only union workers. > [@gatorslap](#): > > Cite? That’s not my understanding. My understanding is that businesses are prohibited from requiring union membership as a condition of hiring or continued employment. Not just that they can’t have a security agreement. I picked Alabama at random. Here’s their statute: [Section 25-7-31](http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm) Agreement or combination to deny right to work on account of membership or nonmembership in labor union, etc., prohibited. Any agreement or combination between any employer and any labor union or labor organization whereby persons not members of such union or organization shall be denied the right to work for said employer, or whereby such membership is made a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer, or whereby any such union or organization acquires an employment monopoly in any enterprise, is hereby declared to be against public policy and an illegal combination or conspiracy. [Section 25-7-32](http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm) Employers not to require union membership as condition of employment, etc. No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment. So you can’t compel people to join the union or be fired, but you can choose to hire union members. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/58 "2012-12-11T17:11:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Virginia is a right to work state, and no restaurants have reported trouble. > > I think your analogy is useless. How many of those restaurants provide all their meals for free? Or is it possible you haven’t really understood his argument. How about we just call it what it is: The Right to Have No Means of Realistic Recourse Against Employer Abuse Law ---
**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 11, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/59 "2012-12-11T17:13:24Z")
This ridiculous law ensures that Snyder will not serve a second term. Thousands of protesters are at the Capitol at this time, but of course their voices will be ignored. There will be recalls over this and the legislature is not going to stay in Republican hands for long. This is all about politics, the Republicans want to castrate the unions because they can mobilize Democratic voters. This will fail, just as the attempts at voter suppression failed last month. ---
**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 11, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/60 "2012-12-11T17:21:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the union has plenty of interferences with that concept already. There are laws limiting the circumstances in which an employer can fire a striking worker, and laws that limit an employer’s ability to oppose union formation efforts. > [@Sitnam](#): > > How about we just call it what it is: The Right to Have No Means of Realistic Recourse Against Employer Abuse Law. We had the only labor law we needed in 1933. Title 1, Section 7, Part 1 of the National Industrial Recovery Act: > [@NIRA](#): > > That employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and shall be free from the interference restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. That’s pretty much all we ever needed. Subsequent laws led to abuses by labor unions, and now (since the '70s, in the South) there’s a push-back caused by those abuses. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=4)