# 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:** 5
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/81 "2012-12-11T19:01:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 58% of the populace of MI are “flaming right-wing ideologues”? No, the governor was masquerading as a reasonable person. Now he’s been exposed. Not only does the emperor not have any clothes, he’s not very well endowed. ---
**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, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/82 "2012-12-11T19:03:56Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I said WAGES have been stagnant, not income. And I note that the reports you cite all use the same trick: they include health care benefits like Medicare and Medicaid as income for households. That creates an impression of less inequality of course because health care expenses have been going up like a rocket over the last few decades. Here’s a New York Times article debunking the Burkhauser study, it makes pretty clear what has gone on. Note that even if you take the CBO study as your gold standard, the graph indicates that the vast majority of the gold has been going to the one percent. > > But if you look at money in people’s hands, the fact remains, wealth for the middle class has been stagnant. Here’s a CNN article addressing the point. with some very indicative graphs. Your CNN article is also about income, not wages. The Burkauser study’s use of “post-tax, post-transfer, size-adjusted household income including the ex-ante value of in-kind health insurance benefits” is the best measure of actual income, which is why they used it. The rival Saez-Piketty study overstates income inequality, as your NYT article notes. Yes, the largest gains have been by the very wealthy. Why? Here’s the “gold standard” CBO study’s take: > [@CBO](#): > > Two factors accounted for the changing distribution of market income. One was an increase in the concentration of each source of market income, which consists of labor income (such as cash wages and salaries and employer-paid health insurance premiums), business income, capital gains, capital income, and other income. All of those sources of market income were less evenly distributed in 2007 than they were in 1979. > > The other factor was a shift in the composition of market income. Labor income has been more evenly distributed than capital and business income, and both capital income and business income have been more evenly distributed than capital gains. Between 1979 and 2007, the share of income coming from capital gains and business income increased, while the share coming from labor income and capital income decreased. The rich made better use of capital and business income than labor income. This put them in an ideal position to benefit directly from that 69% increase in GDP from 1979 to 2007. They bet on America, and the bet paid off. > [@wevets](#): > > So in other words, you’re citing the vast increases in health care costs 1979-2007 as increasing economic power of the middle class? Yes, in effect. As health care costs rose, the value of employer-paid health care benefits rose as well. It’s part of non-cash income; it can’t be ignored. ---
**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, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/83 "2012-12-11T19:05:44Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > How about we just call it what it is: The Right to Have No Means of Realistic Recourse Against Employer Abuse Law LOL Oh wait you’re serious? Wake me when any state has laws against employee bullying and we can discuss recourse against employer abuse. ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/84 "2012-12-11T19:14:12Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > No, the governor was masquerading as a reasonable person. Now he’s been exposed. Not only does the emperor not have any clothes, he’s not very well endowed. But your evidence that he’s a right-wing ideologue is based on his pushing for a law that 58% of the state supports. If he’s one, then 58% of the state is, too. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/85 "2012-12-11T19:15:25Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > No, the governor was masquerading as a reasonable person. Now he’s been exposed. Not only does the emperor not have any clothes, he’s not very well endowed. Evidently you’re not even trying to masquerade. He said he wasn’t going to pursue “right-to-work” issues. He didn’t. The legislature did (very sneakily, too). He’s stuck with a no-win situation, signing or not signing. Either choice would make him look unreasonable to one side or the other. IMHO, this is a sticky issue, and I’m not sure what’s right and what’s wrong. (I also don’t know enough specifics about the legislation, and this thread is unusually sparse in facts … but oh yeah, it’s in “great debates”.) As someone without a dog in the fight, his actions seem pretty reasonable to me. Now, someone might make the point that the legislature didn’t do this “all alone” and that he helped orchestrate it. If so, that would be good evidence against him. I haven’t heard anyone make that claim, let alone back it up. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/86 "2012-12-11T19:16:22Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yes, in effect. As health care costs rose, the value of employer-paid health care benefits rose as well. It’s part of non-cash income; it can’t be ignored. I’m not suggesting that it should be ignored, I’m asking whether it’s appropriate to claim that the productivity rise 1979-2007 has been evenly distributed among wealthy and middle class, when health care costs have risen for both, yet non-health care income has only risen for one. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/87 "2012-12-11T19:20:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But your evidence that he’s a right-wing ideologue is based on his pushing for a law that 58% of the state supports. If he’s one, then 58% of the state is, too. Did he really push for it? My impression (based on news reports, mostly liberal, before seeing this thread) was that he pretty much stood on the sidelines, except for saying that he’d sign it. If he did push for it, it contradicts his campaign statements. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/88 "2012-12-11T19:22:38Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Except that the law specifically forbids me compelling a worker to remain part of the union to remain employed. Firing him for quitting the union violates that, as threatening his continued employment is a form of compulsion. Could you require him to renegotiate his terms of work as he is no longer a part of the union bargaining unit? You could then set terms requiring more work, less pay, less benefits and see if he accepts or quits. ---
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/89 "2012-12-11T19:22:42Z")
> [@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. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > This is pretty much what needs to happen. Someone, either labor or government needs to hold a gun to corporate management’s heads and make them raise wages for ordinary workers with all that cash they’ve got sitting around. Your solution is wage controls? Bring back the OPA? I don’t think even the most entrenched unions would sign off on that one. > [@Zeriel](#): > > “To become or remain”. I am not allowed to only have union members working for me. If a guy gets hired, then quits the union, I am not allowed to get rid of him even though he’s literally doubled by administrative requirements for dealing with worker contracts. You can fire him if his labor slips below your standard, or if he decides to renegotiate the terms of his employment. So the harm to your business is nil. > [@I Made French Toast For You](#): > > Is there any solid evidence that harming unions significantly helps state economies? Evidence that the benefits of right to work legislation balances out the loss of wages and benefits for workers that come with it? [Here’s an overview](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/11/right-to-work-increases-jobs-and-choices). [Here’s another.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/10/how-right-to-work-laws-could-reshape-michigans-economy/) The specific effects of such laws are difficult to isolate, but generally you’ll see higher employment rates at lower average wages. The goal isn’t “harming unions” for its own sake, but rather a freer labor market. > [@I Made French Toast For You](#): > > Most Michiganders support it. But keep in mind that 1) most people don’t belong to a union, 2) millions and millions of dollars have been spent in favor of right to work in this state by conservative groups, and 3) the issue is framed as a boon for individual freedoms (“I shouldn’t have to join a union or pay dues if I don’t want to!”) without mentioning the losses to wages and rights incurred by those same people. You must have a pretty low opinion of Michiganders if you assume that they support the bill because they don’t understand it. ---
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/90 "2012-12-11T19:30:05Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > I’m not suggesting that it should be ignored, I’m asking whether it’s appropriate to claim that the productivity rise 1979-2007 has been evenly distributed among wealthy and middle class, when health care costs have risen for both, yet non-health care income has only risen for one. Why should it have? Serious question. Has the productivity increases come because labor has gotten more productive on it’s own, or because automation and expert systems have gotten more efficient, making labor more productive? [QUOTE=Human Action] Yes, in effect. As health care costs rose, the value of employer-paid health care benefits rose as well. It’s part of non-cash income; it can’t be ignored. [/QUOTE] Yes, exactly…and it’s something that is generally ignored in these threads. It’s actually a large part of an overall salary, and a large part of that is being paid by the employer. I knew what he was talking about, which is simply wages, which have been pretty stagnant or even decreasing for the last several years or even the last decade, though purchasing power has gone up as goods and services have also leveled off or even decreased (for instance, look at things like PCs or flat screen TVs or the like and how cheap they have become…and how ubiquitous they are today at all levels of US society). ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/91 "2012-12-11T19:32:40Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Did he really push for it? My impression (based on news reports, mostly liberal, before seeing this thread) was that he pretty much stood on the sidelines, except for saying that he’d sign it. > > If he did push for it, it contradicts his campaign statements. That’s my understanding as well. He didn’t want to push for this as he felt it was too contentious, but now that it’s happening without him pushing he’s perfectly willing to sign on the dotted line. ---
**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 11, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/92 "2012-12-11T19:33:25Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Except that the law specifically forbids me compelling a worker to remain part of the union to remain employed. Firing him for quitting the union violates that, as threatening his continued employment is a form of compulsion. You don’t have to fire him _for_ anything. Just fire him. Or as others have suggested, you can force him to renegotiate the terms of his employment to whatever the hell you want: 80 hours of work per week for 1/2 the wages he was making previously, no health care, no retirement/401k, a dress code that includes scuba gear, etc. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/93 "2012-12-11T19:36:13Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > One thing I’ve always wondered is why unions have to be certified. Why not just allow individual workers to sign up with whatever union they wish to join and require employers to negotiate with whatever union the worker has chosen? The same reason wildcat strikes are illegal: unions don’t support free labor, they don’t like competition any more than businesses do, and the New Deal gave them the power to suppress both. The National Labor Relations Board ruled for plant-wide unions, as opposed to craft unions, in service of the idea of industrial unionism, which discourages labor competition. This position eased in the later '30s, however. > [@wevets](#): > > I’m not suggesting that it should be ignored, I’m asking whether it’s appropriate to claim that the productivity rise 1979-2007 has been evenly distributed among wealthy and middle class, when health care costs have risen for both, yet non-health care income has only risen for one. I didn’t make that claim. Income for the wealthiest Americans increased disproportionate to over classes during that period. I responded to the claim by **Evil Captor** that middle class wages have been stagnant for decades. This is demonstrably not the case. Health care and other non-cash income is part of the increase. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/94 "2012-12-11T19:36:19Z")
In order to encourage non-members to join the unions, why don’t they negotiate their contracts so that union benefits apply only to union members? ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/95 "2012-12-11T19:42:37Z")
[Passed!](http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/11/news/economy/michigan-right-to-work-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) > [@](#): > > As protesters descended on the Michigan Statehouse Tuesday, legislators passed a controversial “right-to-work” measure that would weaken unions’ power. > The House approved two bills, which the Senate already passed last week. Both chambers are dominated by Republicans. > Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, has said he will sign the legislation, which would allow workers at union-represented employers to forgo paying dues. And of no particular surprise: > [@](#): > > At least three schools were closed as teachers traveled to Lansing to protest. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/96 "2012-12-11T19:45:12Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > You don’t have to fire him _for_ anything. Just fire him. Or as others have suggested, you can force him to renegotiate the terms of his employment to whatever the hell you want: 80 hours of work per week for 1/2 the wages he was making previously, no health care, no retirement/401k, a dress code that includes scuba gear, etc. Are you sure that’s legal in Michigan? It’s certainly not in many if not most states. ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/97 "2012-12-11T19:51:20Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Are you sure that’s legal in Michigan? > > It’s certainly not in many if not most states. Legal schmeagle…you just put a gun to that dudes head and force that mofo to renegotiate his contract or you bus’ a cap in his ass!! Make him take half pay and wear a pink tutu…plus make him give up his wife for extra services as well, if you know what I mean. _wink wink, nudge nudge_ ---
**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 11, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/98 "2012-12-11T19:56:42Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Are you sure that’s legal in Michigan? > > It’s certainly not in many if not most states. I’m certain that in the US in general and specifically in every RTW state, employment is “at will” with a very few discriminatory limitations. However, as I stated, no reason needs to be given for terminating a person’s employment. “Your services will no longer be required.” BAM! Employment terminated. At that point it is up to the newly unemployed person to seek a lawyer and then try to prove in court why they were fired. I’m sure that most people can imagine how hard it would be for a lawyer to win the vast majority of these types of lawsuits. ETA: I’d be interested in seeing your cites that anything I described would be illegal under any US law. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/99 "2012-12-11T19:59:13Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’m certain that in the US in general and specifically in every RTW state, employment is “at will” with a very few discriminatory limitations. However, as I stated, no reason needs to be given for terminating a person’s employment. > > “Your services will no longer be required.” > > BAM! Employment terminated. At that point it is up to the newly unemployed person to seek a lawyer and then try to prove in court why they were fired. I’m sure that most people can imagine how hard it would be for a lawyer to win the vast majority of these types of lawsuits. > > ETA: I’d be interested in seeing your cites that anything I described would be illegal under any US law. For the first few that may be correct but once a pattern of terminating only non-union employees is established it will become much easier. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/100 "2012-12-11T19:59:52Z")
Isn’t it funny how Republicans say they’re all for “smaller government” until it’s something that affects the bottom line for their backers? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=6)