# 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:** 6
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/101 "2012-12-11T20:05:07Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > 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? No. ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/102 "2012-12-11T20:05:34Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > 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. Probably so. IANAL, but I would not advise an employer to try **Snowboarder Bo** ’s strategy. If you are determined to only hire union labor, and one of your employees quits the union, you can’t dismiss them on those grounds. However, if the employee continues to perform up to standards and does not seek a change in the terms of their employment, no real harm is done. > [@Lightnin'](#): > > 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? The labor codes that RTW laws replace are far from small government. How about this one: Isn’t it funny how Democrats say they’re all for “freedom” until it’s something that affects the bottom line for their backers? ---
**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, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/103 "2012-12-11T20:06:12Z")
Perhaps this will help to clarify: [ > [@FindLaw](#): > > The term “wrongful termination” means that an employer has fired or laid off an employee for illegal reasons in the eyes of the law. Illegal reasons for termination include: > > Firing in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws; > Firing as a form of sexual harassment; > Firing in violation of oral and written employment agreements; > Firing in violation of labor laws, including collective bargaining laws; and > Firing in retaliation for the employee’s having filed a complaint or claim against the employer. ]([http://employment.findlaw.com/losing-a-job/wrongful-termination-claims.html](http://employment.findlaw.com/losing-a-job/wrongful-termination-claims.html)) ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/104 "2012-12-11T20:07:22Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > 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. Or if discrimination could be established. It’s not carte blanche. Here’s the [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment) on At Will Employment if anyone is interested. Regardless, you couldn’t force someone to renegotiate their contract. You could say that the position is for less money or less benefits (though even there you can’t do a lot), but as always with these ridiculously over the top hypotheticals, labor is always free to walk, and I’d have to ask…what do folks think the companies would do? If they CAN get labor for half of what they are paying, well, what does that say about the current costs of labor? And if they can’t, then companies are going to have to pay what it costs for the labor they need to maintain their companies. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/105 "2012-12-11T20:09:40Z")
> [@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. That would violate the law just passed in Michigan. > [@](#): > > Condition-of-Employment Prohibition > > The bill would prohibit an individual from being required as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment to do any of the following: > > – Refrain or resign from membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization. > – Become or remain a member of a labor organization. > – Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses of any kind or amount or provide anything of value to a labor organization. > – Pay to any charitable organization or third party an amount that was in lieu of, > equivalent to, or any portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses required of members of or employees represented by a labor organization. > > An agreement, contract, understanding, or practice between or involving an employer and a labor organization that violated this prohibition would be unlawful and unenforceable. ---
**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 11, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/106 "2012-12-11T20:09:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > How about this one: Isn’t it funny how Democrats say they’re all for “freedom” until it’s something that affects the bottom line for their backers? That’s nonsense, of course. This is the freedom to freeload. If you get the benefits of union membership, deciding to not pay means you’re a freeloader. Conservatives are supposed to be against that. But they want to foster it, if it means that large businesses won’t have any pressure back from labor. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/107 "2012-12-11T20:10:06Z")
Question: did the old “you have to join a union” (or at least “you have to pay union dues even if you choose not to join”) law effectively ban hiring strikebreakers? ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/108 "2012-12-11T20:15:14Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > 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. Except that you don’t have to fire them. You can just force them to renegotiate their terms of employment, since they are no longer covered under the CBA, and make sure that their new terms of employment are so crappy that they decide to seek employment under more favourable terms elsewhere. Even assuming that after 20 firings someone brings a lawsuit, it will drag in the courts for years and result in a slap-on-the-wrist fine (if it’s a statuatory violation) or a simple settlement of lost wages, which will be further argued over for months if not years. RTW + “at will” employment = very few repurcussions for employers and very little recourse for (current and former) employees. ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/109 "2012-12-11T20:16:50Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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. I am beginning to suspect you haven’t read the law that was just passed. The bill funds the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to investigate and fine violators. It also creates a private cause of action that permits damages, injunctive relief, or both, as well as court costs and reasonable attorney fees. So a person aggrieved by a dismissal that violates these terms can get the state investigators to do the legwork and establish a violation, and then sue. ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/110 "2012-12-11T20:18:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Probably so. IANAL, but I would not advise an employer to try **Snowboarder Bo** ’s strategy. If you are determined to only hire union labor, and one of your employees quits the union, you can’t dismiss them on those grounds. However, if the employee continues to perform up to standards and does not seek a change in the terms of their employment, no real harm is done. Again: an employer does not have to state a reason for terminating an employee. ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/111 "2012-12-11T20:18:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I am beginning to suspect you haven’t read the law that was just passed. > > The bill funds the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to investigate and fine violators. It also creates a private cause of action that permits damages, injunctive relief, or both, as well as court costs and reasonable attorney fees. So a person aggrieved by a dismissal that violates these terms can get the state investigators to do the legwork and establish a violation, and then sue. Do they have to show ID? Because that might be an undue burden. ---
**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 11, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/112 "2012-12-11T20:23:13Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > [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. The first cite comes from a major conservative organization, so I’m not sure how I should take that information. The second link’s info and tone is ambivalent, but says right to work is “good for business owners, bad for workers”. Silly me for assuming this to be an anti-right-to-work statement. It also says that both sides agree it harms unions, so I’m not sure why you say that isn’t a goal. > [@](#): > > You must have a pretty low opinion of Michiganders if you assume that they support the bill because they don’t understand it. Not at all. I (born and raised in Michigan) certainly didn’t understand its full implications when I first read about it, and assumed this to be true for many people. Million dollar ad campaigns from the right coupled with disingenuous language and a quick shoving of the bill through legislature make it seem like Republicans are trying to pass it before anyone’s the wiser. ---
**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 11, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/113 "2012-12-11T20:24:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do they have to show ID? Because that might be an undue burden. The conservatives, when they taste blood, they get snarky. 😃 ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/114 "2012-12-11T20:25:47Z")
Here’s a tangent. This ruling will dramatically decrease union funding. My question is, does an effective union really require substantial funding? This is a big difference between Michigan’s union busting and Wisconsin’s. The latter (if I understand correctly) made it illegal for teachers to do collective bargaining. Michigan does not, it just pulls a lot of the funding, since if unions charge a significant fee, people won’t pay it. If union fees were small, my guess is a lot of workers would opt in for the obvious reasons. My guess is that union fees are not at all small. Do we really need highly paid professionals staffing unions? ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/115 "2012-12-11T20:26:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The conservatives, when they taste blood, they get snarky. 😃 Liberals, on the other hand, are never snarky and are not affected by the taste of blood. 😉 ---
**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, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/116 "2012-12-11T20:37:15Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Liberals, on the other hand, are never snarky and are not affected by the taste of blood. 😉 Of course not. We’re all vegetarians. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/117 "2012-12-11T20:39:13Z")
I don’t see this as a conservative issue. It’s an issue that liberals could easily support without betraying their principles. It’s an issue of liberty. ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/118 "2012-12-11T20:44:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t see this as a conservative issue. It’s an issue that liberals could easily support without betraying their principles. It’s an issue of liberty. Do you actually know any liberals? (OK just kidding.) My liberal friends are up in arms about this, based on facebook posts. My libertarian friends think it’s great, based on group emails. My conservative friends don’t tend to facebook or group emails, but I bet they’re in favor. Is it really greater liberty if it precludes a union from making an exclusivity contract with an employer? (That’s a genuine question; I’m hoping for an informed reply.) From a libertarian standpoint, isn’t this “more government involvement” rather than less? ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/119 "2012-12-11T20:46:43Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Again: an employer does not have to state a reason for terminating an employee. That’s true. However, the vast majority of HR departments require a firing manager to state reasons. Why do you suppose that is? ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/120 "2012-12-11T21:43:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s true. > > However, the vast majority of HR departments require a firing manager to state reasons. Why do you suppose that is? I don’t have any statistics I can find that support your contention that a majority of HR departments do this. I don’t know why they would bother, since US law doesn’t require it. Assuming that your statement is accurate, why do you suppose they require it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=7)