# 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:** 7
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/121 "2012-12-11T21:49:50Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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? Because by documenting the reasons for a dismissal, they can convincingly rebut a charge that the dismissal was based on impermissible criteria. They thus shield themselves from at least some baseless litigation. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/122 "2012-12-11T21:59:55Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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? From my wiki cite earlier in the thread: > [@](#): > > Several statutory and judge-made exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee. So, companies document why they are firing or letting someone go to ensure they aren’t accused of discrimination and libel for damages. My state is an At Will state (and where I work there aren’t any unions), and that’s exactly what companies do…and why they do it. They don’t just arbitrarily fire people for the hell of it, or twirl their mustache and cackle in an evil tone while cutting all the employees salaries and benefits by a half or more…that just doesn’t happen, nor will it happen in Michigan now that they are going to be At Will. ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/123 "2012-12-11T22:05:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That would violate the law just passed in Michigan. I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing where anything I wrote would violate the new law. Surely if an employee rescinds their membership in a union, they are no longer bound by the CBA, thus the employer would be free to seek to impose new employment terms, unfettered by any previous agreement. An employer could quadruple quotas, increase work hours, or any other thing they wanted to try and get an employee to do. They could even transfer them to a new job if they wanted: “Oh yeah, I don’t need you as a welder anymore, but I do need you to dig and then keep clean the new latrines.” ---
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/124 "2012-12-11T22:08:15Z")
> [@XT](#): > > From my wiki cite earlier in the thread: > > So, companies document why they are firing or letting someone go to ensure they aren’t accused of discrimination and libel for damages. My state is an At Will state (and where I work there aren’t any unions), and that’s exactly what companies do…and why they do it. They don’t just arbitrarily fire people for the hell of it, or twirl their mustache and cackle in an evil tone while cutting all the employees salaries and benefits by a half or more…that just doesn’t happen, nor will it happen in Michigan now that they are going to be At Will. The two states I have spent most of my life in, Florida and Nevada, are both RTW “at will” states, and I have seen people fired with no reason stated for the dismissal. My anecdote beats your anecdote. ETA: I listed most of the actual reasons for termination that are discriminatory. Firing someone because their services are no longer needed or wanted is not a discriminatory or wrongful firing. ---
**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, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/125 "2012-12-11T22:33:52Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] The two states I have spent most of my life in, Florida and Nevada, are both RTW “at will” states, and I have seen people fired with no reason stated for the dismissal. [/QUOTE] What’s that got to do with companies documenting why they let someone go?? Or are you saying you have first hand knowledge that these companies fired someone with no reason and then were militantly stupid enough to not document anything at all? > [@](#): > > ETA: I listed most of the actual reasons for termination that are discriminatory. Firing someone because their services are no longer needed or wanted is not a discriminatory or wrongful firing. You’d be laying them off, not firing them, but that’s true enough…companies do that all the time when they are downsizing in order to cut costs. You do realize that if a company gives no reason for firing someone then they have to pony up quite a bit towards unemployment though, right? > [@](#): > > My anecdote beats your anecdote. A Wiki link is an anecdote now? 😛 ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/126 "2012-12-11T23:01:59Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 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. So in other words, you _cannot_ choose to hire only union workers. ---
**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, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/127 "2012-12-11T23:07:41Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > So in other words, you _cannot_ choose to hire only union workers. That seems to be what **Bricker** , **XT** and others are arguing is the case with the new Michigan law. If that is indeed the way it’s written, I’d like to see an acknowledgement that, in fact, this law is not about freedom at all, but about restricting and constricting unions. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/128 "2012-12-11T23:11:09Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > So in other words, you _cannot_ choose to hire only union workers. The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed that nationwide in 1947. ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/129 "2012-12-11T23:12:05Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Why should it have? Serious question. The most likely answer is that power imbalances between wealthy and middle/lower class workers lead to disproportionate enrichment of the wealthy when society becomes richer as a whole. You most likely mean “should” in a moral sense, judging from context, but I don’t think that’s relevant to what I was trying to say. There may be an answer in the moral sense, but that’s meat for a different thread. > [@](#): > > 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? ? I see no distinction between those scenarios and don’t even know what you mean by “more productive on its own.” I would contend that nothing in human society does something on its own. Generations of people don’t suddenly become either lazy or productive for no reason, just as the kids don’t really need to get off one’s lawn, and were never even on it in the first place. It’s merely a label of convenience to avoid doing the hard work of attempting to tease out socio-economic changes. For example, even as automation and expertise improve the capacity of individual workers, other workers are unemployed due to the rising productivity outstripping demand. This isn’t a moral good or bad, it simply 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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/130 "2012-12-11T23:12:32Z")
I’m very curious to know how this doesn’t conflict with the court’s decision in _Beck_. AFAICT, it does and thus might not stand up in a court challenge. ETA: Or at least parts of the new law might not stand up to a court challenge. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/131 "2012-12-11T23:16:27Z")
The Gov just signed it. ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/132 "2012-12-11T23:31:00Z")
> [@wolfman](#): > > The Gov just signed it. Six days from start to finish. Impressive. Disturbing. I think the thread title needs a new word instead of “contemplates”. ---
**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, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/133 "2012-12-11T23:52:12Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed that nationwide in 1947. Here is the act on [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act). Where does it say that an employer can’t hire only union labor, if that is their choice (which was the original assertion)? I merely see that an employer can’t be forced to hire only union labor, which is a different thing. Maybe I’m missing something though. > [@gatorslap](#): > > So in other words, you _cannot_ choose to hire only union workers. I’ll ask you as well…where does it say an employer can’t, by choice, hire only union labor?? Where are you getting this from? ---
**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 12, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/134 "2012-12-12T00:05:38Z")
[QUOTE=wevets] ? I see no distinction between those scenarios and don’t even know what you mean by “more productive on its own.” [/QUOTE] If labor became more productive through it’s own means (perhaps through training, or enhanced skill sets, etc) then they would be worth more intrinsically…they would add more value than what they brought before to the table, and thus would be worth more money. If productivity increased through capital expenditures by business, however (through, say, increased automation or expert systems) then labor doesn’t bring anything more to the table…so, why SHOULD they be paid more? Just because? That’s what I’m trying to get at here. You don’t continually pay labor more just for the sake of paying them more, or because it’s right or proper or a good thing to do. You pay them more if they are worth more to you, as a company…or you don’t, if they aren’t. > [@](#): > > I would contend that nothing in human society does something on its own. Generations of people don’t suddenly become either lazy or productive for no reason, just as the kids don’t really need to get off one’s lawn, and were never even on it in the first place. It’s merely a label of convenience to avoid doing the hard work of attempting to tease out socio-economic changes. Sure…it’s all interconnected. But, if you don’t add value, you can’t expect, simply because, to have your labor worth more. It’s worth what someone will pay you for it…unless you put a gun to their heads and force them to pay more. Then they will have two choices…either find a way to otherwise lower their costs (through increased automation, or moving their production to places where folks aren’t holding a gun to their heads and demanding more than the labor is worth to the company) or going out of business. Well, I suppose a third choice is to have the government bail you out, reorganize, renegotiate onerous agreements, and try and work from there. I’d say there are plenty of examples of US manufacturing doing all of these things in the last 20 years. What it’s done is to make US manufacturing extremely productive, but at the cost of a lot of those previously high paying but low or medium skilled jobs. > [@](#): > > For example, even as automation and expertise improve the capacity of individual workers, other workers are unemployed due to the rising productivity outstripping demand. This isn’t a moral good or bad, it simply is. I agree completely. Same with outsourcing and offshoring, be that to another state with cheaper labor or to another country with the same. ---
**Author:** ![A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/76d3ee/32.png) [@A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/135 "2012-12-12T00:18:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. So are liberals supposed to be for freeloaders? ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/136 "2012-12-12T00:43:20Z")
Tennessee has been right to work for decades, & the financial lot of the typical Tennessean has stayed pretty miserable. Michigan took Unionism, too far, Tennessee not far enough. Wisdom, as usual, lies somewhere in the Unexplored Country–the Unknown Middle Ground. ---
**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 12, 2012, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/137 "2012-12-12T00:43:28Z")
> [@A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](#): > > So are liberals supposed to be for freeloaders? Only according to conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/138 "2012-12-12T00:43:56Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > I’m curious–what American union rules are uncompetitive? > Well, for a start, the UAW-GM contract once included no fewere than 34 job classifications-a “seat installer” could not fill in for a “door installer”-without the agreement of the shop stewards. > Note that I’ll probably agree with you on some, but on others–well, I dunno. Can you give us specific cites? > > Can we get a cite for this, please? IME as a (past) union member (of the UFCW), it is my understanding that shop stewards are workers like any other; they are simply the union representatives on the floor, and often the first point of contact for any disgruntled union members. But they work, like everybody else. IME, I never saw a shop steward sit back and watch, as you imply. > A co-worker’s fathe was a shop steawrd at GM Framingham (MA). He didn’t work. > Note that I am off the floor now, and I went back to school, and am now a lawyer. But I have a particular interest in employment and labour law. I guess I’m looking at this from two points of view. Can you help clarify your point of view? Have you ever seen a UAW-GM plant contract? At Framingham, it was a 500 page book. The main effect was to reduce the ability of management to run the plant, in favor of the union. In any event, if the UAW is such an effective organization, how come nobody opens auto plants in Michigan? It ought to be the center of the industry..but (mysteriously) it ain’t. I wonder why? ---
**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 12, 2012, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/139 "2012-12-12T00:46:23Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Have you ever seen a UAW-GM plant contract? At Framingham, it was a 500 page book. The main effect was to reduce the ability of management to run the plant, in favor of the union. > > In any event, if the UAW is such an effective organization, how come nobody opens auto plants in Michigan? It ought to be the center of the industry..but (mysteriously) it ain’t. > I wonder why? You seem to be under the impression that the UAW exists to build cars. It doesn’t. ---
**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 12, 2012, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/140 "2012-12-12T00:50:02Z")
> [@A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](#): > > So are liberals supposed to be for freeloaders? Not all things are divided up between parties. That kind of thinking isn’t productive. Specifically though, conservatives scream about freeloaders in their rhetoric. Welfare queens, illegal immigrants getting benefits and so on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=8)