# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/161 "2012-12-12T17:48:30Z")
> [@XT](#): > > 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? I bolded the part that says that. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/162 "2012-12-12T18:08:47Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > This is why RTW laws must be understood in the broader context of U.S. labor law and history. They are a reaction against union practices, supported by law and courts, which made union contracts anything but “freely negotiated.” I am genuinely ignorant. Please show me a case anywhere in the US where an employer, not currently under contract to a union, was forced to sign a contract with a union. ---
**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 12, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/163 "2012-12-12T18:12:50Z")
Well, even if the employer isn’t forced into a union contract (they’re not, of course), there’s an element of coercion in union contracts because they affect the rights of parties who have no say in them at all: prospective employees. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/164 "2012-12-12T18:30:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, even if the employer isn’t forced into a union contract (they’re not, of course), there’s an element of coercion in union contracts because they affect the rights of parties who have no say in them at all: prospective employees. Hm. That to me sounds quite a bit like an argument that, for example, the Catholic Church should be required to give communion to anyone who asks for it. Or, if I were to say that only people who have technical certification XYZ may be hired to work for me, that’s technically affecting the rights of people who don’t have that certification in the exact same way. That is, I don’t think one has any right to force others to associate with them (barring inherent, inborn qualities under the equal protection clause), whereas I DO think one has a right to choose only to associate with people who possess certain qualities. As being a union member, or not, is primarily an economic decision rather than one that would generally qualify under a typical reading of equal protection, I don’t believe this is a relevant objection. ---
**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 12, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/165 "2012-12-12T18:45:58Z")
> [@](#): > > …if I were to say that only people who have technical certification XYZ may be hired to work for me, that’s technically affecting the rights of people who don’t have that certification in the exact same way. It has the same effect, but it’s not the same thing. Your unilateral decision to restrict employment to a certain class of people is not the same as your _contractual obligation_ to do so. Anyway, this isn’t an equal protection issue; it’s a contract law issue. As a general rule, a contract will not be enforced against someone who is not a party to it. Labor agreements are specifically excepted from this rule under the Clayton Act. I’m not necessarily saying I have a problem with that; I am agnostic on unions (though I’m a flaming liberal on most such issues). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/166 "2012-12-12T19:45:39Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I wasn’t aware that being a union member was something that a person was born as and could not change. Is that your contention? That being a union member is the equivalent of being born black or gay? No. You were attacking the idea that dismissals for union membership (or the lack of union membership) could be successfully litigated - you pointed out that “at will” employment allows an employer to fire for almost any reason. I pointed out that despite the existence of at-will employment, people aggrieved at being dismissed for race-based or gender-based reasons have found relief in the courts. This proves, I said, that similar relief for union-related firings would be available in Michigan since, in Michigan, union activity and its absence create protected classes of employees. You then leapt into this completely irrelevant question about being born into a category and unable to change. That has nothing to do with it. Religion is a protected class; people can change religions. Whistleblowing is a protected activity; a person cannot be fired for exercising his right to expose company wrongdoing in certain areas. That’s obviously not an accident of birth. But that’s not at all relevant to the original point: can employees sue and win for violation of these guarantees? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/167 "2012-12-12T19:56:22Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > 1. Enable companies to get out of union contracts they freely negotiated. No. They can be coerced into signing contracts by the spectre of strikes, where the striking workers have the protection of the legal system. If companies were completely free to fire striking workers, and didn’t have to worry about the law compelling them to negotiate, THEN any contract entered into would have been freely negotiated. Now, no. Now unions enjoy the sometime tactical advantage of being able to strike without risking their jobs. That’s not free negotiation. ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/168 "2012-12-12T19:59:55Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > I bolded the part that says that. Yes…I know you did. Here is what you bolded: > [@](#): > > 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. Now, I ask again…where does it say ‘you cannot choose to hire only union workers’?? It says no person shall be REQUIRED by an employer to become or remain a member of a union. No where in what you bolded (or anywhere else as far as I can see) does it say that you, as an employer, can’t choose to hire only union’. It’s the difference between requirement and choice. Seems simple enough to me, which is why I asked you where you saw what you claim to have seen. My hope was that you’d explain where you are getting that from…after all, I did see your post AND what you’d bolded and I still asked the question, ehe? ---
**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 12, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/169 "2012-12-12T20:00:14Z")
> [@XT](#): > > 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? > [@gatorslap](#): > > I bolded the part that says that. Firstly, I realized that I left another relevant part of the Alabama statute. Here it is, for completeness’ sake: > [@Alabama code 25-7-33](#): > > No person shall be required by an employer to abstain or refrain from membership in any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment. The entire law can be read [here.](http://www.nrtw.org/c/alrtwlaw.htm) I’ve done some more research, and every mention I can find to violations of the law pertain to either union member employees quitting the union, or non-union members joining the union. And the case of Southwest Airlines persuades me that it is possible to have a nearly all-union workforce under RTW law. > [@Zeriel](#): > > I am genuinely ignorant. Please show me a case anywhere in the US where an employer, not currently under contract to a union, was forced to sign a contract with a union. I didn’t make this claim, but I’ll address it anyway. Under the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act), it is illegal “to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.” [here’s the law](http://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act), it’s section 8, subsection 158 (unfair labor practices), number 5. The National Labor Relations Board gets to decide what’s good-faith bargaining and what isn’t, another avenue for coercion. I was referring to the unequal balance of power between union and employer or union and individual employee under U.S. labor law. I already mentioned sit-down strikes and prohibition of wildcat strikes, and **Really Not All That Bright** mentioned the exemption from the Clayton Act, but [here’s some more](http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm) from the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation. It should be noted again that this is not simply union vs. employer. The laws favor unions heavily over individual workers as well. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > I am agnostic on unions (though I’m a flaming liberal on most such issues). I’m a moderate libertarian, and don’t hold unions to be intrinsically good or bad. My objection is to the abuses they are capable of under federal law. Note that the anti-trust exemption allows unions to act as cartels to fix prices, which would be illegal for nearly any private enterprise to engage in. The playing field is unequal, and RTW laws are a clumsy attempt at a remedy. The real remedy would involve repeal of existing federal labor laws, which isn’t politically feasible at present. Thus, the matter is imperfectly addressed at the state level. ---
**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 12, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/170 "2012-12-12T20:06:20Z")
> [@Buck Godot](#): > > Here is another study with some actual research behind it. Long story short, instituting right to work increases profits and reduces wages (no surprise), but has no significant effect on the states overall economy. All else being equal I personally would prefer a more even distribution of wealth and a closing of the rich/poor income gap, and so find the right two work laws counter productive but YMMV. Your link doesn’t work for me, is there anywhere else I can read this? ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/171 "2012-12-12T20:21:16Z")
When I see and hear “there will be blood!”, “Civil War”, and then see violent actions from the union sheep, a single tear flows down my cheek when I remember the pep rally in Arizona that President Obama gave about civility in Arizona. Heh. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/172 "2012-12-12T20:57:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. They can be coerced into signing contracts by the spectre of strikes, where the striking workers have the protection of the legal system. > > If companies were completely free to fire striking workers, and didn’t have to worry about the law compelling them to negotiate, THEN any contract entered into would have been freely negotiated. I have no disagreement with you here. It seems just as clear to me that “being fired en masse” should be part of the risk of going on strike as it does that “you will only hire union workers” should be a legitimate contract term for consideration in union contracts. Especially since the protection against being fired en masse (having a sufficient number of people in the field as union members that it’s impractical to replace striking workers with non-union personnel) functions as a positive incentive for the union to behave in a way that makes it worth joining outside of being required to do so by a closed shop. That said, I don’t think the burden imposed by the inability to fire economic strikers (merely “permanently replace” them, and hire them back if the employee agrees to go back unconditionally) is all that onerous on businesses. In any case, where I agree with Human Action is that RTW laws are a clumsy attempt at swinging this balance back to a better equilibrium. Where we apparently disagree is that I do not think that remedying it by piling yet more restrictive laws on an already convoluted field of law is a valid way of imperfectly addressing perceived flaws in the National Labor Relations Act. ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/173 "2012-12-12T21:06:28Z")
> [@A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](#): > > When I see and hear “there will be blood!”, “Civil War”, and then see violent actions from the union sheep, a single tear flows down my cheek when I remember the pep rally in Arizona that President Obama gave about civility in Arizona. > > Heh. I’m guessing that the point you think you’re making isn’t as clear as you think it is. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/174 "2012-12-12T21:11:00Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m guessing that the point you think you’re making isn’t as clear as you think it is. I presume that he’s A) assuming that all liberals march in total lockstep, given the Obama reference, and B) not interested in trying to persuade anyone of anything, given the use of the term “sheep” in a non-livestock context. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/175 "2012-12-12T21:13:18Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I presume that he’s A) assuming that all liberals march in total lockstep, given the Obama reference, and B) not interested in trying to persuade anyone of anything, given the use of the term “sheep” in a non-livestock context. I try not to judge. Some people like sheep, and I’m good with that. They can have their sheep, and I’ll just drink this beer, to paraphrase Eddie Murphy…to each their own. Live and let live and all that… ---
**Author:** ![JQPublic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac8455/32.png) [@JQPublic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JQPublic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/176 "2012-12-12T21:16:27Z")
What’s going to be interesting, and a possible union busting act, is to see if the employers start offering different compensation packages for union and non-union employees. Imagine if lets say Ford decided to offer an extra dollar an hour and an extra weeks vacation to employees that drop the union. That would certainly be an interesting development. Possibly another example of an unintended consequences that happens whenever politicians think they’ve solved a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/177 "2012-12-12T21:21:58Z")
> [@JQPublic](#): > > What’s going to be interesting, and a possible union busting act, is to see if the employers start offering different compensation packages for union and non-union employees. > Imagine if lets say Ford decided to offer an extra dollar an hour and an extra weeks vacation to employees that drop the union. > That would certainly be an interesting development. Possibly another example of an unintended consequences that happens whenever politicians think they’ve solved a problem. The UAW would have to be some seriously hellishly bad-for-the-employer work rules for this to be an offer made both rationally and in good faith (i.e., one not rescinded as soon as the union is broken), since the average justification for dropping a union is “their pay rates and scheduled wage growth is too high”. ---
**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 12, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/178 "2012-12-12T21:23:56Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > In any case, where I agree with Human Action is that RTW laws are a clumsy attempt at swinging this balance back to a better equilibrium. Where we apparently disagree is that I do not think that remedying it by piling yet more restrictive laws on an already convoluted field of law is a valid way of imperfectly addressing perceived flaws in the National Labor Relations Act. Sure, RTW laws are an imperfect remedy. Why are they being pursued? Because of section 14(b) of Taft-Hartley: > [@Taft-Hartley Act](#): > > Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law. This section specifically authorizes states to pass right-to-work laws as we know them. As a result, such RTW laws are about the only tool states have to change labor law, which is largely governed by federal law and federal court decisions. 14(b) is pretty much all the states have, so that’s what’s used. All they have is a hammer, so problems with unions start to look like nails. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/179 "2012-12-12T21:27:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Sure, RTW laws are an imperfect remedy. Why are they being pursued? Because of section 14(b) of Taft-Hartley: > This section specifically authorizes states to pass right-to-work laws as we know them. As a result, such RTW laws are about the only tool states have to change labor law, which is largely governed by federal law and federal court decisions. 14(b) is pretty much all the states have, so that’s what’s used. All they have is a hammer, so problems with unions start to look like nails. Which is sloppy thinking no matter what hammer you’re talking about. Far better for concerned political parties to tackle the problem at the Federal level–unfortunately, that doesn’t allow state-level politicians to grandstand. ---
**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 12, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/180 "2012-12-12T21:33:44Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I presume that he’s A) assuming that all liberals march in total lockstep, given the Obama reference, and B) not interested in trying to persuade anyone of anything, given the use of the term “sheep” in a non-livestock context. I think he’s referring to [this.](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) > [@NYT article](#): > > President Obama offered the nation’s condolences on Wednesday to the victims of the [Gabriel Giffords, and others] shootings here, calling on Americans to draw a lesson from the lives of the fallen and the actions of the heroes, and to usher in a new era of civility in their honor. So I think **A nice guy with an opinion** is saying that Democrats and/or “union sheep” are hypocrites for urging civility, while also engaging in heated rhetoric over the Michigan RTW law. > [@Zeriel](#): > > Which is sloppy thinking no matter what hammer you’re talking about. Far better for concerned political parties to tackle the problem at the Federal level–unfortunately, that doesn’t allow state-level politicians to grandstand. That’s politics for you. I’d like nothing more than for RTW laws to be replaced by federal labor reform, but it’s just not a political reality at the moment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=10)