It’s funny that this tactic seems very familiar. And it’s funny what they say, and don’t say.
Um… in Wisconsin, the open meetings law issue was indeed the subject of a lawsuit, and a county judge ruled that the legislature violated the open meetings law. This was an amazing ruling, since the clear text of the open meetings law gave an exception to the legislature itself. Ultimately, of course, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law and overturned that county judge.
Oddly, the page does not reveal that ending.
This strikes me as the same kind of desperately hopeful nonsense that arose in Wisconsin. The relevant section in Michigan’s constitution is Article IV § 48:
But there are a number of decisions from the state supreme court that show that “resolution of disputes” does not extend to making rules concerning union activity and the lack. See, e.g., Judges of 74th Judicial Dist. v. Bay County, 190 NW 2d 219 (Mich 1971); see also Bd. of Control of Eastern Mich. Univ. v. Labor Mediation Board, 184 NW 2d 921 (Mich 1971) for the proposition that the constitutional provision does not conflict with the rule at hand:
That’s strikingly (ha!) similar to the current Act. Sorry, desperados.
Could you point to the specific language in either case that you believe addresses the constitutional issue here? The first case appears to stand for the unrelated proposition that separation of powers limits a legislative body’s ability to make rules for the judicial branch, and the second simply establishes that state colleges are public employers within the meaning of the constitutional provision you describe.
The first case doesn’t rest on separation of powers: it looks at the same state constitutional provision we’re (presumably) discussing here (see FN1) and it affirms both that court employees are public employees, AND nonetheless judges retain their statutory ability to fix compensation and terms for those court employees. In other words, Sec. 48 does not result in the Civil Service Commission, and only the Civil Service Commission, setting compensation and working conditions for public employees. So whatever Sec. 48 means, it doesn’t mean that.
We have the same situation today in non-RTW states, except it’s the unions with the advantages now. That doesn’t make it any more right.
Isn’t that what the labor movement did? “No fair, you guys won!”, and off to push for legistalation to change the rules of the game? Why shouldn’t business and non-union labor keep fighting for their interests? Also, the law that permits RTW laws is from 1947, so I don’t know about the “now” part. “Now” in Michigan, certainly, but not “now” in America.
Your post included references to “a struggle against selfish and heartless men”, “Capitalists of the Dark Days” who were not “humane and conscientious,” and “American workers being exploited and bullied by their employers.” If that doesn’t seem one-sided to you, and hagiographical toward union leaders like Debs, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Bullshit. If it wasn’t for unions, many people wouldn’t have health insurance or safe working conditions. The reason that companies ever gave in and started giving fair wages and benefits was that union men in the early 20th century were willing to be beaten and killed by company thugs and didn’t give in until they got union shops. If you want to give the US slave labor like they have in China and India, then keep voting Republican.
I think the magical thinking of the anti-union side is the problem, personally.
I should mention that I agree there are problems with union power in some cases. Not being able to fire teachers and whatnot. Attacking those problems is the logical thing to do, not destroy collective bargaining.
Unfair wages, unfair benefits, and/or bad working conditions. The most prominent example right now would probably be the controversies around Walmart’s treatment of its workers. The worst examples you’ll find usually involve low-skill and immigrant labor. (And Walmart again, apparently.)
Disrupting all unions in a state with right to work, in order to curb the supposed “advantages” of some specific unions, is bizarre. I may have missed some earlier in the thread, but do you have any cites concerning the exploitation of a corporation by its workers?
But by allowing judges to set salaries, and not the Civil Service Commission, it definitively removes those activities from the realm of “resolve disputes.” Yes?
Eh? No. There wasn’t a dispute involving a union. The whole issue was that the county’s collective bargaining agreement did not apply to the judicial district’s employees because they weren’t part of the collective bargaining unit (not being employed by the county).
So we can’t all agree that unions are not strictly necessary for all workers to have rights and pursue their interests. Fair enough. Do you agree with my second point?
Can you tie this (disputed) trend to the decline of union membership specifically? Your cite does not.
Can you give an example of this magical thinking?
I agree, but at the state level, this is not a remedy forthe problems inherent in federal labor laws. The only option for reform is RTW. I would much prefer the unions, non-union labor, and employers supporting some basic federal reform.
I think we need for specificity for further discussion, so I’ll ask this: are there unfair wages, benefits, and working conditions that are not presently illegal? For instance, your first cite was about Wal-Mart employees protesting “disrespectful treatment by managers, low wages and alleged retaliation by the company against workers who speak out against abuses.” Is this exploitation? Your second cite clearly was, but it was also illegal, coercive conduct that was punished. I’m fine with people working for a wage they freely negotiate, but does anyone advocate for criminal confinement?
I don’t think “disrupting” is an apt description of what RTW laws do to unions. They are still free to operate, after all. See above for discussion about why states pass these laws: because it’s all they can do.
First off, let me introduce you to a concept called “humor”. All in all, I hold Eugene V. Debs to be a darned good human being. I don’t know any saints. So, my reference to him should be taken in that context, of affectionate respect for a man who actually stood for something. A lefty would most likely have gotten that. I’d rather endure ten minutes of Sean Hannity than listen to Joan Baez sing “Joe Hill”. OK, five minutes.
On the other hand, I think Tom Joad’s soliliquoy at the end of The Grapes of Wrath is maudlin and overdramatic. Still kinda like it. Read it sometimes when I can clearly remember what I believe but not as sure* why*.
As for my depiction of the capitalists of that day as being brutal and inhumane, I stand by that without so much a qualm. But it wasn’t personal, Sonny, it was strictly business.
I didn’t realize you were being humorous. I apologize. It can be difficult to recognize subtle humor in the written word, without the context that the material is likely meant to be humorous.
I use Capitalism and Freedom, and of course Human Action, in much the same way.
I’ll stipulate that it was a brutal time, without portioning blame, so as not to hijack the thread. Agreed?
But I think we’d all agree that union membership increases compensation for the union members. Reducing union membership will reduce overall compensation some amount.
The idea that right to work is about freedom. And that unions will have to show value to compete for workers who can get their benefits for free.
The Republicans control the house, if they actually cared about reform they would be able to bring a bill to the floor.