No.
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.
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?
Perhaps this will help to clarify:
[
](http://employment.findlaw.com/losing-a-job/wrongful-termination-claims.html)
Or if discrimination could be established. It’s not carte blanche. Here’s the wiki 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.
That would violate the law just passed in Michigan.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Again: an employer does not have to state a reason for terminating an employee.
Do they have to show ID? Because that might be an undue burden.
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.
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.
The conservatives, when they taste blood, they get snarky. 
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?
Liberals, on the other hand, are never snarky and are not affected by the taste of blood. 
Of course not. We’re all vegetarians.
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?
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?