Back in February, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder looked out across the Midwest and said he didn't want to be like those governors pushing anti-union legislation in places like Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin. From FOX News:
"I think it's unfortunate that they've gotten to that, I don't want to see that happen," Snyder said of the high profile fights and protests in neighboring states like Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin. "If you want to draw it as a contrast, you look at now that they've had those things happen, do they have a productive environment to solve problems? Not necessarily. They're still overcoming the divisiveness, the hard feelings from all of that."
That was so then. Governor Snyder announced today that he will sign an anti-union "Right to Work" law, and the legislature has gone into overtime to get one on his desk. Right to Work laws ban union shops, and they tend to lead to lower wages. MLive reports that the bill would not affect police and firefighters, and that it would be written in a way that it could not be put up for repeal by voters.
As you can see in the video above from Eclectablog, things are getting heated at the Michigan state Capitol. A Democratic lawmaker has written to say that the Capitol has been locked down to keep protesters out. After the jump, a chart and some numbers.
Governor Snyder explains in a YouTube clip why he has had the change of heart. Earlier in the week, he connected it to unions asking to have collective bargaining rights enshrined in the state constitution, over Snyder's wishes.
Now he says that he has looked over at Indiana, which passed a Right to Work law in January, and where jobs have been growing rapidly. It might too soon to know whether weakening the unions made jobs grow in Indiana. The state had already begun to recover from the Great Recession when the legislature banned union shops. For what it's worth, Michigan's workforce has been bouncing back about as quickly as Indiana's.
Indiana Department of Workforce Development
More charts on Right to Work in a post yesterday; economist Gordon Lafer's deep dive into Indiana, Right to Work and the regional economy here.
Leave a Comment:
Astounding
"and that it would be written in a way that it could not be put up for repeal by voters."
Democracy ; It is such a hindrance to Republican rule , we better outlaw it quick .
I don't understand how they can write a law that can't be repealed. Voters should always have the option of at least using a referendum to vote on Constitutional amendments that would, in effect, repeal something they find odious.
This tells you how 1) unpopular, and 2) unfair they know this legislation is.
Again, Michigan voters, who were asleep at the switch in 2010, will have to take the bull by the horns in 2014. And they'd better be starting now if they're going to undo the damage the state's Republicans are doing.
Well one thing to keep in mind, Here in WI, A judge did rule that what Walker did with the Collective Bargaining was ruled Unconstitutional.
Right to work is business dictating government. Jobs are the bait. Lower wages for workers are the benefit...for the business. Because corporate owners need car elevators too.
If you want to alter a bull's behavior, modifications at the other end are more effective.
"and that it would be written in a way that it could not be put up for repeal by voters."
Oh I know a cheap and easy way to solve this problem... let the hangings begin!
These laws are happening in all the state houses that were taken over in 2010. All kinds of onerous laws being written by ALEC and pawned off on the rethug states. Like in Ohio and Fla and SC, trying to rewrite voting laws and push them through. In Tex., writing awful legislation against women's access to healthcare. We have to vote these thugs OUT at every opportunity. They tried to steal the election this year and are trying to steal elections from the states up NOW. He who controls the states, controls the courts and judge appointments too. Scary.
Its a Federal Law to have a Union if your companies employees vote one in , and they have one chance each year to do that , It could be shot down by the supreme court . From what i hear the Govennor appointed a Manager to run the state and their politicians cant vote . Its a dictatorship of a kind ????
This is a worry, as it could set a terrible precedent for some of these other bright red states.
Do You Mean: UNemployment figures?
Yes, the dear governor has lost his way!
He seems to be harboring that cockamamie idea that he and he alone must destroy democracy in order to save it!
Right to Work laws lead to the right to be perpetually poor! -Kevo
I hate to say it, but the unions are harvesting the whirlwind they set in motion 50 years ago when they decided not to go out and organize all of "those people", and decided to get in bed with their enemies over "social issues." Not continuing the fight 50 years ago is why they have no strength today.
How does he write a law that can't be repealed by voters?
The reason is that here in Michigan the 1963 Constitution prohibits any law with appropriations in it from being put up for a voter referendum. This was to supposed to prevent voters from nit-picking every financial decision that the Legislature made and to "protect the full faith and credit of the State". Republicans have hijacked that loophole and consistently appropriate $50,000 for the printing of "informational brochures" or some such nonsense to bills that make them un-repealable by voter referendum. The laws can however be repealed by another session of the Legislature.
That Govenor will be going against Federal Law , He dont have the power to do this .
You forget... First thing after getting the governorship and a Republican majority in the 2019 election, Governor Snyder used his majority in the state house to ramrod through a bill that allows him to declare any town in Michigan a "financially distressed" area... This allows him to appoint anyone he chooses to be the area's "financial manager", able to rip up contracts, sell community assets for a pittance, and dissolve the lawfully-elected local government at a whim...
One financial manager sold Pontiac's sports stadium to a private citizen, who happened to be his business partner, for 1/100th its assessed worth...
He essentially made himself King of Michigan, able to dispense fiefdoms to friends at will...
This particular law was repealed by the majority of voters in the last election, but the state constitution doesn't allow the recall of the Governor... So, he will do whatever he can while Republicans still control the state house to make Michigan citizens miserable...
Sorry... That should be "election in 2010", not 2019... Typical typo spell-checker couldn't catch...
What is so unethical or amoral about unions that an anti-union law needs passing?
Anti- is to outlaw that which is unethical and amoral to the common good. Anti- isn't to outlaw that which the Republicans don't like.
What's next, anti-progressivism?
There's a difference?
Republican's/anti-union people always argue that public unions aren't needed, because the employer is the government and because we have labor laws to protect employees, yet these are the same people that trust government the least. This petty, spiteful action (because they wanted something on the ballot, that eventually didn't pass - wah, my feelings are hurt!) by the governor shows that certain administrations have no problem with screwing people over, and lower levels of government will have no problem with it either.
My question to them would be if the 'Government' is so full of awesome when it comes to watching our backs and keeping us safe from harm, why do we still need the Second Amendment?
Double post. Hopefully this governor and the other state legislators voting for this will be up for re-election soon.
After watching Chris last night talking about the "Laboratories of Democracy" I guess here we are with a new lab experiment. Of course the lab experiment of anti-union is not new and we can see the outcome by looking at wages in anti-union states. Those anti-union states are almost all Red.
I would like to find a good numbers based article that compares outcomes in education,wages, health care, crime and general livability between the Red and Blue States.
Anyone seen such a thing? I will look at some left wing think tanks I guess.
If one wants to see what happens when businesses have all the power and workers have little or none, we don't have to conduct a new experiment. Just look at the U. S. in the decades preceding the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Look at pay, benefits, working conditions, and workplace governance in the late 1800s and the first three decades of the 1900s. Not very pretty. We're going back there if Republicans get their way.
mpguy
I don't doubt that the Act had a significant impact but it was only a single factor in a very complex social/political/economic historical set of events. You are gong the same direction as I am but I was suggesting looking at multiple states with republican governance to help weed out non-political policy influences. It would still not be a direct cause and effect correlation but it could smooth out some influences I think.
I think the best judge would be to look at the poverty levels in the Red states. Look at the mass consumption of food stamps and government aid as compared to the Blue. People without the ability to stand together and neogotiate for better working conditions, soon lose benefits and pay. We can not leave it to companies to be fair, their idea of fairness is to their shareholders/owners, not to their employees. I think we have all learned that from the massive outsourcing that helped lead to our financial collapse.
In Michigan there is a law that says bills with financial appropriations are not eligible to be repealed by voter referendums.
"and that it would be written in a way that it could not be put up for repeal by voters."
This was done in an effort to avoid nightmarish referendums for every spending bill that a particular group did not like. Lately however, the sneaky legislature has been tagging legislation they do not want overturned with dubious and token spending or appropriations to skirt the possibility of voter backlash. Just another anti-democratic tactic of the current Michigan legislature.
That's the kind of thing that courts tend to strike down as obviously being schemes to circumvent the constitution.
However, Michigan elects its Supreme Court and the current crop are like the Legislature: loyal to their Party before all else.
In Illinois we have a provision in our State Constitution that prohibits the legislature from passing legislation with unrelated matters. Our courts have not been reluctant to strike down legislation that violates the provision. And the legislature had to go back and pass separate laws.
Also, I do not see how the Michigan courts can ignore the legislature's attempt to circumvent the referendum provision in the State Constitution. If a court wants to take a bold step, they could strike down the unrelated provisions while leaving the appropriations part intact. All it takes is one judge to smack the legislature for violating the Constitutional right to referendum.
This will be the worst mistake King Dick makes today. Screwing with the unions in Michigan.
What a shame these republican serfs of the rich and shameless can not remove that old right of assembly also. After all there is no law forbidding workers from getting together anytime they wish and formulating a campaign to get rid of politicians that fail to serve them. As the Koch brothers Tea Party and the grassroots OccupyWall Street protest have shown us, we do not need old school unions in order to get organized. Fact is that some unions have lost sight of their reason to exist. They have become more of a money grabbing political tool than a concerted effort to protect workers.
See you at the polls.
The problem with unions is not money grabbing for political purposes because federal law prohibits unions from forced contributions for political purposes which is why unions show a voluntary contribution as well as dues. Unions made a critical mistake when they started supporting Republicans beginning with Nixon. The unions should have figured out they were in trouble when Reagan dismantled PATCO, but the unions remained passive. Now the Republicans are strangling the unions and they have lost a lot of influence in Dem politics.
Considering the labor troubles in Wisconsin, Walmart and fast food workers, it appears Michigan Republicans have a death wish. After they get tossed from Michigan government, it will be a long time before they ever get power again. These laws that are being pushed through will be repealed eventually. And when Dems control everything, they are going to roll over the Republicans in the same fashion.
Um, "free speech zones", anyone?
Thanks gilroy. I was afraid we had all forgotten.
Write the law so that the people can't overturn it...check.
Ban the people from entering the people's Capitol building...check.
What was the original Tea Party so upset about? Oh right, taxation without representation.
Irony anyone?
Why is Michigan NOT getting the coverage in the media it needs? This lame duck session is apparently meeting this weekend and voting MORE than just anit-union. It is going to vote in again the Emergency Manager law that the people just recently voided in referendum.
Yet, even people in Michigan are unaware because the news services do not report it and even the Internet sources are silent.
This is very true. I was one of those that collected signatures to recall Snyder a couple summers ago and the effort got very little national news play. We were telling people then that Snyder was going to sign a right to work bill if it came to his desk and many did not believe us. Shame we couldn't have had more volunteers collecting then and got Snyder out of office before he could really start dismantling Michigan democracy.
There is also a vote going on right now, it just passed the Senate and is going to the house next week. The government has just decided that Health care providers could use a “moral objection” standard to refuse service to patients. They are passing Emergency manager, anti abortion, right to work bills, RIGHT NOW! And our news services are saying nothing. People dont even know. We need media coverage, the public needs to be informed.
Toni, E-mail the Papers, Radio, etc, Just by your post Many are aware of what is happening.
This is shameful that media ownership dictates what stories go out to the public. Goes against Thomas Jefferson, informed public being necessary.
Freedom of the press is not just letting a media outlet report facts in what is fairly obscure places, but strong journalism, getting to the facts and disseminating them widely.
The capitol building has locked the public out of the senate meetings this morning by the way. Dems had to file an fast lawsuit to unbar the doors of the building and get the injunction to allow the public back in. People were being pepper sprayed, arrested, and threatened with jail time if they try to re-enter the building. This truly needs media attention!
Barring the public from the building and it's meetings goes against the free meetings and information act of 1976.
Senetor Whitmer is on the floor ripping these morons a new one:
http://streamer.senate.michigan.gov/encodera-av
I should hope so... I voted for her...
This is horrifying. Democracy ignored by the intrests of the 1%. The irony is, the original tea party may have used 'taxation without representation' as the excuse but it was really about that tried and true American practice, smuggling. Namely wealthy 'merchants' like John Hancock, the wealthiest man in America at the time, could not sell his tea and other merchandise without those pesky stamps. So what to do? Create a shortage of a product in demand by getting a bunch of thugs to dump official tea and reap the profits. Imagine using the 'little people' to do the will of the wealthy without realizing what they are really doing, it's just so ... American isn't it?
I live in Florida, which is a right to work (or as we call it, a right to not work state). And our wages are much lower. And don't tell me our standard of living is lower also. We don't pay less for gas and other necessities. Our employers don't need to give a reason to fire us. We have no recourse. So, go ahead and let your government get rid of your unions.
"and that it would be written in a way that it could not be put up for repeal by voters."
There's no such thing. THEY WORK FOR US, not the other way around!!
We need media coverage at the capitol! People in Lansing aren't even seeing coverage!
What a freaking creep this guy is. Hopefully MI will vote him out in 14 and replace him with someone who will help MI rather than try to bust the unions that have done a lot of great things there. BTW, the story says "Right to work laws ban union shops." They don't ban union shops, but they do make paying union dues optional in union shops, so you can get all the benefits the union provides, but you don't contribute to the union.
they do ban union shops. by definition a union shop is where everybody pays dues, or the equivalent amount for non-members, to defer the costs of negotiating and enforcing contracts and it is deducted directly from the paycheck.
the so-called "right to work" laws ban the direct deduction from paychecks in hopes that some disgruntled union members will stop paying their dues. any non-union workers have no reason to support the union because they still get the union benefits.
of course, when the unions don't get their message out these "right to work" laws get passed and everybody (except the elite) loses. soon the unions are weak and get run over by management and all the "right to work" voters wonder where all the good jobs went.
You guys talk about the unions well look at all the right to RIGHT TO WORK STATES
Yes the Republicans has weaken the unions for the own benefit so employees has no rights, no decent wages, no benefits.
Most of the people in these stes are on medicadd and food stamps, check it out.
Something needs to be done with these Republicans taking all our righs away
Right to Work laws ban union shops
In this case that is not so. From what I understand is that part of the law would allow employees to not pay union dues in a union shop if they elected to do so. In the end that may spell the end for unions down the road in Michigan, but it will not ban them. The cost of labor is really a problem when it comes to a global economy. When products can be made on the other side of the planet for a tiny fraction of what it would cost here, there will always be a difficult balancing act between good paying jobs in this country and keeping prices down on goods Americans want. I try to buy American, but often there is no product made in the USA and if there is it is usually much higher priced than a competitive product. Yes, there is the issue of quality, but many people are looking for low cost nowadays which is evident by stores like Walmart thriving. Companies could lower their profit expectations to help compensate, but I do not think that is enough. Definitely a complex problem.
It reminds me of that line from Austin Powers with Fat Bastard in it. "I eat because I'm unhappy and I'm unhappy because I eat."
American workers go for goods that pay less (at least in part) because American workers are making less while costs are going up. Because of this stores like WalMart thrive by selling products at ludicrously low prices. The catch is that their workers get paid @!$%# and by doing so WalMart is able to contain it's biggest expenditure- employee salaries- and pass those savings on to the customer. But when the majority of businesses begin doing this, and especially when you see the erosion of local businesses in exchange for chain businesses, you create a system where the worker is getting paid less and then the only option he has is to purchase cheaper products. Costs have gone up consistently every year since the 1950's and yet average household income has only gone up by about $4,000 year. If costs go up and your income stays stagnant then you have to buy cheaper- there isn't even the option of entertaining something more expensive. And once you buy cheaper you guarantee that wages get lowered because businesses will say "well if I just produced it overseas I could sell it at this cheap price to a lower waged force" and so on. Heh instead of the Fat Bastard Cycle perhaps we should call it the Labor Bastard Cycle.
I had a friend 30 years or so ago who used to argue with me that the "Right to work" meant the right to work for less [money]. I told him that unions had priced themselves out of the labor market, and he'd live to see the day when "Right to Work" meant the right to work at all.
Thankfully, we're seeing those days now. The major job growth is taking place in right to work states, and closed-shop states (like MD) are hemorrhaging jobs that are going to right to work states.
There's no good reason for an employer to be held hostage to a union for salaries and benefits in a blanket contract that covers all employees regardless of ability and performance. Conversely, there's no good reason why ANY job should be held hostage to union membership.
The unions have outlived their usefulness, and need to go the way of the buggy whip.
Employers like to whine and moan that they're being held hostage by unions...
Unions don't hold employers as hostages because they've already reached an agreement/contract with the employer that spells out the terms of pay, benefits and working conditions. If the employer doesn't like the terms of the agreement they always have a chance to reach new terms when the current contract is up for renewal.
Look at the RTW States, Look at Red States, Look up How EASY it is for Employers to cut Wages, I ask YOU to give up Any and all Working Benefit's that You get. You don't like them, Give them up, I guarrantee you wont. Name the CEO's that Voluntarily gave up What ALL Working People enjoy Today. Paid Vacation? OT? Age Discrimination Act? Holiday Pay, FMLA? Ever had these?? Look at where WAGES are at today STAGNATE, Co profit's High as heck, Those Non Union Workers who get PREVALING Wage, I Know they like that, I'll bet You think that Union's are like they where 30-40 yrs ago., You work at Walmart??? What kind of Balance do you get with Management? Next time you are on BREAK, Call Rush Limbaugh and tell him how Bad Unions are.
California is a right to work state also and it still has union shops if the workers choose to have a union which is protected by federal labor laws. Right to work just means they have the right to fire you for no reason unless you have a union where a grievance process is usually in place where firings have to be for a just cause. The other half of the right to work element is that workers have the right to quit anytime for no given reason if they choose to do so.