AP photo
Governor Snyder's signing pen can also veto.
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is meeting this morning with the state's Democratic congressional caucus, as the Democrats try to head off Republicans' seemingly unstoppable push to pass anti-union legislation in the state this week. From the Detroit News:
When asked what he hoped the meeting would accomplish, [Congressman John] Conyers smiled, threw up his hands in a "who knows" gesture and hurried into the meeting.
The Detroit News says Governor Snyder will also have a chat with President Obama on the tarmac in Detroit today. Obama has come out against the anti-union bill.
Before Governor Snyder announced his new support for a so-called Right to Work law last week, the idea of banning union shops was just a gleam in Republican lawmakers' eyes. Now Snyder has joined in calling Right to Work a matter of basic freedom for workers -- though, interestingly, the legislation exempts police and firefighters unions. Republicans say they're fine with leaving those unions strong (and presumably those workers with less freedom) because they're not as active on behalf of Democrats as other unions.
As he has argued for the law he used to insist Michigan did not need, Governor Snyder says the "issue is on the table whether I want it to be there or not." It is true that as Michigan governors go, Snyder has vetoed relatively little legislation. On the other hand, Snyder has shown himself willing to stand in the way of legislation he does not like, even when the bills reflect cherished agenda items for his party. In June, Snyder quietly disappeared a restriction on abortion rights. He also stood up for creating an insurance exchange in his state to comply with health reform. The next month, he vetoed a package of bills designed to make it harder to vote and to register voters, preventing Republicans in Michigan from getting those in place before the 2012 election.
Whether Michigan Democrats and labor activists can remind Governor Snyder that he does have the power of the veto -- and that he will own the Right to Work bill that now threatens to divide the state -- is today's big open question.
UPDATE on the Snyder's meeting with the congressional delegation, from the Detroit News:
"The governor said he would strongly consider our request," Carl Levin said. "We sincerely hope he takes it to heart."
Levin explained that by law no one is required to join a union, but it's an issue of fairness for nonunion members to pay for the benefits that unions negotiate on their behalf.
"Unions must represent everyone in a work place, whether they are members or not," Levin said. "The question is: Does everyone pay their fair share whether or not they are a member of a union?"
Governor Snyder considers the meeting private, so we don't have his side of it yet.
Leave a Comment:
Is there any doubt that Snyder won't veto this?
I have no doubt.
This evil @$$clown's not a Republican for nothin'!!!
Unfortunately, after the failed effort to recall Walker, this was almost inevitable. It was shown that there would almost certainly be no political fallout form the move, you get to break teacher's unions once and for all and what votes do you really lose that aren't counterbalanced by weakening the political machine of your opposition?
Similar governors of somewhat similar states (Blue-leaning nationally, but very much Red locally) following the same steps to enacting similar legislation. Namely, saying they aren't going to pursue something and then, curiously, making it the very first thing they do after an election, with no chance to oppose, much less debate the bill. It was clearly a move scripted far in advance, as there were ads all over TV for the "Freedom to Work" initiative the same day the story broke run by the "Freedom for Michigan" PAC.
This is the danger of electing what I call "Reasonable Republicans". They are, after all, still Republicans.
The other part of this law, that I've heard about, should REALLY send Michigan voters over the edge.
In Ohio, you had the situation where the voters of the state could override the law. From what I've read, the Republicans are writing a provision into the law that prevents the voters from being able to do this.
Talk about taxation without representation.
What's next? The state taking over local communities and throwing out the elected officials and running the community themselves? Oops. They've already done that.
The Michigan Constitution makes it so bills with appropriations cannot be subject to repeal. This was written with the intent that it was for fiscal related bills. Republicans have been using this exemption to pass many unpopular laws and making them repeal proof. The RTW bill from what I've read will have an appropriation of $1 million dollars, probably for 'informational' purposes.
The $1 million appropriations part of the bill is for "administrative" purposes, whether they actually do any "administration" and use the funds, appears to be irrelevant.
my wife belongs to the uaw, at their union meeting last month the international rep that was there told my wife to shut up and sit down, she told him he needed to shut up listen to them, it will be nice that very soon she will be able to fire him, the unions do not care about the members, they only care about the money that the members pay, they are criminals that use violence and intimidation to keep the members and others in line, i am sure she will love giving this p.o.s. his pink slip
Note to the editor: RTW doesn't ban union shops. Union shops (and closed shops) have been illegal nationwide since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.
RTW bans agency shops. In other words it requires unions to grieve for and defend non-payers, while those non-payers do not have to compensate the union for the expense. That's how it destroys unions.
A recent article (11:50am) in the Detroit Free Press states:
"A couple of hours after meeting with the [Democat party] delegation, Snyder signaled his continuing support of the right-to-work bills when he tweeted, 'Freedom to work is all about creating more and better jobs in Michigan.'"
Michigan's unemployment rate went up recently, even though business taxes have pretty much been eliminated, taxes on sr. citizens have been raised, education spending has been slashed, and revenue sharing with cities has been severely contracted. Where's the jobs Governor?
Snyder is either extremely ignorant or he's ignoring more than half of the voters in Michigan. Probably a combination of both. He's no "tough nerd" as he persistently said throughout his 2010 campaign. He's just another truth-challenged republican seeking vengeance. We'll see how it all rolls out in 2014 when a large number of these folks are up for re-election.
Post from my son: The state police at the capitol today appear to have a new addition to their crowd control tool belt. Looks like a 3 foot long billy club and about half of them have one attached to their belts. Also, found out this morning that they are closing off the streets around the capitol tomorrow, including the streets with the parking garages on them. So not only are they keeping people's voices out of the building they are trying to keep them out of town as well! Last week I was somewhat ok with the police presence here because at the very minimum this is a very historic building and it needs to stay free from wear and tear which large crowds can often cause, but now I am feeling a little more like a criminal while I am doing my job because I oppose this legislation that they are forcing through. These police are even telling me which set of stairs I can and can't use while giving me the evil eye as I walk through the halls.
They are really UP on how to deter free speech now a days , especially if it is a gop in office , I have not seen a FREE SPEECH ZONE in some time now
You can bet the cops have the tow trucks ready to go , since they have limited parking now , so they can also impound every ones cars , WE THE PEOPLE need to take back our democracy , THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE & FREE SPEECH is in The Constitution , while the word CAPITALISM is not
This Smells of the Koch brothers and Haley Barbour. Fascists just refuse to go away. Imagine if "outsiders" acted like Barbour is and meddled in Mississippi's affairs how fast states' rights would pop up in the conversation.
Trying to send a openly coded message:
The Constitution is valid until it is invalid. By definition a constitution cannot be self-eliminating, so a fundamental challenge by the Supreme Court would only refer back to the amendment process. Since as stated in the Constitution the Senate makes its own rules, then it must have been designed by a class of men called 'honorable'. We can then come to know, once again, that having a long lived series of honorable men is not as reliable as it might have once seemed. A recent retired Justice said that the Constitution would mean little if it were not based on 'trust'. So should seem to some contemporary to this age that 'trust' has been lost by some combination circumstances, that also should be clearly identified so that they can be addressed squarely. Why the public should be concerned that the elements of the Constitution can be turned one against the next to create uncertainty, and then to take advantage of the created uncertainty to obtain a gain of some type. The forces of evil would be certain to undermine that 'trust' and have worked diligently to ruin a nation of … we 'trust'.
Even the earliest versions of the Constitution have had a storied history of needing hastily created amendments, the tenth amendment in particular has in modern interpretations been taken to mean that individual States Executive Power can be enhanced while the history of technical progress has so interconnected the commerce and economy that it is obvious that it would be more efficient and less of drag on the economy to implement federal regulation. It is true the interconnected commerce, transportation, travel and communications have enabled the private sector to build corporations spread nationwide and globally.
This commercial success once applied to wring maximum profits then, bring upon itself the expectation of the same or similar profit from some future investment scheme. It is clear enough that the first attempt at national integration of business would come at the cost of requests for federal level legal enablements. Those same federal enablements would become an impediment when the nationalized facilities where located across the country, and all the states were to consider state regulations. Thus to continue to profit those same corporations would cease needing federal help, and resort to laws from fifty state houses, to further the profit line of some interminable scheme. The states could reduce regulations, lower wages, eliminate benefit and work assiduously against the lowly wage workers ability to bargain for better conditions.
So what does this bring, except so called State competition to keep profits high? As will be the case, as soon an all the locations of all the business will have reduced wages, and profits at maximum. But after all that can be wrung out the federal and states, then it is only the local regulations that become the next obstacle. Below that would regulations conditions and a product that is failing, and then, as if you didn't know the business with inflated books is sold to your grandfather pension fund. Those pension funds would become the subject of failure and again become a ward of the federal government. Who then is the proper recipient of the blame for this hellish predicament?
Of course I wish I didn't have to remind all that the technological miracles when applied against the simpleminded concept of honorable men have consequences. Those technical innovations have enabled so called business interest to form lobbying groups, who attack federal, state and local regulations. When the rules of the Senate that have been subverted to the purpose of a huge encircling scheme to make profit without honest business risk, invest and developed interests then it is time to consider the Constitution invalid, waiting not one minute longer, for the branches of government to conclude that it is unconstitutional to represent the people within the nation.
Many a legal scholar has pointed out that the Constitution only grants protection to individuals and through many legal cases does not grant those rights to groups, unions, political parties, or moneyed revolutionaries. Apparently the right to assembly means only to stand peaceably until you drop dead. Yet the Courts constantly find ways to support assembled groups as such as corporations, purchased charity groups, lobbyist and so called civic groups to be oddly dedicated to only themselves, and the neglect the very individual mentioned so often as the sole beneficiary of the Constructions protections.
The wolves in the forest are not groups of citizens seeking protection from the Constitution that they own, but are the very threat that is seeking group protection from a system that was not designed that in that way at all. The modern corruption that the Constitution has become would have supported King George III, over the patriots, patriots so naïve in law that the infamous words "We the People …" are not parts of that Constitution. The rules of the Senate have become the extra Constitutional exception that could be jiggered to eliminate a Constitution that could otherwise not eliminate itself.
If a new revolution needs to started then lite the fire here: Resolved there shall be no group that is formed or funded any corporations, wealthy individual or purposed civic organization that cannot be recognized to represent individual petitioners citizens that can lobby Congress persons. Any Congress person to accept support from any group will be removed from Congress and cannot be replaced until the next biannual or hex annual election, those citizens who elected that Congress person will be without representation, until that election. A second offense punished by permanent imprisonment and the loss of all assets, current of in the future.
the legislation exempts police and firefighters unions. Republicans say they're fine with leaving those unions strong (and presumably those workers with less freedom) because they're not as active on behalf of Democrats as other unions.
So they are only against supposed DEMOCRATIC PARTY unions ? I would say they just exposed themselves as biased political hacks , and passing legislation that reflects just that , I would think there would be a way to expose these people over this in the next election ...
Can you imagine a dem in office saying they are exempting dems from the legislation they are passing , because they just want hurt gop voters real bad ?
This is what pass's as GOVERNING for conservatives ? they are hate filled and dysfunctional
I'm for Making Michigan a Right to Join a Union State. My company of 23 years does not have a union, and I wish to join a union and have a union represent me as an individual, in wage, benefit and workplace safety negotiations. If the argument passes that a worker should have the right not to join a union even though the union was certifed at his/her place of employment, then it follows, naturally, that a worker should have the right to join a union even if one was not elected for his/her place of employment.
so let them break the teachers union. Then they have no teachers. The police and fire persons not included. Lets see what happens when they go for a raise and the people vote against them Let them go on strike. Let the Republicians take care of it. Godfibid a fire or Police person is killed don't expect any donations from your citizens. They will remember you with your clubs and pepper spray. They will remember they prevent you the right to protest... Ummm is this is why we in two wars to give people rights? But at home we are getting police states. People do don't go to these states on vacation. Find another state that has human rights
2014 IS COMING UP , they are shooting their self in the foot as Republicans do , also 2016 will be coming up and people that get hurt by Republicans tend not to forget it .
This all fits into the current repub/libertarian mindset. All money belongs to the rich, and the rest of the society is left to fend for themselves. Of course, they never see the logical end of their "philosophy". They want to destroy anything they consider "socialist". In otehr words, get rid of "socialist" trappings such as taxpayer-supported education---kids go to private school if their parents can afford it, or go to religious schools supported by state money. We need to get the taxpayer out of other "socialist" organizations like the police and fire departments. Why should the rich pay taxes to support groups that mostly deal with the poor? Let police and fire protection be on a subscription basis. If you don't pay for police protection, 911 won't take care of you. If your house catches fire, the fire department won't even respond if you haven't paid your subscription. By such methods, anyone less than affluent will be subject to the harsh rules of social darwinism. The poor will be the cheap labor needed for various functions that enrich the rich or make their lives more comfortable. They will lead short, brutal lives and die in middle age, much like Victorian England. We all remember those joyful days...workhouses, rampant disease and poverty, Jack the Ripper. Yep, that's the society the good ol' USA needs!
Tricky Rick is pulling more shenanigans. WDIV.com reports he is closing the roads in and around the capital tomorrow.
Its pretty plain to see where this right-wing GOV. is going with this .
# 1 .... Make it a right to work law State .
# 2 ....kill the Union that works for the State .
#3 .... A Scott Walker only in another state .
# 4 .... Take away all retirement for civil services workers , cut their pay , cut their ability to negotiates for contracts , Give the money they save to the billionaires in the form of state taxes and raise taxes on the working tax payer .
# 5 .... I know i missed some thing maybe some one can fill in the blanks .
A new America is raising , before your very eye's , I hope by 2016 the Republican party has cut off their own head .
The only way to kill a snake is to cut off the head . When they cut their own head off
" PRICELESS "