Michigan legislature passes right to work bill

[strawman]

This is something that always bothered me. If you want a job in a sector subject to unions, part of your paycheck goes to the union. Don't want to pay the union? You better find another line of work.

Glad they finally got it fixed in Michigan, the 24th state to pass a right to work law, and only the second state in the last decade. Unions put a measure on the ballot this last election that would have enshrined unions in the state constition, which not only failed miserably, but seemed to precipitate anti union forces pushing for right to work. This last election also gave a republican majority in the house and senate, and in a very quick move they passed the bill in both in one day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/u...michigan-union-limits-plan.html?smid=pl-share

Lots of other reporting on this, since Michigan is often viewed as a union stronghold.

https://www.google.com/search?q=michigan+right+to+work

 

[Tress]

Union membership shouldn't be required. Ever. And if the need for a union is so small that it can't survive on voluntary membership, then good riddance.

 

[GasBandit]

Huh. Didn't expect anti-union sentiment from you, Tress, but I agree with you.

 

[blotsfan]

You know, these so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have to do with economics...What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.

So...more people would have jobs? Or the companies would be paying workers would be paying them at a rate closer to market value, or else they'd find jobs elsewhere?
Sounds like economics to me.

I don't get the issues with this (other than from union bosses). This isn't Wisconsin where they're becoming illegal. They're just making it so you can't force people to join a union.

 

[Tress]

Huh. Didn't expect anti-union sentiment from you, Tress, but I agree with you.

This is why I switched from being a Democrat to independent years ago. I may agree with the platform on many issues, but there are other times when I strongly disagree. This is one of them.

All I need is the government to ensure that people have the right to form a union if they choose. As long as that's the case, I'm happy. Forcing people to join is stupid and wrong.

 

[Krisken]

My only problem with it is this part here-

1) Right-to-work laws tend to weaken labor unions. This is one thing the left and right agree on. If unions are barred from requiring employees to pay the cost of representation, there’s a free-rider problem. Why bother sending money to my union if I’ll benefit from its bargaining efforts regardless? Pretty soon, unions are drained of funds and can’t launch as many organizing drives or wield influence.

They have to remove the requirement of unions to represent/benefit the people who don't pay dues. Want the benefits? Chip in. Until then this is nothing but a huge win for business at the expense of the workers in Michigan.

 

[Tress]

My only problem with it is this part here-


They have to remove the requirement of unions to represent/benefit the people who don't pay dues. Want the benefits? Chip in.

I agree with that part too. But to me, it's not worth forcing people to pay dues or join a union. It should be as you said: if you want the union, you choose to pay your part.

 

[Krisken]

I guess it comes down to whether you want to break the unions or fix them. I think right-to-work is meant to break them, not fix them.

 

[strawman]

Unions must be competitive and present clear value to their members.

By forcing people to join the union regardless, the unions can be essentially lazy. They don't have to prove value to the workers, and you can't choose to vote with your pocket book.

Keep in mind that the unions do NOT protect individual workers. If you are fired due to a reason the union says is invalid, you will rarely get union representation and support. They really only work to improve conditions generally, and will not fight for individual workers unless they can turn it into a media event. I've seen far too many people who lost their jobs, expected the unions to stick up for them, and were devastated to find out that the tens of thousands of dollars they contributed to the union over decades didn't give them individual security.

The whole "unions will break" thing is silly anyway. A lot of states have right to work, and they still have unions and collective bargaining, and employees still choose to join the unions - but the unions have to work harder to convince people that they are worth the money they're paying.

Unions also work hard to make sure that the wrong type of employees don't get union jobs. I can't get into details, but there are job openings that could be filled with available, capable applicants right now that the company cannot hire because the union has set rules in place that forces the employer to turn people away.

Unions have a lot of good and pretty things, but when you look at the underbelly you find the top only looks pretty because they do a lot of nasty work below the surface.

 

[blotsfan]

Well, if the unions are completley broken and it gets to the point that the workers don't have good enough pay/conditions, they can unionize again.

 

[strawman]

Well, if the unions are completley broken and it gets to the point that the workers don't have good enough pay/conditions, they can unionize again.

If it becomes a problem primarily due to right to work, then they simply need elect a legislature that will reverse the law. I wouldn't be surprised if the unions don't get democrats back into power in the next decade and do just that anyway.

 

[Krisken]

Yeah, that will be fun. I can't wait for a return to conditions of the early 1900's to force that. Guys, I'm saying it's better to fix something instead of break it and try again. I'm not saying Unions don't need a serious fixing and have lost their way. I just don't agree that right-to-work is the answer BEFORE negating free riders. It's a question of the order of things to be done, not what must be done.

 

[strawman]

Perhaps you could describe the 1900's conditions that exist in other right to work states so we can better grasp the magnitude of the problem we are unleashing.

 

[Krisken]

Perhaps you could describe the 1900's conditions that exist in other right to work states so we can better grasp the magnitude of the problem we are unleashing.

What you want a dissertation on what it was like before unions? Or perhaps the mixed results of right to work legislation and how it does bring more work but wages and benefits decrease for the average worker while increasing pay for those in charge? You don't need me to find that information for you.

 

[Chad Sexington]

What you want a dissertation on what it was like before unions? Or perhaps the mixed results of right to work legislation and how it does bring more work but wages and benefits decrease for the average worker while increasing pay for those in charge? You don't need me to find that information for you.

I believe he's suggesting these scenarios do not currently exist in right-to-work states and therefore your analogy is fallacious, so he'd like examples of current regression to the situation of the 1900s. But I might be mistaken.

 

[blotsfan]

What you want a dissertation on what it was like before unions? Or perhaps the mixed results of right to work legislation and how it does bring more work but wages and benefits decrease for the average worker while increasing pay for those in charge? You don't need me to find that information for you.

So basically, the rich are paying more money to help stop unemployment. Isn't that what the government is trying to have happen?

 

[Krisken]

I believe he's suggesting these scenarios do not currently exist in right-to-work states and therefore your analogy is fallacious, so he'd like examples of current regression to the situation of the 1900s. But I might be mistaken.

I made the mistake of combining two thoughts in one paragraph. It is a notch trying to get a decent thought out on the kindle. One set of examples was in the article I linked, so saying "give me examples" does not give me faith anyone will even bother to follow it anyways.

 

[Chad Sexington]

(snip) It is a notch trying (snip)

I'm 90% sure this word is not supposed to be 'notch' and 100% amused by that thought.

 

[Terrik]

Current list of right-to-work states:

 

[Krisken]

So basically, the rich are paying more money to help stop unemployment. Isn't that what the government is trying to have happen?

No, the rich don't care about unemployment any more than anyone else. Lower wages mean greater profits for the short term. Long term profit went out the window long ago, along with long term employment.[DOUBLEPOST=1355280104][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'm 90% sure this word is not supposed to be 'notch' and 100% amused by that thought.

Yeah, it doesn't let me swear. I'll figure out how on this thing eventually.

 

[strawman]

huge win for business at the expense of the workers in Michigan.

right-to-work is meant to break [the unions].

I can't wait for a return to conditions of the early 1900's

All I'm saying is that you seem to be going off the deep end with slippery slope, and you are not backing your statements up with any data. Since nearly half the states in the US have this law, it should be easy for you to show that this law will break the unions, and return working conditions to that of the 1900s, rather than simply opining that it will.

Slippery slope is a fun toy, but in this case there is data. The data shows that there are the following differences between RTW states and non-RTW states:

• Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
• The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
• The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

I don't see broken unions, child labor, and 90 hour work weeks on that list. However that 3% lower cost of business increases business activity in the state (something michigan sorely needs):

Northwestern University economist Thomas Holmes, now at University of Minnesota, compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.

...

A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags". According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas gained 1,615,000 new jobs. The opinion piece proposed several possible reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.

(all the above from wikipedia, consume with salt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law )

Neither of these could prove that RTW is the moving factor in this economic growth, but they do seem to agree that in general employment goes up in RTW states, even as average paycheck for typically unionized jobs goes down 3% (of which 1/2 would be going to the union anyway, so the real impact is only 1.5% to the employee)

So right now I remain unconvinced that your statements hold water, which is why I'm asking for additional data. The data I see does not show the devastating consequences you are suggesting. Keep in mind that this only affects the paychecks of blue collar jobs. When a car company moves in, only half the work force is blue collar - the white collar workers are paid as well in RTW states as non RTW states. This means that the overall economic impact might be positive, which has benefits all around.

 

[strawman]

Honestly the only thing that bothers me about right to work is that it limits the ability a business has to make a contract with a union. This is an infringement of freedom on the business. This issue is tempered by the fact that such an agreement looks an awful lot like a monopoly and/or collusion, which I believe are bad for capitalism.

It's interesting reading about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft–Hartley_Act and finding out just how far bad unions went at that time.

 

[Krisken]

Right, when you use an average across all jobs like a loss of 3.2% and then say the reduction is only for blue collar jobs, I have trouble taking that 3.2 seriously. That is a bigger difference than your data suggests.

Let's just pretend I'm just screaming bloody murder, though, and am saying this will be the death of the middle class, instead of the measured responses I actually put forth.

 

[GasBandit]

My only problem with it is this part here-

1) Right-to-work laws tend to weaken labor unions. This is one thing the left and right agree on. If unions are barred from requiring employees to pay the cost of representation, there’s a free-rider problem. Why bother sending money to my union if I’ll benefit from its bargaining efforts regardless? Pretty soon, unions are drained of funds and can’t launch as many organizing drives or wield influence.


They have to remove the requirement of unions to represent/benefit the people who don't pay dues. Want the benefits? Chip in. Until then this is nothing but a huge win for business at the expense of the workers in Michigan.

I always find it remarkable how the horrifying argument against busting unions is the same horrifying argument against socialism in general - IE, why put in if you get the benefits regardless.

 

[PatrThom]

Much like Tress and Krisken allude earlier, I believe that instead of rectifying our labor problems, all this legislation will really do is teach the Unions that they could really have cemented their position as "fighting for the common man," and "on the side of righteousness," and all that...if they had decided to buckle down, clean up, and really show us how they were capable of ensuring the success and prosperity of the Union worker as opposed to the non-Union worker (i.e., demonstrate to the workers how their Union dues actually work for them), but instead they decided to spend their money and influence backing pro-Union candidates and playing Politics, so now it's too late for that.

BTW, long-term, that's what I see as what was the real target of this legislation...it was sold to voters as pro-worker/pro-business/pro-economy (and it may indeed have those effects), but ultimately I see it as having been crafted more as a way to curtail Union revenue so as to choke off the ability of Labor to spend money to back their chosen candidate(s). At least, that's how I assume the bill was sold to other (primarily Republican) legislators, no doubt with the implication that once the law is on the books, the reduced Labor funding would mean upcoming MI elections would be "...more likely to go our way, ifyouknowwhatImeanwinknudge."

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

Interesting point - could be a way to turn michigan back into a swing state as well. The unions spend an unbelievable amount of money campaigning during election season for democrats.

 

[Eriol]

There's a heck of a lot wrong with the Canadian system of governance and campaigning, but the one thing they got right was that only individuals can contribute to political parties, and subject to a harsh limit (I think it's $1,000 per person per year). Unions, corporations, etc, all can't contribute. This is a big benefit over your system IMO.

 

[PatrThom]

There's a heck of a lot wrong with the Canadian system of governance and campaigning, but the one thing they got right was that only individuals can contribute to political parties, and subject to a harsh limit (I think it's $1,000 per person per year). Unions, corporations, etc, all can't contribute. This is a big benefit over your system IMO.

So…it's still one person/one vote, but if you want to vote early in the "premium" election, it's $1000 extra?

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

This is a big benefit over your system IMO.

Darn all our freedom of speech! If only we didn't have that pesky bill of rights that allows us to determine how to spend our money...

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Here's a helpful link about the history of "Right to work" http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/right-to-work

 

[GasBandit]

Here's a leftist diatribe blog full of invective, rage and revisionist history that refuses to brook any challenge to unions even as they strangle American commerce and pollute American politics.

FTFY

 

[Krisken]

It's like watching Sean Hannity and Lawrence Odonnell get in a fight about legitimate reporting.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I never called it legitimate reporting, I just like reading left-version of Fox News sometimes. That gets nowhere near as much play as the right wing media machine.

 

[GasBandit]

I never called it legitimate reporting, I just like reading left-version of Fox News sometimes. That gets nowhere near as much play as the right wing media machine.

Well, so long as you're up front about what it is. Me, I'll quote Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek:

"If legislation, jurisdiction, and the tolerance of executive agencies had not created privileges for the unions, the need for special legislation concerning them would probably not have arisen in common-law countries. But, once special privileges have become part of the law of the land, they can be removed only by special legislation. Though there ought to be no need for special 'right-to-work laws,' it is difficult to deny that the situation created in the United States by legislation and by the decisions of the Supreme Court may make special legislation the only practicable way of restoring the principles of freedom."

TLDR version - in a perfect world we wouldn't need right to work laws, but the way unions have become so lawfully entrenched means it's pretty much the only way to fix the mess.

 

[Krisken]

And you'll get the opposite reaction from Paul Krugman, also a Nobel Prize winning economist.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

My point being, there is no consensus on what is best for the economy, even among experts.