Soon, The UAW Might Call A Right To Work State Home

Bertel Schmitt
by Bertel Schmitt

This is going to be interesting: Michigan lawmakers are expected to introduce right-to-work legislation today, Michigan’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder is for it, the UAW, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan is fiercely against it.

Hundreds of unionized workers converged on the state capital of Lansing today to voice (loudly) their opposition against the law. Reuters already talks about a repeat of Wisconsin where a similar law in 2011 “sparked massive protests and unsuccessful efforts to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker.”

Michigan had the fifth highest percentage of workers in the country who are union members in 2011, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Join the conversation
13 of 100 comments
  • Acuraandy Acuraandy on Dec 06, 2012

    Unions have done good things for the working class (I.e. vacation, reasonable working hours, sufficient pay, child labor abolition), and as much as I rip on organized labor, I do recognize these advancements. That said, it should be up to the employee wether or not to participate; self negotiation is a lost art that it slowly coming back. It shouldn't be condition of employment to be in a Union. This is a personal choice issue guys.

    • See 2 previous
    • Yeah_right Yeah_right on Dec 07, 2012

      @Xeranar In this we agree. Unionization, particularly of low-skilled employees, results in wages significantly higher than necessary -"necessary" meaning that the employer is forced to pay more for union employees when having an organized workforce has no positive impact on productivity (and is usually much, much worse.) No question that this is a great set-up for those lucky enought to be employed in a situation where management is forced to pay you more than your work is worth. The people who benefit from moneny and bennies legally coerced from others always fight like crazy to keep the gravy train going and are incredibly sanctimonious in defending their swindle.

  • Pgcooldad Pgcooldad on Dec 06, 2012

    I'm sure union stewards will do their "best" to represent non-paying members. 'Oh, I had only 5 days to put in a grievance for your boss favoring his dads buddy's son over you when it came time to schedule someone for OT? I thought it was 6 days. Next time it happens I'll get it in on time"

  • Geekcarlover Geekcarlover on Dec 06, 2012

    The biggest part of this story is that it's being considered at all. It's a sign of the weakening status of unions that politicians in Michigan can openly debate the virtues of going with "Right to Work". 20 years ago any politician would only have mentioned it as part of their resignation speech.

    • See 5 previous
    • Baggins Baggins on Dec 07, 2012

      @dtremit Xeranar - you might be the most blindly partisan poster on this site. Here in california, the teacher union essentially runs the state. Political adverts paid for by them dominate the airwaves. They spent TENS OF MILLIONS pushing thru yet another tax increase for california. For very Koch brother, there's a Soros. You are utterly delusional.

  • Waterview Waterview on Dec 07, 2012

    It's interesting that one of the best statements on the topic was made by "Hank" who posted the very first comment. Unions may be good or bad (not for me to determine), but why is it inherently "wrong" to give a worker the opportunity to choose whether or not he wishes to join and whether or not the worker chooses to support the union financially? If a given union's merits are compelling, one would think that workers would be glad to join and support financially. Reverse is true also. Cudos to Hank for pointing out that each individual should have the liberty to make the best choice for themselves.