6
Michigan governor signs right-to-work legislation
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation today that made Michigan the 24th right-to-work state. Right-to-work laws prohibit employees from being required to pay union dues, even if the workplace is a union shop.
Earlier today, union supporters protested outside the state capitol, as Michigan legislators passed two right-to-work bills that would cover both private and public sector employees.
Right-to-work proponents say the bills would give workers the freedom to choose whether or not to pay union dues, and would also bring new businesses and additional jobs to the state. Those opposing the legislation say right-to-work laws are designed to curtail union power by depriving unions of funding.
Lawrence Bates was at the capitol during the protests. He says he’s in favor of right-to-work.
“Freedom plus competition equals dollars or wealth," said Bates. "That's how this country got wealthy in the first place. There's no country in the world that doesn't compete that remains wealthy."
Social worker and union member Sheryl Erickson said that if workers want to opt out of paying union dues, they shouldn't expect to receive the benefits unions fight for.
“Maybe they should work for less money and not have the health care and vacation time and not have the retirement too, if they don’t want to pay to get the benefits,” said Erickson.
Today's vote in Michigan was a milestone in part because Detroit was the birthplace of the United Auto Workers in 1935. Many union supporters in the state credit the UAW for turning low-paying manufacturing work into better-paying middle class jobs.
How do right to work laws play out in other states?
Some economic studies of right-to-work states indicate that they may attract more jobs, but that wages are lower than in states with stronger unions. Charles Ballard, an economics professor at Michigan State University, says its difficult to determine whether right-to-work is the driving force behind those statistics.He says you have to factor in other variables such as cost of living, economic history and even the weather.
Ballard says that all the focus on right-to-work obscures the fact that vast majority of workers in Michigan and around the country are not union members.
“Right-to-work is a distraction,” said Ballard. “It won't hurt a tremendous amount. We may be able to get a few more low-wage jobs. But the real secret to the prosperity of the future is having a more highly educated workforce."
I believe "right to work" goes beyond this union question - it seems to give employers "right to fire" - this does lead to legal age discrimination and really dovetails with this whole Health Care question. I don't believe these issues can be looked at in isolation. Many families are being faced with this today and we want to look the other way. Follow this:
1. Companies create reasons to get rid of senior members. They disguise this all kinds of ways - but the bottom line is they get rid of these senior workers because they are more expensive then younger workers
2. Senior workers find a hard time replacing their job with an equivalent one and frequently are forced to accept a part time or entry level type position just to have employment.
3. the kind of positions they are forced to take frequently do not include health benefits
4. health benefits are frequently (or almost always tied to employment
5. We want to raise the age of medicare
6. Seniors who thought they had adequately planned for retirement suddenly find they live in a system that now requires them to pay for their own health insurance for a 5 to 10 year period at a time when their insurance is most expensive.
We used to be concerned about young folks not being insured because they couldn't afford it. Today there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of 55-65 year olds that are either going without or ruining their retirement because of the above situation. I would almost bet each of you knows someone in this situation. And it is masked in right-to-work!
Until this story I thought this was just about allowing government contracts to be available to non union groups. But this story mentions that the real beef is that non union workers will get the same benefit as the union workers. Even though I'm not very pro union, I certainly don't like the idea of non union workers receiving the same union benefits. If that's really what the situation is, I'm on the side of the unions in this discussion.
It wasn't that long ago that we proudly looked for the UNION label. But, sadly the republican politicians have decided that union workers are the enemy. They have shipped all of the union jobs they could to China and India, the ones they cant export, they are choosing to deny collective bargaining rights.
It seems to me they want to take us back to a time when workers had no rights at all, when we worked six and a half days per week for meager wages. I weep for what this country is becoming. Since you have taken away the right to organize, Why not go one step further and recreate the company towns and company stores that steal the workers earnings by claiming that they owe more than they earned. Then we, the people, will be right where they want us to be; totally beholding to the company.
It wasn't that long ago that we proudly looked for the UNION label. But, sadly the republican politicians have decided that union workers are the enemy. They have shipped all of the union jobs they could to China and India, the ones they cant export, they are choosing to deny collective bargaining rights.
It seems to me they want to take us back to a time when workers had no rights at all, when we worked six and a half days per week for meager wages. I weep for what this country is becoming. Since you have taken away the right to organize, Why not go one step further and recreate the company towns and company stores that steal the workers earnings by claiming that they owe more than they earned. Then we, the people, will be right where they want us to be; totally beholding to the company.
If we give a man a fish, we teach him to give us chips; if we teach a man to charge people for fish, we teach him to charge us for chips and to compete with us at the fish market.
We trust in profit in our pursuit of goods or services even though it is a more efficient system to receive and give without pursuing payment, and purchasing goods and services is akin to purchasing slaves if the producers and servers are forced to pursue payment.
The following are some additional reasons to abandon the profit motive to sanction the love motive:
• production and service would be void of ulterior motives and shame,
• no need for money, taxes or insurance,
• more freedom because (1) pursuing, processing and protecting money would not be needed, (2) former profiteers, money processors and money protectors could either help with production and service or take a break and (3) no need to sell our future for credit,
• less risk with existing and new enterprises,
• no squabbles over money,
• fewer shortages, interferences, injuries and deaths from unnecessary activity,
• less annoyance from beggars,
• less annoyance, manipulation, preaching, embellishment and temptation from advertisers,
• no need to purchase representation,
• more progress thru sharing our knowledge and talents,
• less fear of thieves and of losing our wealth and
• no need to accumulate and hoard money for family, disasters or retirement.
Instead of serving an economic system that forces us to pursue payment instead of do unconditional love, we need to bless everyone with the economic system that receives from and gives to a people who forsake that transgressive and imperfect system for the sake of all.
Imagine we agree to abolish money and offer our goods and services for free; would you
• contribute with your present job,
• contribute with a different job,
• contribute with a new enterprise or
• not contribute?
