SmashMouth

The Michigan Legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to contentious "right-to-work" legislation, in the face of raucous protests in the capital and stern warnings from Democratic lawmakers.
"There will be blood, there will be repercussions," State Democratic Rep. Douglas Geiss, speaking on the House floor on Tuesday, warned ahead of the votes.
The final votes on the House side Tuesday deliver a blow to the labor movement in the heart of the U.S. auto industry. The measures ban unions from demanding dues from workers.



One bill dealt with public sector workers, the other with government employees. Both measures cleared the Senate last week, and were signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder on Tuesday afternoon.
Coinciding with the votes were massive and noisy protests both inside and outside the Capitol from pro-union demonstrators. Thousands descended upon downtown Lansing to rally against the legislation that prohibits requiring nonunion employees to financially support unions at their workplace.
Earlier in the day, two state school districts closed after hundreds of teachers called out, presumably to join the protests.
FoxNews.com confirmed that the Warren school district had to close Tuesday after so many teachers called out absent; WDIV in Detroit reported that the Taylor school district had to do the same. A statement from the Warren system said that by 8 a.m. local time, 750 staff members had called out.
"Our decision to close school was based solely on student safety given the number of staff who called in absent today," the school district said in a statement.
Snyder, in an interview with Fox News, said it was "unfortunate" that teachers called out.
"Too often the educational system's all about the adults," he said. "To see schools shutting down because of an issue like this is not appropriate in my view."
Snyder, a Republican who is expected to sign the "right-to-work" legislation, defended his position.
"This is about giving workers the freedom to choose whether their resources go to a union or not -- and I actually don't view this as anti-union," he said. "Indiana's had a strong experience. ... They've seen thousands of jobs come to Indiana. Those jobs could also come to Michigan."
Several high-profile Democrats, though, have gotten involved, with Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin and House Democrats meeting with Snyder on Monday and urging him to veto the bill.
President Obama also weighed in Monday, using a speech near Detroit to call out local Republicans.
"These so-called 'right-to-work' laws, they don't have anything to do with economics. They have everything to do with politics," Obama said. "What they're really talking about is they're giving you the right to work for less money."
The surprise move by Michigan Republicans last Thursday to approve the anti-union bills touched off a firestorm in the home of the U.S. auto industry. Following high-profile fights over union privileges in Wisconsin and Indiana, Michigan in an instant became the latest battleground in that struggle.
Though Republicans control the capital and had the votes all along to send the bill to Snyder's desk, opponents are planning to mount a legal challenge. Given the rapid manner with which the bills moved and the fact some demonstrators were kept out of the chambers, Democrats say they'll challenge under open-meetings laws.
The Detroit Free Press also reports that Democrats could try and challenge a provision that exempts police and firefighters.
However, any attempt to bring the proposal to referendum is complicated by the fact that the bill contained an appropriation -- and under Michigan law, appropriations bills cannot be challenged by popular vote.
In order to bring the "right-to-work" bill to referendum, supporters would have to first prove the appropriation to be somehow invalid or inappropriate.
Opponents could also launch recall campaigns against targeted Republicans in retaliation, as they did in Wisconsin following a vote that cracked down on collective bargaining.


Read more: Michigan approves right-to-work legislation amid intense protests | Fox News

SloMotion

Living in Michigan, a few things bothered me about this, and not necessarily the legislation.

#1: Right-to-Work (for less) was previously put on the ballot, MI voters voted it down.

#2: This legislation was rammed through at the last minute in a lame-duck session with an appropriation disallowing MI voters a future vote on the legislation. Why is there a need for that if it's such a popular issue among Michigan voters?

#3: If less than 20% of the state's voters are covered under a union, why is this legislation so important? There's an ulterior motive & it isn't the welfare of the Michigan worker.

#4: Why is it necessary to pass seperate bills for both government unions and private unions. I generally disagree with the concept of government unions as they do tend to bleed the taxpayers, but private unions are run/organized the same as any private corporation. They collectively bargain better salaries & benefits for all employees of a company, why shouldn't they be allowed to collect 1 hour of 1 week's pay (average union dues formula) as dues?

#5: If an employee chooses to not to be a member of a union, do they still reap the benefits of collective bargaining or will a new tier-system-of-wages be established similiar to what is currently going on in the Big Three? I don't begrudge a person their vote, but I do ask they be accountable for it. If you choose not to be in the union, then don't expect the same contract or protections as those who do. When left unchecked, management has no problem cutting salary, benefits and violating OSHA/Dept of Labor regulations. If these workers who choose not to pay dues in a union shop still reap the benefits of collective bargaining, that is wrong.

#6: I hate being on the same side of any issue as Jessie Jackson/John Conyers. Yes, they're both black, sue me for disagreeing with them the other 99.9% of the time.

#7: Gov. Snyder (R) took a page out of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid handbook in ramming this legislation through. I don't trust this guy any more than I would any other politician. Michigan has typically been a state where Republicans & Democrats work well together. Gov. Snyder (R) is much like Pres. Obama (D) in that he talks a good game of bipartisanship, but in the end, he's the great divider.

There was no need for this legislation other than to further depress the wages of the average MI worker and make Michigan a more attractive place for businesses to relocate.

I don't like the way this was put through. It's shady and smacks of a politician hell-bent on pursuing his agenda regardless of how his constituents feel.

This is what it's become. These politicians don't give a damn about what you think. They're gonna' do what's best for corporate America and the rest of us be damned. Bet.

... this space intentionally left blank ...

Danno

Anything that knocks unions down a notch or two is OK with me, regardless of how insignificant.

SloMotion

I understand, Alabama has always been right-to-work. Michigan has never trailed Alabama in the areas of employment, wages or standard-of-living. This is because of unions and their influence. I don't want my state to be 'Alabama'.

Danno

You'll reverse that stance in 5 years as more and more industry relocate and start in Alabama.

How about Texas? Its a right to work state? Do you denegrate them as well.

BTW: I'm hoping like hell Alabama doesn't become Michigan probably more than you don't want Michigan to become Alabama.


Other right to work states...

Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming

SmashMouth

I was just in Alabama for a project the past three days.... In Huntsville... It was nice by the mountains.

SloMotion

I know which states are right to work, what's your point? I won't be reversing my stance five years from now because the whole point of Michigan becoming right-to-work is to lure back businesses that have left by making Michigan's wage scale similiar to that of Alabama. I hope right-to-work works out as well for Michigan as it does for Texas. But I think maybe Texas has Big Oil, which helps, and if it weren't for that they wouldn't do so well under RTW laws. I'm not sure.

You'll notice I compared Michigan to Alabama only in the areas of wages, employment and standard-of-living and I did this because you're in Spanish Fort & I'm in Detroit, it seemed logical compare your area of experience with mine. It's also well documented that right-to-work states tend fair more poorly in these areas than unionized states. Perhaps it was a poor analogy, I didn't mean to denegrate any state, just draw a parallel. I've been to Alabama, it's a beautiful state, much like Michigan.

Or perhaps it was out of frustration of seeing you guys complain that you can't find anyone to intelligently debate the issues, and me, being the consumate middle-of-the-roader-who-hates-both-sides-equally, taking the time & effort to present a coherent argument and the best you can do is, "Anything that knocks unions down a notch or two is OK with me, regardless of how insignificant". No comment on how the legislation was rammed through (by a Republican, no less), similiar to how Obama-care was crammed down our throats, no insight or opinion from Alabama's experience as a right-to-work state or as an employer or anything ... nope, just "Anything that knocks unions down a notch or two is OK with me, regardless of how insignificant".

That's what I get for my efforts around here, that and a stupid, race-baiting, finger-pointing, angry monkey from Quahog with a VIP card to the Drunkin' Clam. I hope you can appreciate where I'm coming from.

Never participated in a Poli-Sci forum before. I'm officially of the opinion it's a waste of time.

Out.

... this space intentionally left blank ...

Crusader

Well said my friend.


On the topic, everytim you have legislation pushed through like that it seems fishy to me. It makes me suspect an ulterior motive and like you says its probably not the well being of the workers. IMHO it won't do your country any good to be competing between the states for different business to relocate, you would fair much better finding ways to get business back that has moved overseas.