Michigan House passes 'right to work' for public sector workers

[sailingaway]

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20121211/NEWS04/312110042?nclick_check=1

Which is only fair. In my state you CAN'T be a teacher in public school, for example, without being a union member.


LANSING — A bill granting right-to-work for public-sector workers in Michigan is headed to Republican Gov. Rick Snyder's desk, despite Democrats' objections.

The Michigan House voted, 58-51, today to pass House Bill 4003, one of two right-to-work bills before the Legislature. Lawmakers will next take up Senate Bill 116, which would affect private-sector employees. The Senate already gave approval to both bills on Thursday.

"This is the day when Michigan freed its workers," Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons, R-Alto, said before the final vote on HB 4003.

Some Republicans joined the unanimous Democratic bloc in opposing the House bill. Both of the right-to-work bills were expected to pass because of the Republican majority in the chamber. Republicans have a 64-46 advantage over Democrats.

Immediately after the vote ion HB 4003, Democratic floor leader Kate Segal, D-Battle Creek, attempted to have the vote reconsidered during the next day of the legislative session, which would cause a procedural delay, but her request was rejected by Republican leadership. Visitors in the gallery above the House floor clamored for a few minutes in protest, while a House clerk carried the results off the floor to transmit to Snyder's office.

Once Snyder signs the legislation, the new laws will take effect April 1, 2013. Snyder's spokespeople have not returned messages seeking comment on how soon he might sign the legislation and whether he'll do so in a public or private ceremony.

When enacted, Michigan will become the 24th state with right-to-work laws, which make it illegal to require employees to pay union dues or join a union as a condition of employment. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 17 percent of Michigan’s workforce is associated with a union.

more at link

[juleswin]

I also think they should make it legal for employers to be able to make exclusive deals with union members only. This way, we can stop hearing the excuse of "non union workers will benefit from union negotiated deals". Fair is fair

[TCE]

Union membership will obviously take a slight dip because of this. Good. Demanding workers join a union and/or pay union dues or else is ridiculous. In my state, I am not even a member of the union in my industry but I am forced to pay union dues. I have no choice.

[CaptUSA]

I really hope this is a sign that the pendulum is swinging back in the favor of limiting force rather than using force to get what you want.

I, too, have concerns that the government may go too far in restricting employees' rights to unionize, but these bills do not seem to do that. I like the ability of workers to collectively bargain, but union power has gotten way out of control.

I predict lawsuits and injunctions. Maybe recalls. But if the law is allowed to stand, Michigan will be in much better place economically.

[sailingaway]

I also think they should make it legal for employers to be able to make exclusive deals with union members only. This way, we can stop hearing the excuse of "non union workers will benefit from union negotiated deals". Fair is fair

No, because unions have their current monopoly to force such agreements due only to government coercion. Downline, maybe. It is sort of like Jim Crow laws, you have to reverse the state forced discrimination before the market can work properly.

[itshappening]

Union membership will obviously take a slight dip because of this. Good. Demanding workers join a union and/or pay union dues or else is ridiculous. In my state, I am not even a member of the union in my industry but I am forced to pay union dues. I have no choice.

how much do they shake you down for?

[TCE]

how much do they shake you down for?

It's a little over 3% of my gross earnings. However, combining the union dues and taxes, the government mugs me for over 25% of every paycheck and my yearly salary puts me below poverty level.

[juleswin]

No, because unions have their current monopoly to force such agreements due only to government coercion. Downline, maybe. It is sort of like Jim Crow laws, you have to reverse the state forced discrimination before the market can work properly.

But isn't implementing right to work already breaking the union monopoly? Because leaving it the way it is right now, a union can negotiating with management for better pay and benefits and a non union, non due paying worker can take advantage of their efforts for free. Sorry mate, but that is not fair

[sailingaway]

But isn't implementing right to work already breaking the union monopoly? Because leaving it the way it is right now, a union can negotiating with management for better pay and benefits and a non union, non due paying worker can take advantage of their efforts for free. Sorry mate, but that is not fair

No, because the state had by force created a situation where the entire employee base was unionized and under union sway for requiring a closed shop from the employer or to strike. Without that force, the situation may not have existed. Give it a while and see if it stays that way, when people are allowed to choose. They have power to force those deals now only because the state forced a closed shop.

And they may not want those benefits 'for free' but think they just create fewer jobs and entrenchment of the worst elements. Why should they be forced into that? You are assuming it is all benefit and no downside.

they may look at the union situation in Michigan where automobile manufacturing left trained workers to go to the south where they have still good jobs, but not as high paid. That might sound good to them, right now, in Michigan.

[dinosaur]

Since teachers are paid by tax dollars, forced union membership has also been a great way for Democrats to funnel tax dollars into the Democratic machine. I believe that teachers have had the right to ask the union not to use their dues for political activism, but I doubt that it has any effect on the bottom line when they do.