Conservatives won an enormous victory in Michigan last week. The state just passed a right-to-work law that makes union dues voluntary.
Starting next year, union contracts cannot require employers to fire employees who do not pay union dues. The state that gave birth to the United Auto Workers union has becomeAmerica’s 24th right-to-work state.
Unions are furious and vowing to overturn the legislation via an initiative. However, it is hard to see this drive succeeding. Unions already put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent the legislature from ever passing a right-to-work bill. Michiganders voted it down by a 15-point margin. That is not surprising: Polling shows that a majority of Michiganders support right-to-work. So do 40 percent of union households.
This is great news forMichigan’s unionized workers and unemployed.
Unions can no longer take Michiganemployees’ support for granted. Workers now have a choice about paying for their services. This will force unions to become more attentive to their members’ concerns. Union dues typically run between $600 and $900 a year. By an almost two-to-one margin, union members say they do not get enough value for their money. Workers who do not feel they are getting their money’s worth do not have to pay. This forces unions to provide effective representation at a reasonable cost to earn their dues.
Right-to-work also discourages unions from wasting their members’ dues on projects that union bosses care about but rank-and-file workers do not. For example, Michigan unions have lobbied heavily against expanding charter schools and in favor of tax increases, but many union members have different views, especially those who send their children to charter schools.
Right-to-work will also boost investment and jobs in the state. Most companies would prefer not to be unionized. Anyone looking at what happened to Hostess can understand why. As the saying goes, “management gets the union it deserves.” Employers want to know that if they treat their employees well, they will stay non-union.
Right-to-work makes that much more likely. With a right-to-work law, unions know that they cannot force employees who are happy with their jobs to pay union dues. As a result, union organizers become much less aggressive, primarily restricting their attention to workplaces where employees feel mistreated. And that makes a state much more attractive for businesses.
When foreign auto manufacturers came to America, they deliberately chose to locate in right-to-work states. They are not alone. Manufacturing employment is one-third higher in right-to-work states than in states without right-to-work laws. (Unions object that wages are lower, but that is because most right-to-work states have lower costs of living—adjust for that and the apparent disadvantage goes away.)
Right-to-work increases job opportunities for the unemployed and expands workers’ choices about how they spend their money. And that makes last week’s events a beautiful thing.
I don't get how this isn't a freeloader issue, though. With the unheard-of exception of an employer voluntarily recognizing a minority union (and assuming very old precedent would be invoked), this means that workers can receive the benefits of collective bargaining without payment. In other words, it pretty much defeats the idea of unions as "workplace democracy", since if a bargaining unit wins 51% they have to cover everyone. They are bound by law not to discriminate against non-union members in handling complaints or providing representation, and yet those beneficiaries can opt out? It would be the equivalent of being able to opt out of paying taxes if your party wins or loses, while still collecting any and all benefits of taxation.
Also, as you are aware, even in Non-RTW states, you are not forced to join a union or even pay full union dues, but instead must pay a "representation fee" that covers the cost of bargaining, hearing grievances, paying stewards and those things alone. By law, normal union dues cannot go to political campaigns, only additional voluntary contributions may be spent on those and its been 53 years since Landrum-Griffin required Unions to disclose their spending reports.
As far as I can tell, you are pretending the "rational actor" theory doesn't apply (people will pay dues), and that the prisoner's dilemma outcome a rational actor model would predict… also won't happen. I happen to disagree, which is why I find right-to-work to be a rather interesting victory of semantics over meaning, but only because articles like this one abound without explaining what the law actually requires unions to do.
Might want to ask the home care givers who were unionized without their knowledge or consent by Jenifer Granholm pro union gov. Yes moms and dads that were caring for their own children at home suddenly had union dues deducted from their state assistance checks because Granholm and the unions wanted more dues for the unions.
When honest hard working taxpayers show up to rally together and tell the bureaucrats to stop overspending and then clean everything up before going home they are called racists and violent.
When the union thugs tear down tents with people still inside and destroy property by kicking it and punching reporters in the face repeatedly while other union members shout f#$k you they are called a little heated.
No matter how you spin it the unions are bullies and having been a union member I know this for a fact.
Lansing…. Tea Party 1…… Unions/Democrats 0. This is a start on the way back to free enterprise and a balanced budget. Oh I almost forgot…. the liberal news media ( propaganda machine ) seems to forget that we have not had a budget for the last 4 years. The house has passed several but harry reed refused to vote on the bills. Since when do you keep your job when you refuse to do it.
The only freeloaders are the unions and the democrats and they are bankrupting our great country in the process.
I have found this stand on " Right to Work " to prevent Union's from representing all the workers allowing no-union to be free from dues Quite similar to Immigrants coming to America. The too don't want to pay their due and become American. It seems we have Asian Americans,African Americans, Greek Americans holding on to their Nationality but claiming all the right N benefits fought and died for by Americans.I see the needs of both the "right to work groups" N "right to live here". Yet indirectly and Directly they benefit from all the hard work N negotiations Unions have won for them as well as the sacrifices our military fought N died for. It seems we have too many feeling "entitled" without contributing or earning their "rights".