Unions prepare for protests, legal challenges over 'right-to-work' push

**djones520** · 12-10-2012, 08:01 AM

Union members and supporters are gearing up for a massive protest Tuesday in Michigan's capital in a last-ditch effort to stall the expected passage of "right-to-work" legislation, as they already make plans to challenge the proposal in court.

The surprise move by Michigan Republicans this past 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.

The state legislature returns to Lansing on Tuesday, when Republicans are planning to cast the final votes on the union package and send it to Gov. Rick Snyder's desk. Snyder, a Republican, has said he would sign the bill, which prohibits unions from demanding dues from workers.

If this happens, Michigan would become the 24th "right-to-work" state in the nation -- and American unions would suffer a stinging defeat in the cradle of the labor movement. Union bosses made clear they won't go down without a fight.

"It's an attack on working families, and we're gonna be there. We're not gonna stand for it," Bernie Ricke, president of the United Auto Workers Local 600, said, according to MyFoxDetroit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

How is it an attack on families? All it is doing is giving workers a choice. Your not taking a thing away from them.

Unions have gotta be feeling the sting though. 66% of Michigan voters said no to collective bargaining rights last month, and now this?

**Artois** · 12-10-2012, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by djones520

How is it an attack on families? All it is doing is giving workers a choice. Your not taking a thing away from them.

It's a bit complicated, but there are some dramatic secondary affects from that type of legislation. I'll shoot you a pm later today or tomorrow if you really want to hear the other perspective.

**djones520** · 12-10-2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Artois

It's a bit complicated, but there are some dramatic secondary affects from that type of legislation. I'll shoot you a pm later today or tomorrow if you really want to hear the other perspective.

Share it with the public.

**Unreconstructed Reb** · 12-10-2012, 02:01 PM

Unions are nothing but labour cartels and while they may benefit a small group of certain workers they are bad for the overall economy.

Anybody that argues that this whole 'collective' thing, including it's generational class warfare, isn't a communist standard is simply in denial.

**noonwitch** · 12-11-2012, 11:21 AM

I work at a "closed shop". If you work here and don't want to be in the union, you still have to pay a service fee. The fee is substantially lower than dues, but the union will then still represent you if you need them in disciplinary situations.

I'm not going to quit my union. I think the problem for the union will be with new hires, who will choose not to join the union when they are hired, especially if the union is still required to represent them and the law does away with the service fee provision. If someone chooses not to join or to leave the union, the union should be absolved of any repsonsibility to represent that person in grievances, disciplinary situations or any other workplace issue.

When Snyder campaigned for Governor, he did not support right to work legislation and now he does. Whatever. He will be a one term governor over this.

**marv** · 12-11-2012, 12:21 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2240871.html

(snip)

Cargo ships were stacking up at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as a strike by about about 70 clerical workers shut down most of the terminals that together are the nation's busiest port complex. (20,000) Dockworkers were refusing to cross the picket lines even though an arbitrator ruled the walkout invalid on Tuesday.

(snip)

[The] strike is costing the U.S. economy nearly $1 billion every day, as cargo ships still idle offshore or are rerouted to other ports, including one in Mexico.

(snip)

My thoughts on unions...

1. Right-to-work should be nation-wide,
2. The Clayton Act of 1914 (exempting unions from anti-monopoly laws) should be repealed.

**djones520** · 12-11-2012, 12:51 PM

I don't think this will sink him Noonie. The unions haven't exactly been making friends for themselves of late. 66% of us voted against collective bargaining last month. The recent snafu with Chrysler isn't helping their public image either. In the grand scheme of things this won't have much impact. 17% of the workforce of Michigan is unionized. There will probably be a small drop of that number with this passage, but overall little should change. The Unions are just bitching because their afraid that they'll have to start being accountable now.

**noonwitch** · 12-11-2012, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by djones520

I don't think this will sink him Noonie. The unions haven't exactly been making friends for themselves of late. 66% of us voted against collective bargaining last month. The recent snafu with Chrysler isn't helping their public image either. In the grand scheme of things this won't have much impact. 17% of the workforce of Michigan is unionized. There will probably be a small drop of that number with this passage, but overall little should change. The Unions are just bitching because their afraid that they'll have to start being accountable now.

Collective bargaining always gets shot down by the voters. This isn't the first time.

I always have had some mixed feelings about my union, but I do want them around. I just don't think that my union (as I am a government employee) should be allowed to donate to political campaigns. They'd be a lot more honest if that were the case.

Private sector unions are a different matter.

**Unreconstructed Reb** · 12-11-2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by djones520

I don't think this will sink him Noonie. The unions haven't exactly been making friends for themselves of late. 66% of us voted against collective bargaining last month. The recent snafu with Chrysler isn't helping their public image either. In the grand scheme of things this won't have much impact. 17% of the workforce of Michigan is unionized. There will probably be a small drop of that number with this passage, but overall little should change. The Unions are just bitching because their afraid that they'll have to start being accountable now.

Union thuggery doesn't help your image, either. I suspect that your image will be further tarnished once the union thugs go full retard at these Michigan protests.

**Odysseus** · 12-11-2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by noonwitch

I work at a "closed shop". If you work here and don't want to be in the union, you still have to pay a service fee. The fee is substantially lower than dues, but the union will then still represent you if you need them in disciplinary situations.

I'm not going to quit my union. I think the problem for the union will be with new hires, who will choose not to join the union when they are hired, especially if the union is still required to represent them and the law does away with the service fee provision. If someone chooses not to join or to leave the union, the union should be absolved of any repsonsibility to represent that person in grievances, disciplinary situations or any other workplace issue.

I'd go farther, and say that the union cannot represent one employee against another in a grievance, disciplinary situation or other workplace issue, especially if the other is not a union member.

Originally Posted by noonwitch

When Snyder campaigned for Governor, he did not support right to work legislation and now he does. Whatever. He will be a one term governor over this.

Maybe not. Unions have lost a tremendous amount of public support, especially public employee unions.

Originally Posted by marv

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2240871.html

My thoughts on unions...

1. Right-to-work should be nation-wide,
2. The Clayton Act of 1914 (exempting unions from anti-monopoly laws) should be repealed.

Agreed. Prior to the Clayton Act, the majority of actions under the Sherman Act were against unions which were acting in illegal restraint of trade.

Originally Posted by noonwitch

Collective bargaining always gets shot down by the voters. This isn't the first time.

I always have had some mixed feelings about my union, but I do want them around. I just don't think that my union (as I am a government employee) should be allowed to donate to political campaigns. They'd be a lot more honest if that were the case.

Private sector unions are a different matter.

Not to me, they aren't. First joining a union is a prerequisite for working in a number of industries in those states with closed shops. If I can be compelled to join a union and pay it dues, then I should not have to support the political agenda of the unions leadership. Even if the funds for contributions are raised separately from dues, the leadership can extort contributions through their control of the livelyhoods of their members. If union membership in a given industry is mandatory, then dues should only be collected to cover the mandatory expenses of the union, i.e., those related to collective bargaining.