HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Michigan passes public se...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:46 PM

Michigan passes public sector "right-to-work" law amid protests

Source: Reuters

LANSING, Michigan (Reuters) - The Republican-majority Michigan legislature gave final approval on Tuesday to "right-to-work" restrictions on public sector unions in a state considered a stronghold of organized labor, as protesters chanted in the gallery and thousands rallied outside.

The House passed the measure making membership and payment of union dues voluntary for public sector employees such as teachers by a 58-51 vote. The Senate approved the same bill last week so it will now go to Republican Governor Rick Snyder, who has promised to sign it into law.

The public sector law was the first of two expected to be approved by the House on Tuesday. The other covers private sector workers, including the large auto industry in Michigan.

More than 12,000 workers from throughout Michigan and the U.S. Midwest protested as the legislature voted, most gathered in freezing temperatures and a light snow outside the building to show their displeasure.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-march-michigan-capitol-over-vote-054656984.html

33 replies, 3446 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply Michigan passes public sector "right-to-work" law amid protests (Original post)
onehandle Dec 2012 OP
leftyohiolib Dec 2012 #1
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #3
mike_c Dec 2012 #2
KansDem Dec 2012 #4
mike_c Dec 2012 #8
KansDem Dec 2012 #11
mike_c Dec 2012 #12
Jbradshaw120 Dec 2012 #30
putitinD Dec 2012 #13
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #5
weathermanx2005 Dec 2012 #6
malibea Dec 2012 #18
alp227 Dec 2012 #24
Canuckistanian Dec 2012 #25
heaven05 Dec 2012 #26
raccoon Dec 2012 #7
alp227 Dec 2012 #27
benld74 Dec 2012 #9
SoapBox Dec 2012 #10
putitinD Dec 2012 #14
michreject Dec 2012 #16
malibea Dec 2012 #20
michreject Dec 2012 #15
Coyotl Dec 2012 #21
John2 Dec 2012 #17
Coyotl Dec 2012 #19
Coyotl Dec 2012 #22
Cha Dec 2012 #28
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #23
obama2terms Dec 2012 #29
MrSlayer Dec 2012 #31
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #32
Coyotl Dec 2012 #33

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:51 PM

1. great now what

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:58 PM

3. Protest and more protest, until the will of the people unseats these corporate shills.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:54 PM

2. does this mean that unions need not provide representation...

...to non-members? I mean, non-members still benefit from the results of collective bargaining, but in my decidedly union friendly state (CA), non-member fee payers also receive full representation in other ways, e.g. for grievances. In right-to-work-for-less states, are unions still required to provide such services to non-members and non-fee-payers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:59 PM

4. My wife works at a college in "Right" to Work state of Kansas

She is a member of the KNEA and has been for 25 years. Once, two other people in her department were vehemently anti-union and refused to join, although everyone else was a member.

They received the same pay increases and perks as the union members did.

These two colleagues were referred to as "parasites" in our household...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:12 PM

8. that's a given...

...but what if one of those non-members was the victim of a contract violation? Would KNEA be required to provide them with grievance representation, which is ultimately quite expensive? Setting aside for a moment the argument that it's in the union's interest to defend it's contract regardless, would her union be required to represent those non-members with contract grievance regardless of membership or fee-payer status?

In my workplace, my union has a "duty of fair representation" because all workers pay union dues, either as members or as non-member fee payers. I'm the grievance officer so I'm intensely aware of that responsibility. And as you say, all members of the bargaining unit receive the benefits of collective bargaining, so it's only right that they should support the union financially even if they choose not to join-- but membership status plays no role in our responsibility to represent EVERYONE in the bargaining unit in such matters as contract grievances, Skelly hearings, Weingarten investigations, and so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:34 PM

11. Just got off the phone with my wife...

It's been several years but she remembers:
1) They did not pay dues;

But believes:
2) They would still would have received grievance representation.

At the time, my wife "guesstimates" she was paying $350-$400 a year in union dues.

It's been awhile. Everyone in her department is now is a member of the KNEA except the department head (she was one of the anti-union ones who was promoted. The other one retired).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:38 PM

12. that's what I was afraid of....

Although, as I said, there are some positive reasons for providing services to non-payers such as defending the contract for everyone and, well, those sorts of events are always organizing opportunities, but still. Parasites indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:24 PM

30. Hi. Under federal law

Unions are required to give fair representation regardless of member status. So in right to work states unions are required to provide equal representation even to those that don't join or pay non member fees. And if they don't these people who refuse to join can sue the union.

Here is a good link from Minnesota aflcio explaining it

http://www.mnaflcio.org/news/right-work-laws-get-facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:39 PM

13. the union still has an obligation to represent the "freeloaders"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:03 PM

5. OCCUPY MICHIGAN!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:03 PM

6. This is EXACTLY what happens when people vote this republican guys into office

 

What was Michigan thinking when they voted these guys into office?

You can't KNOWINGLY vote republicans INTO office then complain later when they act on their ideologies.
Let this and the crap Wisconsin is going through serve as a lesson learned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to weathermanx2005 (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:31 PM

18. Exactly!

This is my commonsense response to the b/s that the governor of Michigan has displayed. What else, indeed, do you expect from a republican governor? They will lie to your face on what they will and won't do; they are not to be trusted. But continue to believe in them and you will continue to be led to the slaughter like blind sheep. Did you really expect him to do any less to get rid of the union representation in the state of Michigan? I did not and would not have voted for him in the first place. But remember what they say, "you get the government you deserve!". After all, you are the one who voted for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to weathermanx2005 (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:43 PM

24. A far cry from a certain governor named Romney. His Republicans actually STOOD WITH labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to weathermanx2005 (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:43 PM

25. They did this during the lame duck session

If the vote were held next year, it would lose because Dems now have the advantage.

This is a smack in the face to the electorate and the will of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to weathermanx2005 (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:45 PM

26. agreed

can't whine when a majority voted against their self interest while democrats sat at home watching television. I remember the election. When I got there, no one in line, poll workers laughing and joking, lot of free time. In and out in the time it took me to vote. November 6th? In line for 45min at least. We get what we vote for or don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:04 PM

7. Ah, Michigan, I am so sorry. You were a bastion of unions, a shining city on a hill.


Alas, Babylon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raccoon (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:45 PM

27. And once upon a time, the Republican Party actually embraced workers!

Earlier this month this thread I posted with this actual 1956 "Young Republicans Support Labor" poster got 275 recs! Another thread I recently posted that should be on the top (but got only 3 or so recs) has research finding that George W. Romney, father of Mitt Romney and governor of Michigan in the '60s, supported labor and signed the bill that launched union rights for teachers/firefighters/cops in the state!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:24 PM

9. Any recalls planned ala Wisconsin???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:32 PM

10. wow...stunning.

Despite virtually no support in the state...these Crooks and Criminals pass this...that is some kind of Brass.

And, as was explained to me many years ago, by an employer in Arizona that was literally in our faces at a meeting....

Arizona is a Right to Work state. We (the employer) have the right to employ you if WE want and the right to pay you what WE want...and if WE don't want you to be working for US, WE will fire you. And that is that.

...will Diane Sawyer on ABC News frame it that way? Don't think so.

Get Out the Vote Michigan!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:42 PM

14. I saw a poll yesterday, only 6% of Michiganders support "right to work"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to putitinD (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:17 PM

16. Everyone I've seen

Was about 55-45 pro union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:35 PM

20. The governor is NOT!

Alas, the ones making the decisions are NOT PRO-UNION! And that is what counts. The pro-union people elected this a-hole. Remember that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:16 PM

15. Law covering private sector has passed

The state House of Representatives voted 58-51 today to pass a right-to-work bill for public employees, and 58-52 on a bill for private sector workers.

http://www.freep.com/article/20121211/NEWS06/121211052/Michigan-House-passes-both-right-work-bills-during-contentious-debate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:41 PM

21. News video

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:22 PM

17. I don't

 

why the media doesn't check Governor Snyders' claims about Indiana. I just checked the unemployment rates in Indiana since their law was enacted back in February. It was 8.4 back in February and 8.0 now, but that number has been up and down. Its lowest point was at 7.9 but went up ever since that low point several months ago. And the jobs, that he is talking about, only 30,000 or more has been approved or agreed to. The other 61,000 has not even been guaranteed depending on the definition of pipeline. Indiana could probably be trying to attract these jobs, and some maybe temporary jobs, such as construction projects. That does not mean these are high wage or full time jobs. A lot of right to work states attract low paying jobs, and many are just seasonal jobs for minimun wages or where employers contract with contractors for labor. I'm talking about from organizations like Labor Ready, where they take a significant amount of your pay, just to work. The employers usually make a hefty profit for cheap labor. It is business friendly alright. you don't get benefits or anything. So Snyder is talking about from february to present, with only 31,000 jobs approved, out of 91,000 in indiana's pipeline during that period? What boom is he refering to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:33 PM

19. Ooophs, I just duped this news. Lots of demonstration photos on Facebook

DU these: Michigan Democratic Party, Michigan Senate Democrats, Michigan House Democrats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021946075

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:46 PM

22. Protest Photos from the Capitol steps



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:57 PM

28. Thanks for the pics from Lansing,

Coyotl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:17 PM

23. Kick (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:04 PM

29. this is what happens when you trust republicans

Sorry Michigan make sure you get out to vote so you can get this fool out of office

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:45 PM

31. They voted for these assholes.

 

A lot of union people voted republican. This is what they get. It really sucks but the parable about the scorpion and the frog tells you all you need to know.

Maybe next time they'll really think about what they're doing when they go into the voting booth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:24 PM

32. Sorry to be mean, but

If Michigan was in Dixie, there would be umpteen threads about how those liberals down south are sueless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:53 PM

33. Drinking the Kochs' Kool-Aid & Live tweets from Michigan reporters covering #righttowork

Scroll to the bottom of this great editorial for the Twitter Feed:

Editorial: Drinking the Kochs' Kool-Aid
http://www.freep.com/article/20121211/OPINION01/312110048/Editorial-Drinking-the-Kochs-Kool-Aid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread