Michigan: Right to Work State?

My home state of Michigan is in many ways ground zero of the modern industrial labor union movement. Even as unions have lost ground nationwide and been all but outlawed in the South, unions in Michigan have persevered even though they have but a shadow of their former strength and militancy. Roughly 18% of Michigan workers belong to a union. In some respects the union movement is on life support. But if there's one thing the Republican establishment agrees on it's dislike of unions. So the Republican dominated House and Senate passed bills that would establish Michigan as a "right to work" state. Michigan governor Rick Snyder, who had previously cast himself as a moderate technocrat and said that he thought such legislation was divisive and not very useful to the Michigan population, has done a 180 and said that he could sign the measures into law as early as today.

So what brought us to this point? Well a lot of different things actually. You can't just point to one item. There has always been a struggle between labor and capital simply because the interests are different. If capital could go back to the bad old days of the 1920s or before when they had no unions, compliant politicians, non-existent worker protections and virtual immunity from legal consequences they would do so. If labor could get back to the 1950s when they had strong large popular unions they would do that as well. But the proximate cause of this fight is strangely enough not something in Michigan at all. Michigan unions, and their supporters, deeply worried about labor rights in the wake of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker's successful trimming of labor protections in his state, backed an amendment to Michigan's Constitution. This Proposal 2 would have enshrined labor rights in the Constitution by guaranteeing public and private sector employees the right to organize and collectively bargain for wages and benefits. This was decisively rejected at the polls.

Well as the saying goes, elections have consequences and payback is a muyerfuyer. Republicans saw the Proposal 2 amendment failure as a shot across their bow that had to be responded to, proof of union weakness or as the excuse they needed to implement long desired ideas. So that's how we arrived at this point. Republicans are in the majority. Majority writes the rules. It's been called a lame duck majority because when the new members arrive in the next session there won't be quite as many Republicans and/or possibly not even the support for "right to work" legislation. But just as Scott Brown's election didn't stop the PPACA, Republicans similarly intend to work with the numbers they have while they have them. Ironically Scott Walker says he has no interest in "right to work" legislation.

So what is "right to work" legislation? It's quite simple. It plays on people's financial incentives and uses the free rider problem to destroy unions. When a union is established in a given arena it has to represent everyone in that workplace, whether they joined the union or not. It can't restrict higher wages and better benefits only to union workers. It can't force union membership.It would be a good thing if the union could restrict better wages to those who joined the union but that's against the law. Certainly no employer would ever go for that. So as a result unions have to have a method by which to ensure that there is some ability to ensure that everyone in the workplace has some skin in the game. For union members this is where union dues come in. For non-union members this is where "fair share" provisions come in. These monies are part of what allow the union to continue to exist and have the wherewithal to fight back against management overreach, whether that is in court or simply by organization and communication among workers.

"Right to work" legislation strips unions of the ability to obtain monies from people in a shop where there is a union. This sounds good no? It's expanding the worker's choice no?

Not really. This means that everyone, union worker or not, then has a MASSIVE incentive to withhold dues or fair share provisions because they get the benefits of union representations without the costs. Over time the union can't economically function with all the free riders and can't legally or politically function with smaller and smaller membership. So goodbye union. In other arenas people understand the free rider problem.

This is no different from giving someone like me the option to withhold taxes from the US government because I am bitterly and profoundly opposed to its foreign policy. I have no intention of leaving the US and going to live in another country. I just don't want to pay taxes. If everyone did that the US could not continue to exist. Now unions aren't nation states but the concept is exactly the same.

Do "right to work" states have better economic outcomes as companies that were avoiding the state because of grasping, overreaching unions, come flooding into the state?

The evidence seems to say no those "right to work" states aren't better off. "Right to work" states are associated with lower income and higher numbers of uninsured people. If you want a low wage state with fewer worker protections, then by all means support "right to work" legislation.

And this soon to be law can't be overturned by referendum because the Republicans were smart enough to add appropriations to the bill. Under Michigan's constitution, doing that means that the law is not subject to referendum of the people. Assuming that Governor Snyder signs the legislation, the only way to overturn it would be to replace Snyder and a sizable number of Republicans in 2014. So we're living in interesting times in Michigan.

Questions

1) Do you support Right to Work legislation?

2) Do you live in a Right to Work State?

3) If Snyder signs the bills, what should the response of the labor movement be?

Wisconsin,Ohio and the Ongoing Battle Against State Workers

For months we've blogged about the highly contentious debate in Wisconsin over the collective bargaining rights of state employees.  Both Wisconsin's Republican governor, Scott Walker, and Ohio's Republican governor, John Kasich, have signed measures into law that will prevent teachers, police officers, fire fighters and other state employees from being able to come together in a union and bargain for better working conditions, benefits, etc.  Just yesterday, Wisconsin's law officially went into effect.  From the AP:

After months of heated debate, ear-splitting protests and legal maneuvering, Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining law is finally set to take effect.Secretary of State Doug La Follette published the law in the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper on Tuesday. The measure goes into effect today, capping a tumultuous four months in Madison that saw state senators flee the state and massive protests at the State Capitol...The law requires almost all public employees on all levels of government — from teachers to librarians to State Capitol janitors — to contribute more to their health care and pensions. The changes amount to an average 8 percent pay cut. The bill also strips them of almost all their collective bargaining rights, allowing them to negotiate only on wages...Meanwhile, a coalition of unions, including the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state's largest teachers union, have filed a federal lawsuit in Madison alleging the law violates the U.S. Constitution by taking away union rights to bargain, organize and associate.

The anti-union law was held up in the courts, but 2 weeks ago the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law in a 4-3 ruling that saw Wisconsin's Justices literally get violent with each other over the issue, with Justice David Prosser putting female Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in a choke hold.  (out of control, right?)  Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote a nasty dissent against Justice Prosser and the the majority, accusing them of playing partisan politics from the bench.  In addition to the battle in the courts, the citizens of the state of Wisconsin have already declared their intentions of recalling Governor Walker pursuant to state law after his first year in office is complete in January of next year. 

Meanwhile, in nearby Ohio, the people have collected 1,298,301 signatures to place Ohio's anti-union law on the ballot for repeal; only 231,000 signatures were required by state law.  It's also notable to observe that there are only approximately 400,000 state workers in Ohio, yet over 3 times that amount supported the initiative to place this bill on the ballot.  According to Ohio law, the anti-union bill is now placed on hold until it comes to a vote before the people on November 8th of this year.

Republicans in both state and federal government often phrase their policy talking points as being the will of "the American people," but with such significant opposition in both Ohio and Wisconsin over this issue by the American people, it is difficult to see how that is possible here.

QUESTIONS:
1. Should Wisconsin's law be decided in a federal court?
2. Should Ohio's law be placed on the public ballot in November?
3. Will Gov. Walker survive the recall vote in January?
4. Do state workers' unions really need collective bargaining?
5. Are state workers, in fact, overpaid?

Michigan Republicans Attack Democracy

I'm in charge now you see.

Haven't you ever wondered, once a representative who differs politically from you, has said or done something that you find spectacularly stupid or offensive, what a nice thing it would be if the person just wasn't in office any more OR had his authority limited to something more appropriate to his intelligence, say for example asking you "Paper or plastic today?"

You probably have.

Unfortunately the flaw in this here republic is that people get to vote on their elected representatives, no matter how stupid you may think they are or how immoral you may find their political positions. So this means, absent term limits, internal legislative rules or criminal convictions, someone you don't like may hold her elected position with all the authority of that position for as long as she likes, no matter how much damage she may do to her constituency. Bottom line is that the people get to decide on their elected representatives. Period.


Well not so fast. Although much of the conversation about the new Republican governorships and state legislative majorities in the US has focused on Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida, the new Republican governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, and the Republican state House and Senate majorities have been busy as bees proposing or imposing a host of new changes to how state government works. One of these changes has been the ability for the State of Michigan to grant executive powers to emergency managers for municipalities, not just school boards, which allows the emergency financial managers to eliminate collective bargaining contracts. It also allows earlier appointments of such managers, before a municipality asks for one or declares bankruptcy.

Benton Harbor— In a move believed to be the first under sweeping new state legislation, Emergency Manager Joseph Harris suspended decision-making powers of city officials Friday.
Officials only can call meetings to order, adjourn them and approve minutes of meetings as part of the order issued Friday.

The action is likely the first since Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law in March a new statute that grants more powers to emergency managers appointed by the Treasury Department to take over distressed schools and communities.
At least one elected Benton Harbor official was sanguine about the order. "It doesn't bother me," said City Commissioner Bryan Joseph. "I'm in favor of it."
Joseph said he has watched financial mismanagement for decades, which was one of the reasons he ran for election in 2008.
But the move drew a strong rebuke from the AFL-CIO. The union represents administrative workers, among others. "This is sad news for democracy in Michigan," said Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO. "With the stripping of all power of duly elected officials in Benton Harbor … we can now see the true nature of the emergency manager system."

This being Michigan the race element is never far from the surface and one must note that Benton Harbor is over 90% Black. But the other two cities that have emergency financial managers, Pontiac and Ecorse, are not majority Black, although they are getting close. The mayor of Detroit, Dave Bing, is using the threat of an emergency financial manager, to attempt to leverage concessions from city unions.

No one can doubt that these cities are indeed in pretty crappy condition. People can argue over how they got there and what needs to be done to solve their issues. Some people say that this is the obvious end result of a bloated welfare state and union "gimme" mindset that must ruthlessly be eradicated. Others respond that this is late stage capitalism as more workers become superfluous to profit and are shed at ever increasing rates. Other people have even simpler and much uglier theories which are related to the demographics of those cities.

Whatever one's opinion might be, should we agree that the people in a given city should have the ABSOLUTE right to elect whoever they want and run their city how they want? Or is this a quaint notion at a time where Detroit councilwoman (and lovable quack) JoAnn Watson is calling for a city bailout on the scale of what the federal government gave to GM.

What's your take?
Do you think emergency managers are critical to fixing the problems of certain cities?
Is this just a new tool to bash unions?
Are union contracts the problem these cities face or does it have more to do with the collapse of housing and flight of capital overseas? Are these problems related?
Would you be willing to give your city's decision making capacity over to an emergency financial manager if your governor thought it necessary?

The Battle of Wisconsin

Well, that's that. The Wisconsin Senate Republicans used a possibly illegal parliamentary maneuver to break the gridlock over the issue of public workers rights and passed a bill which restricts the collective bargaining rights of  public sector workers. Scott Walker looks like he may have a win. For now. I am positive that if this change becomes law that Wisconsin will become a virtual new Eden of economic development as businesses fall over themselves to move to a state with weakened public sector unions who gave up money and rights to lure these companies there. I mean low wages and weak unions are the stepping stones to prosperity, right?

In an 18-to-1 vote, the Senate Republicans approved the restrictions on collective bargaining.

Republican Sen. Dale Schultz, the lone no vote, warned his GOP colleagues: "This issue is not going away."

"In 30 minutes, 18 state senators un-did 50 years of civil rights in Wisconsin. Their disrespect for the people of Wisconsin and their rights is an outrage that will never be forgotten," Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller said. Miller and other Senate members said they would now be coming back to the state and continuing the fight.

The Senate bill severely restricts collective bargaining for tends of thousands of the state's public worker unions and increases their health care and pension contributions.

The measure has prompted massive demonstrations in the state capital by the bill's opponents and triggered a wave of recall campaigns targeting both the governor's supporters and opponents in the legislature.

On Wednesday night in the Capitol, the ground floor and first floor appeared nearly as full as they were during the first days of the demonstrations more than three weeks ago, and protesters stayed in the Capitol overnight, defiantly chanting "recall" and "Whose house? Our house!"

Outside the Assembly chamber, Barca allowed protesters to fill out forms listing themselves as witnesses to a violation of the state's open meetings laws, stemming from the Republicans' earlier conference committee meeting. 

Let's be honest about this and drop the niceties for one moment. I know that there are reasonable people on both sides of the spectrum. I know and work with a great many honorable and decent Republican leaning people. I don't think they strangle puppies and foreclose on widows before breakfast-at least not all of them.

But make no mistake, the modern Republican Party has one overarching purpose that unites it and that is a war against working people. They want cheap labor with no restrictions on business, the wealthy and the powerful. That's it.

The other goals which are popular among some subgroups among the Republicans-immigration restrictionism, creationism, libertarian fundamentalism, anti-abortion activism, neo-con war mongering, scaring white people about all the fertile non-whites, increasing the police and warfare state powers, telling Christians that gays are out there being gay, while getting their opponents hot and bothered are simply not as important to the Republican leadership as ensuring that the rich and connected can do what they want, when they want and how they want while getting richer and more connected. This is why Republicans mount ongoing attacks on any institution which does not serve or is not dominated by the wealthy. Unions are front and center. Republicans have to struggle to say anything nice about unions because fundamentally Republicans and their corporate bosses simply do not believe that unions have the right to exist.



Unions are bad for you. Trust me on this.

The ultimate goal for many conservatives is to reverse the entire past century of union struggle and government spending and protections directed at middle class/lower class people. No matter what the issue is - food safety, oil drilling regulations, discrimination, manufacturing, workplace safety regulations, the ability to sue for damages, protection from police abuse, cash and food subsidies for the poor and /or disabled, the ability for non-property owners to vote, social security and yes the ability of workers to organize and agitate for better working conditions and pay- it's a pretty safe bet that conservatives will be found arguing that the market knows best, anyone harmed should just get over it,  there should be no restriction on the ability of the corporation or employer to act as it pleases and government shouldn't protect people.

There's no shame in their game. They created a crisis and moved to exploit it. This time though they may have bitten off more than they can chew. It's up to the people of Wisconsin to make sure that Walker and his friends are recalled or pay the price at the polls. It's up to the rest of us to look in our own states and decide what we can live with. Governor Walker is hardly an outlier-though he may be an out and out liar.

If you work for someone else for a living, if you have a net worth of less than $1 million, if you know people whose salary is calculated in a two digit hourly rate, if you know what the minimum wage is, if an unexpected car repair messes up your budget for the next 3-6 months, if you financially could not afford to take a few years off from your position, the Republicans are not on your side. It's that simple.

The only question left is which side are you on?

Questions: Is this the beginning of the end for public sector unions? Will this energize the middle class and working class to throw out the Republicans in 2012? Why did the people of Wisconsin vote Walker into office if NOT to do this? Do you think that restricting or eliminating public sector unions is a good idea?  Will everyone have forgotten about this in a year or so?