While Democrats might think that Republicans abused their power by passing the Right to Work laws in Michigan, it was done legally. It just so happens that the Republicans are the majority in the Michigan legislature and used their power to pass a law they believe is in the best interest of Michigan. Before Democrats complain too loudly, they should recall the passage of Obamacare by Democrats in Washington by means that many consider questionable. The Right to Work laws were passed to give workers the freedom to choose whether or not they want to support a union. I agree that workers should not be forced to pay union dues, which then could be used to support causes that the workers do not believe in. In addition, these laws will make Michigan much more competitive with its neighbor states in attracting business and jobs to the state. This is especially true in light of Indiana passing a Right to Work law earlier this year. Whether this will hurt Governor Snyder in the next election remains to be seen. However, it is not necessarily a negative for him since the unions were trounced quite handily in the recent ballot initiative to get collective bargaining enshrined in the Michigan Constitution. While unions have been steadily losing members and power in the state of Michigan for quite some time, the passage of these laws will weaken them even more, thereby making unions even less of a factor in Michigan politics.
I have not heard many people arguing that this bill was passed illegally, because it did follow all of the requirements for a bill to become a law. I don't even think it is an issue of whether it was democratic, even given the majority in the legislature and having the governor be part of the majority. I think that the more pressing issue is calling into question the actual contents of the bill itself and asking whether it will be good or bad for our state. It's not even really a moral issue, as some have argued. The issue at hand is whether this bill will improve the economy of our state without costing workers' rights. If the people who benefit from Union action aren't paying Union dues, the Unions will no longer have enough money to operate. Without Unions, nobody will be fighting for workers' rights, which could be problematic in the future, but it hasn't really seemed to be a problem in the other states that have passed right to work legislation, so it is either going to be a problem long term, or I'm completely wrong. Another thing that was brought up is that it is helping Michigan be more competitive with neighboring states. This may be true, but I think that the bigger issue is the national economy. This bill might allow us to get jobs in Michigan that may have otherwise gone to Indiana, but that just leaves people in Indiana, another part of the same country, unemployed. We should think about attracting jobs to the United States over other countries, which this bill does nothing about, so it really isn't going to the root of the problem.
I do agree with Margaret that the bill was passed legally. No one can dispute that. However, I think Snyder acted out of his business instincts when passing this bill, something that I do not think is beneficial for the citizens of Michigan. Business owners would be supporters of this bill, but Snyder should not subconsciously target a small group when approving legislation. The majority of the state is definitely not business owners, so I do not think it was a truly “democratic” choice. Plainly, I do not think that many workers will take advantage of the Right to Work Bill. They will probably continue to pay dues for the union and attempt to show their discontent by completely disregarding the bill. In addition, the passage of this bill was a bad use of democracy. A majority of people did not want Proposal 2, but that does not mean that they wanted a Right to Work Bill, instead. The people voted against Proposal 2 because they did not want any amendments to their constitution. A “no” on a bill does not mean a “yes” on the opposite components of the bill. It was too extreme of a move by Snyder. The citizens gave him an inch, and he took off with a foot. Clearly, workers are upset. In response to Margaret’s comment, I do not think Snyder and the Republican House passed the law in the best interest of the people of Michigan. There was no indication that the people wanted this change, the people only voiced through the ballot proposal votes that they did not want collective bargaining on the constitution. It does not mean that it the state should make it more difficult for collective bargaining or any other union assembly. Also, the bill was passed in a lame duck session by the Congress. Many of the congressmen’ terms are done, so they do not have any people to answer to for their actions. As a result, this passage is not necessarily representative of their constituents.
I think that this topic could be viewed from many sides. This was an act of democracy and as I have read in recent articles Governor Synder believed that after the defeat of the second and fourth proposals, that were heavily lobbied for by the unions, he felt the public was signifying their similar belief in right to work. What I think would have been interesting to see, is if the two proposals were passed would Governor Synder gone through with the legislation. I believe that this was passed by a Majoritarian government because the Republicans were the majority in the house and had complete control over the passage of the bill. It is obvious because of all the press coverage of the passage of the bill, I wonder if other states would follow after Governor Synder and the state's Senate. I feel that the amount of negative attention this has gotten Governor Synder in particular he may have a hard time being reelected as Governor in the next election.
This piece of legislation that was passed through was an interesting one. It came at a time when unions seemed week because both proposal 2 and 4, the big union proposals were voted down. Since they were voted down the state government then decided to pass the right to work law. This seemed to come out of the blue in the after the election even a few months ago if someone asked me if Michigan would become I "right to work state" I would have said not in the foreseeable future. I believe that right to work is important. A study shows that the states that are right to work have an average unemployment rate below the national unemployment rate. The thing that bothers me is that the union members and leaders are saying that the passing of this bill is undemocratic, but isn't forcing someone to pay money, even if they don't want to democratic? The passing of this bill will make unions more competitive so they become a place that people want to invest their money in and they see a benefit. This bill also has nothing to do with collective bargaining which is another complaint by the union members. I agree with Catherine in that Governor Snyder will have a hard time being reelected, but he will see it as worth it if in the future the economy in Michigan will do better, which I think it will.
Gabriella had a good point with regard to extremes. It was underhanded of Snyder and the Republicans to jump straight to "right to work" just weeks after the collective bargaining legislation failed. As she pointed out, Michiganders made the whole idea of "hands off our Constitution" clear. It flew through the lame-duck legislature in less than a week with limited debate and without it being considered in committee. This is a tricky situation--on one hand we want to be able to compete with non-unionized southern states for jobs, but on the other, non-unionized workers will benefit from Union efforts without paying dues. Albeit I see why Governor Snyder acted so quickly and decisively, I think this could substantially hurt his chances for reelection. In the past, Snyder was reluctant to endorse right to work and supported collective bargaining. Part of the coalition that lead to his election included unionized workers, and this so-called betrayal of labor unions will result in a significant loss of support come 2014.
I'm apprehensive to say that I agree with Catherine's claim that the passage of this legislation is "democratic" per say. Again, what this comes down to is by which means you define democracy. I recognize the validity of Gabrielle's claims that the RTW legislation was passed in a lame duck session, and therefore the congressmen's terms are finished; however, it is their responsibility and JOB to vote for what they feel would be in the best interest of their constituents. These representatives, like Rick Snyder, may have reelection in mind. So, agreeing to support and pass legislation that was not approved by the majority of the constitutions (ie Prop 2 and 4 which BOTH had to do with collective bargaining rights) would not necessarily be good for their careers. The fact of the matter is, these representatives did vote in what they felt would be the best interest of their citizens cognizant of the current economic situation in Michigan. They were able to listen to the high profile politicians (including our president), lobbyists, and interest group representatives and subsequently made a judgement call. This legislation was, indeed, passed legally and repeal is not foreseeable in the near future.
Although the right to work bill was passed legally, as previously pointed out, this was done in a way that was not totally democratic. This is true because although the people selected their representatives, which would lead one to believe that the process was democratic, they passed the law during a lame duck period where they could essentially do what they wanted without fear of not getting re-elected because many of the legislators terms are over anyways so they may not feel the need to vote exactly as their constituents may want them too. Because some of the legislators may be acting of their own accord, versus what their constituents wants, the way the bill was passed was not necessarily democratic.
The Right to Work Bill was passed legally as many others have pointed out. Governor Snyder stated that he wanted the RTW issue resolved and his position was he believes it is good policy for Michigan as it gives workers more freedom and predicts it will improve the state's economy. Republicans echo Governor Snyder's feelings and indicate that RTW will protect an employee's choice and improve Michigan's economic climate. Democrats feel that RTW weakens unions and will end collective bargaining agreements that protect employee wages and benefits. According to the Economic Policy Institute, studies have shown that keeping all things equal, RTW has little effect either way; however, RTW states have lower median wages but also lower unemployment. I think unions have less support from younger workers and voters. I believe it took a lot of courage for Snyder as it will hurt his re-election campaign so I feel that he truly believes it will benefit Michigan's economy. Time will tell....
As Alexandra mentioned, the Right to Work legislation was not passed democratically because the bill was passed in a lame duck period, where the democrats could not even oppose the bill properly. While Rick Snyder believes that this legislation provide economic freedom and promotes economic growth, the delegation said they were particularly upset by the fact that right-to-work would allow employees to receive all the benefits of union representation, without paying any dues. But, it is not democratic for Rick Snyder to sign this bill over a lame duct period because Democrats could not oppose it and it was quickly passed through the Senate, without considerable thought, and it was passed quickly through the House quickly. The Democrats threaten Rick Snyder that signing the bill will have severe consequences, and many people are very angry with his decision of signing the bill. Non-supporters of the bill, like Carl Levin mentions that, instead of Michigan united, it was divided with the signing of this legislation. I do not agree with Erin, that is was passed "democratically", because even if Rick Snyder did have reelection in mind, passing this bill has caused him to have many non-supporters of him. Though representatives are too do what the constituents want, the collective bargaining proposal on the ballot proved through the majority, that this is NOT what the constituents wanted. This is not democracy in action, because Rick Snyder acted in haste and decisively, ignoring the complaints of the Democrats-abusing the concept of democracy. While it is likely that new businesses will evolve in Detroit, promoting many jobs for the unemployed, it will set the future back, because workers who are not for the union or employed in the union will receive all the same benefits of union representation, without paying any dues, making it unfair and causing tension.
I think that this bill can cause serious problems for Unions in the future. Michigan, due to its strongly industrial economy in Detroit, has always been a huge state for Unions. This bill will allow workers to elect not to join any union and therefore not pay any union dues. However, when Unions fight for workers' rights, even the non-union workers are going to benefit from it. Therefore, there will be no incentive to join unions at all, and the unions will soon not have enough money to continue to work. This is a huge step backward, as unions' goals are to make sure workers have fair pay and good conditions. If the unions go under, there will be nobody fighting to make sure that the workers get these important things. This could also be a result of the anti-union sentiment that seems to be spreading throughout Michigan. None of the union backed ballot proposals passed. This could be the beginning of a new era for Michigan workers, and it doesn't seem like a very good one to me.
I don't think that the bill was passed democratically. Although republicans do have a majority in the michigan senate. A majority of people voted against proposal 2 and proposal 4, both dealing with collective bargaining/unions. And then Congress passed the Right to Work Bill, given the proposal results in the election, I would not have thought that Congress would have passed the bill, and they weren't doing what a majority of the people want. I think that the passing of this bill won't change much. I think that Union workers will still want to invest their money in the unions. Im not sure yet how this will effect Rick Snyder's re-election, although I think it will probably cause him some trouble.
I think, personally, that if you're the governor of a STATE you should probably think about what's best for that STATE not for your own political party. The Right to Work bill was obviously not supported by the majority of citizens in Michigan (there were police guarding the doors to the state legislature when the state legislature was debating the bill) - I mean I'd consider Michigan a union state - so why on Earth would a governor take advantage of the Republican majority in the House and Senate when he knew, assuming he doesn't live under a rock, very well how angry the VAST amount of union workers in Michigan would be? Who knows. I agree with Stephanie in that this is a huge step backward for Michigan, but maybe I'm just biased. I apologize for the sass.
It seems contradictory that Democrats who are so in favor of the "right to choose" are not in favor of workers' right to choose whether or not they should pay union dues. It is completely untrue that given the choice the majority of workers will continue to pay union dues and ignore the passage of this law. Union membership in Wisconsin and many other states has plummeted once workers have been given the choice whether or not to join unions. The claims that the passage of this bill will harm the state of Michigan ignore reality. Indiana became a right to work state on February 1, 2012. Since the start of 2012, Indiana has added 43,300 jobs, while Michigan has lost 7,300 jobs. Between 1980 and 2011, right to work states have had an increase in employment of 71%, non-right to work states have increased 32%, and Michigan has increased employment 14%. Since 2001, right to work states have increased employment 3.5%, while non-right to work states have had a DECREASE in employment of 2.6%. How can producing more jobs in Michigan be bad for the people of Michigan?
Although this is a controversial topic I feel that if the Democrats were the majority of the Senate and there was a Democrat as the governor things would be flipped around. I still do believe that this decision was democratic because the public voted for Gov. Synder and the people to represent us; so if the tables were turned we would most likely still be in the same posistion. I agree with Margaret that it is suprising, ideologically speaking, that Democrats do not favor freedom within unions because they favor free choice. I think that the any politician would have done the same thing if his party was in the majority.
I firmly disagree with Catherine, I still do not believe that signing this piece of legislation during a lame duck period, where the democrats could not oppose the bill properly, is democratic. Even if the "tables" were turned and the Democrats were the majority of the Senate, it does not necessarily mean that they would sign this bill during the lame duck period, as the Republicans did. I agree with Margaret and Catherine that, it quite surprising that Democrats do not favor freedom within unions because they favor free choice, but regardless, I still believe that signing this bill was undemocratic and the people proved that they did not want this bill through the collective bargaining proposals that was on the ballot. I agree with Margaret that yes, this bill will provide many new jobs for people, especially for the unemployed, because new businesses will evolve, but the way and procedure Rick Snyder took to sign this bill is undemocratic. The right of work bill was not supported by the majority of the American citizens, so why is Rick Snyder signing a bill that is not in favor of the American citizens? Isn't he supposed to REPRESENT the people?
I think Margaret brought up an excellent point with regard to the contraindication in the Democrat's "right to choose" platform. However, it seems to be that the more localized politics becomes, the less of an effect party identification has. Keeping in mind our current class focus on interest groups, there is no set "Republican Card" one receives to place in their wallet so that a republican representatives can have discounted food at "Capitol Corner Store". They can simply act as labels that representatives place on themselves to indicate general ideology. Therefore crossing "party lines" in order to pass necessary legislation should not ALWAYS be deemed illogical, and representatives who do such should not ALWAYS be labeled as flip floppers. However, the word "necessary" is also quite ambiguous and has the potential to bring up a lot of questions for us to answer.
I have to disagree with Catherine’s comment that Governor Snyder represents us. Although in a broad sense that is true, in terms of legislation, it is primarily the congressmen that represent us. Governor Snyder strictly executes the laws put into place by the State Congress. Although I understand how Margaret is trying to find an inconsistency in the Democrats’ platform, I don’t think the “right to choose” and workers’ rights can be compared on the same plane. I completely agree with Gretchen’s statements about the governor doing what is best for the state. The majority of citizens did not support the bill, and he took advantage of a Republican majority in the House. The lame duck congressmen can just leave office without dealing with the aftermath of the bill. Snyder, however, must stay and answer to the implementations of the bill. That is one thing that the governor probably should have thought a little more about before abruptly passing the bill. I also agree with Stephanie’s point about the Michigan economy. The economy is centered around the auto industry, thus being a breeding ground for autoworker unions. A government official of a state that has such a high quantity of unions should not upset them, due to the risk of losing the approval of a large part of the constituency. A governor is supposed to act according to the majority, and this bill certainly does not reflect the majority. Evidence of that is shown by the media coverage and protests of the bill.
Because the majority at the time this bill was passed in Michigan was one of a republican majority it is very unsurprising that this bill would be passed. Although as previously discussed, the measure of democracy used in the passing of the bill was questionable,it was passed legally and I'm very certain that if the democrats were in control one of their bills would have been passed the same way. Even though passing legislation with a lame duck legislature is probably not the most moral and democratic way to go about these things, the governor, who was elected by the people, I believe had the ultimate say. The people elected this man thus he is their representatives. Although he did not make the most popular decision, he was the appointed governor. It is surprising to me that Michigan would have even chosen a republican, thus for RTW, leader to govern their state.
I think Margret did bring up a good point how the states who have become right to work have gained jobs versus the states that were controlled by unions. I have to disagree with Gretchen's statement that the majority of the people obviously did not want it. I am not saying that I know what the majority of people wanted, but I think that it is incorrect to say whether the majority wanted it or not. There is not enough evidence to support either claim. I also think that having President Obama stepping in on a state matter was wrong. I believe that the president should stay out of state only issues no matter if he is for or against them. I believe by him doing this and taking a clear side made him look like he was still campaigning, especially since unions are one of the biggest donors to democratic nominees. Which brings me to another point. If a person did not support a candidate that the union supported, some of the fee they pay could go to the candidate of the union's backing. It makes no sense to give money to something you don't believe in but yet that is what people were forced to do since they had to belong. I believe this bill will help the unions become competitive again and go back to their main purpose of protecting worker's rights.
I agree with many of the points made by Payas. Though the bill was passed legally it was not democratic due to it being passed during a lame duck period and it was clear that there was a lot of opposition to this bill. Governor Snyder acted quickly because he had a short window of time to take advantage of the lame duck period. I think with the level of controversy he is facing with the unions and union backers, it will hurt Governor Snyder's chances of re-election. I also have to disagree with Cam. I don't think we can just make the assumption that if the Democrats were in the reverse position, they would do the same thing. If the statistics Margaret provided are true, then this bill should certainly help Michigan's unemployment. The statistics I found at the Economic Policy Institute do back up Margaret's point that RTW states have lower unemployment; however, RTW states also have lower median wages. Overall, the question seems to be will more people working for lower wages benefit Michigan's economy than less people working for higher wages?
Mr. Baker pointed out that tough decisions need to be made to reach a goal. And when a particularly controversial one is made, it's inevitable to get unhappy and resentful citizens--Governor Snyder's approval ratings (at least temporarily) have plummeted. The Governor, much like the President when Obama Care was first passed, is facing a lot of push back. Both however felt that the issue was worth the political points (I forget the term Mr. Baker exactly used) it cost. Labor unions are furious, and that's understandable. The free-rider problem is a formidable one. The Bill's "right of passage" was speedy to the point of nonexistent, and it was passed in an arguably dishonest manner. But the "right to work" statistics that Margaret pointed out are hard to ignore. New jobs and lower unemployment rates are attractive and seem to be taking root in new right-to-work-states. Perhaps Snyder's gamble will pay off: his short-term unpopularity will be replaced with long-term benefits for the state as a whole.
Technically, the bill was passed legally and democratically. However, since we are in a lame-duck session of Congress, many feel that this is not completely fair and the legislature is not completely representative of the opinions of the population, a point that has been made in the national fiscal cliff debate. This period of time is still in their terms so they still have the right to pass legislation. Although I do not agree with the Right to Work legislation, it was passed legally. Unions seem to be losing their stronghold in Michigan after the defeat of the collective bargaining proposals in the election, but I think that turning Michigan into a Right to Work state is a bit extreme, like giving an inch and taking a mile. Michiganders are a bit disillusioned with unions because of their depleted banks accounts during this economy and having to pay union dues out of every paycheck can be a considerable loss of money for a blue collar worker. This does not mean that Michiganders necessarily disagree with unions because of our industrial economy. In the end, the Right to Work legislation, in my opinion, will end up hurting Michiganders more than it will help them. The legislation allows those who decide not to join that union to be covered under any deals the union makes with the employer, and still benefit from the work of the union without having to pay their share. Although many make the argument that being required to pay and join a union is undemocratic, so is benefiting from something that you do not pay your share of. Another point is that if too many people decide to stop paying union dues because they still benefit, unions will begin to lose money and lose not only their members, but the benefits they provide, potential deals they make with employers, and the political power they have.
I think that the “right to work” law is bad for the state. The whole point of the law (which allows people who are protected by unions in their workplace to opt out of paying for that protection through union dues) is to make it harder for unions to exist. The reason why employers want that is that it means they can pay their workers less and don’t need to worry about workers’ safety as much. Where unions are strong, wages are higher, and there are rules about the amount of time employees required to work or have off, and there are better workplace safety rules and limitations against companies just firing people for no reason at all. The point of right to work laws is just to weaken unions—to drive down wages, to allow dangerous workplaces, which are cheaper for employers, and to limit the rights of employees. The justification seems to be that if we get rid of unions then more companies will want to come here to Michigan and there will be more jobs. But the problem is that the jobs and the companies aren’t good. It’s a “race to the bottom,” to see who can attract companies, but the jobs they offer have low wages and no benefits. There is no proof that limiting or preventing unions helps the economy. Clearly, it doesn’t, when you look at the rich states versus the poor states. There is a reason why the poorest states in the country are “right to work” and the states that have the highest employment and wages are not. Right to work laws come from the Confederate states of the South, where there is huge inequality among rich and poor; I don’t see why we in the North would intentionally try to be the South. I don’t see the point in breaking unions in order to drive down wages for workers. The less money they have, the less they spend, and the more the economy suffers. What breaking unions does is create a bigger gap between the rich and everyone else. We don’t need that now. While the supporters of the law might say that it doesn’t get rid of unions, what it does is allow some workers to “freeload” off the people who support the union, by taking benefits that they don’t pay for. That isn’t fair to anyone.
While Democrats might think that Republicans abused their power by passing the Right to Work laws in Michigan, it was done legally. It just so happens that the Republicans are the majority in the Michigan legislature and used their power to pass a law they believe is in the best interest of Michigan. Before Democrats complain too loudly, they should recall the passage of Obamacare by Democrats in Washington by means that many consider questionable. The Right to Work laws were passed to give workers the freedom to choose whether or not they want to support a union. I agree that workers should not be forced to pay union dues, which then could be used to support causes that the workers do not believe in. In addition, these laws will make Michigan much more competitive with its neighbor states in attracting business and jobs to the state. This is especially true in light of Indiana passing a Right to Work law earlier this year. Whether this will hurt Governor Snyder in the next election remains to be seen. However, it is not necessarily a negative for him since the unions were trounced quite handily in the recent ballot initiative to get collective bargaining enshrined in the Michigan Constitution. While unions have been steadily losing members and power in the state of Michigan for quite some time, the passage of these laws will weaken them even more, thereby making unions even less of a factor in Michigan politics.
ReplyDeleteI have not heard many people arguing that this bill was passed illegally, because it did follow all of the requirements for a bill to become a law. I don't even think it is an issue of whether it was democratic, even given the majority in the legislature and having the governor be part of the majority. I think that the more pressing issue is calling into question the actual contents of the bill itself and asking whether it will be good or bad for our state. It's not even really a moral issue, as some have argued. The issue at hand is whether this bill will improve the economy of our state without costing workers' rights. If the people who benefit from Union action aren't paying Union dues, the Unions will no longer have enough money to operate. Without Unions, nobody will be fighting for workers' rights, which could be problematic in the future, but it hasn't really seemed to be a problem in the other states that have passed right to work legislation, so it is either going to be a problem long term, or I'm completely wrong. Another thing that was brought up is that it is helping Michigan be more competitive with neighboring states. This may be true, but I think that the bigger issue is the national economy. This bill might allow us to get jobs in Michigan that may have otherwise gone to Indiana, but that just leaves people in Indiana, another part of the same country, unemployed. We should think about attracting jobs to the United States over other countries, which this bill does nothing about, so it really isn't going to the root of the problem.
DeleteI do agree with Margaret that the bill was passed legally. No one can dispute that. However, I think Snyder acted out of his business instincts when passing this bill, something that I do not think is beneficial for the citizens of Michigan. Business owners would be supporters of this bill, but Snyder should not subconsciously target a small group when approving legislation. The majority of the state is definitely not business owners, so I do not think it was a truly “democratic” choice. Plainly, I do not think that many workers will take advantage of the Right to Work Bill. They will probably continue to pay dues for the union and attempt to show their discontent by completely disregarding the bill. In addition, the passage of this bill was a bad use of democracy. A majority of people did not want Proposal 2, but that does not mean that they wanted a Right to Work Bill, instead. The people voted against Proposal 2 because they did not want any amendments to their constitution. A “no” on a bill does not mean a “yes” on the opposite components of the bill. It was too extreme of a move by Snyder. The citizens gave him an inch, and he took off with a foot. Clearly, workers are upset. In response to Margaret’s comment, I do not think Snyder and the Republican House passed the law in the best interest of the people of Michigan. There was no indication that the people wanted this change, the people only voiced through the ballot proposal votes that they did not want collective bargaining on the constitution. It does not mean that it the state should make it more difficult for collective bargaining or any other union assembly. Also, the bill was passed in a lame duck session by the Congress. Many of the congressmen’ terms are done, so they do not have any people to answer to for their actions. As a result, this passage is not necessarily representative of their constituents.
ReplyDeleteI think that this topic could be viewed from many sides. This was an act of democracy and as I have read in recent articles Governor Synder believed that after the defeat of the second and fourth proposals, that were heavily lobbied for by the unions, he felt the public was signifying their similar belief in right to work. What I think would have been interesting to see, is if the two proposals were passed would Governor Synder gone through with the legislation. I believe that this was passed by a Majoritarian government because the Republicans were the majority in the house and had complete control over the passage of the bill. It is obvious because of all the press coverage of the passage of the bill, I wonder if other states would follow after Governor Synder and the state's Senate. I feel that the amount of negative attention this has gotten Governor Synder in particular he may have a hard time being reelected as Governor in the next election.
ReplyDeleteThis piece of legislation that was passed through was an interesting one. It came at a time when unions seemed week because both proposal 2 and 4, the big union proposals were voted down. Since they were voted down the state government then decided to pass the right to work law. This seemed to come out of the blue in the after the election even a few months ago if someone asked me if Michigan would become I "right to work state" I would have said not in the foreseeable future. I believe that right to work is important. A study shows that the states that are right to work have an average unemployment rate below the national unemployment rate. The thing that bothers me is that the union members and leaders are saying that the passing of this bill is undemocratic, but isn't forcing someone to pay money, even if they don't want to democratic? The passing of this bill will make unions more competitive so they become a place that people want to invest their money in and they see a benefit. This bill also has nothing to do with collective bargaining which is another complaint by the union members. I agree with Catherine in that Governor Snyder will have a hard time being reelected, but he will see it as worth it if in the future the economy in Michigan will do better, which I think it will.
ReplyDeleteGabriella had a good point with regard to extremes. It was underhanded of Snyder and the Republicans to jump straight to "right to work" just weeks after the collective bargaining legislation failed. As she pointed out, Michiganders made the whole idea of "hands off our Constitution" clear. It flew through the lame-duck legislature in less than a week with limited debate and without it being considered in committee. This is a tricky situation--on one hand we want to be able to compete with non-unionized southern states for jobs, but on the other, non-unionized workers will benefit from Union efforts without paying dues. Albeit I see why Governor Snyder acted so quickly and decisively, I think this could substantially hurt his chances for reelection. In the past, Snyder was reluctant to endorse right to work and supported collective bargaining. Part of the coalition that lead to his election included unionized workers, and this so-called betrayal of labor unions will result in a significant loss of support come 2014.
ReplyDeleteI'm apprehensive to say that I agree with Catherine's claim that the passage of this legislation is "democratic" per say. Again, what this comes down to is by which means you define democracy. I recognize the validity of Gabrielle's claims that the RTW legislation was passed in a lame duck session, and therefore the congressmen's terms are finished; however, it is their responsibility and JOB to vote for what they feel would be in the best interest of their constituents. These representatives, like Rick Snyder, may have reelection in mind. So, agreeing to support and pass legislation that was not approved by the majority of the constitutions (ie Prop 2 and 4 which BOTH had to do with collective bargaining rights) would not necessarily be good for their careers. The fact of the matter is, these representatives did vote in what they felt would be the best interest of their citizens cognizant of the current economic situation in Michigan. They were able to listen to the high profile politicians (including our president), lobbyists, and interest group representatives and subsequently made a judgement call. This legislation was, indeed, passed legally and repeal is not foreseeable in the near future.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the right to work bill was passed legally, as previously pointed out, this was done in a way that was not totally democratic. This is true because although the people selected their representatives, which would lead one to believe that the process was democratic, they passed the law during a lame duck period where they could essentially do what they wanted without fear of not getting re-elected because many of the legislators terms are over anyways so they may not feel the need to vote exactly as their constituents may want them too. Because some of the legislators may be acting of their own accord, versus what their constituents wants, the way the bill was passed was not necessarily democratic.
ReplyDeleteThe Right to Work Bill was passed legally as many others have pointed out. Governor Snyder stated that he wanted the RTW issue resolved and his position was he believes it is good policy for Michigan as it gives workers more freedom and predicts it will improve the state's economy. Republicans echo Governor Snyder's feelings and indicate that RTW will protect an employee's choice and improve Michigan's economic climate. Democrats feel that RTW weakens unions and will end collective bargaining agreements that protect employee wages and benefits. According to the Economic Policy Institute, studies have shown that keeping all things equal, RTW has little effect either way; however, RTW states have lower median wages but also lower unemployment. I think unions have less support from younger workers and voters. I believe it took a lot of courage for Snyder as it will hurt his re-election campaign so I feel that he truly believes it will benefit Michigan's economy. Time will tell....
ReplyDeleteAs Alexandra mentioned, the Right to Work legislation was not passed democratically because the bill was passed in a lame duck period, where the democrats could not even oppose the bill properly. While Rick Snyder believes that this legislation provide economic freedom and promotes economic growth, the delegation said they were particularly upset by the fact that right-to-work would allow employees to receive all the benefits of union representation, without paying any dues. But, it is not democratic for Rick Snyder to sign this bill over a lame duct period because Democrats could not oppose it and it was quickly passed through the Senate, without considerable thought, and it was passed quickly through the House quickly. The Democrats threaten Rick Snyder that signing the bill will have severe consequences, and many people are very angry with his decision of signing the bill. Non-supporters of the bill, like Carl Levin mentions that, instead of Michigan united, it was divided with the signing of this legislation. I do not agree with Erin, that is was passed "democratically", because even if Rick Snyder did have reelection in mind, passing this bill has caused him to have many non-supporters of him. Though representatives are too do what the constituents want, the collective bargaining proposal on the ballot proved through the majority, that this is NOT what the constituents wanted. This is not democracy in action, because Rick Snyder acted in haste and decisively, ignoring the complaints of the Democrats-abusing the concept of democracy. While it is likely that new businesses will evolve in Detroit, promoting many jobs for the unemployed, it will set the future back, because workers who are not for the union or employed in the union will receive all the same benefits of union representation, without paying any dues, making it unfair and causing tension.
ReplyDeleteI think that this bill can cause serious problems for Unions in the future. Michigan, due to its strongly industrial economy in Detroit, has always been a huge state for Unions. This bill will allow workers to elect not to join any union and therefore not pay any union dues. However, when Unions fight for workers' rights, even the non-union workers are going to benefit from it. Therefore, there will be no incentive to join unions at all, and the unions will soon not have enough money to continue to work. This is a huge step backward, as unions' goals are to make sure workers have fair pay and good conditions. If the unions go under, there will be nobody fighting to make sure that the workers get these important things. This could also be a result of the anti-union sentiment that seems to be spreading throughout Michigan. None of the union backed ballot proposals passed. This could be the beginning of a new era for Michigan workers, and it doesn't seem like a very good one to me.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the bill was passed democratically. Although republicans do have a majority in the michigan senate. A majority of people voted against proposal 2 and proposal 4, both dealing with collective bargaining/unions. And then Congress passed the Right to Work Bill, given the proposal results in the election, I would not have thought that Congress would have passed the bill, and they weren't doing what a majority of the people want. I think that the passing of this bill won't change much. I think that Union workers will still want to invest their money in the unions. Im not sure yet how this will effect Rick Snyder's re-election, although I think it will probably cause him some trouble.
ReplyDeleteI think, personally, that if you're the governor of a STATE you should probably think about what's best for that STATE not for your own political party. The Right to Work bill was obviously not supported by the majority of citizens in Michigan (there were police guarding the doors to the state legislature when the state legislature was debating the bill) - I mean I'd consider Michigan a union state - so why on Earth would a governor take advantage of the Republican majority in the House and Senate when he knew, assuming he doesn't live under a rock, very well how angry the VAST amount of union workers in Michigan would be? Who knows. I agree with Stephanie in that this is a huge step backward for Michigan, but maybe I'm just biased. I apologize for the sass.
ReplyDeleteIt seems contradictory that Democrats who are so in favor of the "right to choose" are not in favor of workers' right to choose whether or not they should pay union dues. It is completely untrue that given the choice the majority of workers will continue to pay union dues and ignore the passage of this law. Union membership in Wisconsin and many other states has plummeted once workers have been given the choice whether or not to join unions. The claims that the passage of this bill will harm the state of Michigan ignore reality. Indiana became a right to work state on February 1, 2012. Since the start of 2012, Indiana has added 43,300 jobs, while Michigan has lost 7,300 jobs. Between 1980 and 2011, right to work states have had an increase in employment of 71%, non-right to work states have increased 32%, and Michigan has increased employment 14%. Since 2001, right to work states have increased employment 3.5%, while non-right to work states have had a DECREASE in employment of 2.6%. How can producing more jobs in Michigan be bad for the people of Michigan?
ReplyDeleteAlthough this is a controversial topic I feel that if the Democrats were the majority of the Senate and there was a Democrat as the governor things would be flipped around. I still do believe that this decision was democratic because the public voted for Gov. Synder and the people to represent us; so if the tables were turned we would most likely still be in the same posistion. I agree with Margaret that it is suprising, ideologically speaking, that Democrats do not favor freedom within unions because they favor free choice. I think that the any politician would have done the same thing if his party was in the majority.
ReplyDeleteI firmly disagree with Catherine, I still do not believe that signing this piece of legislation during a lame duck period, where the democrats could not oppose the bill properly, is democratic. Even if the "tables" were turned and the Democrats were the majority of the Senate, it does not necessarily mean that they would sign this bill during the lame duck period, as the Republicans did. I agree with Margaret and Catherine that, it quite surprising that Democrats do not favor freedom within unions because they favor free choice, but regardless, I still believe that signing this bill was undemocratic and the people proved that they did not want this bill through the collective bargaining proposals that was on the ballot. I agree with Margaret that yes, this bill will provide many new jobs for people, especially for the unemployed, because new businesses will evolve, but the way and procedure Rick Snyder took to sign this bill is undemocratic. The right of work bill was not supported by the majority of the American citizens, so why is Rick Snyder signing a bill that is not in favor of the American citizens? Isn't he supposed to REPRESENT the people?
ReplyDeleteI think Margaret brought up an excellent point with regard to the contraindication in the Democrat's "right to choose" platform. However, it seems to be that the more localized politics becomes, the less of an effect party identification has. Keeping in mind our current class focus on interest groups, there is no set "Republican Card" one receives to place in their wallet so that a republican representatives can have discounted food at "Capitol Corner Store". They can simply act as labels that representatives place on themselves to indicate general ideology. Therefore crossing "party lines" in order to pass necessary legislation should not ALWAYS be deemed illogical, and representatives who do such should not ALWAYS be labeled as flip floppers. However, the word "necessary" is also quite ambiguous and has the potential to bring up a lot of questions for us to answer.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Catherine’s comment that Governor Snyder represents us. Although in a broad sense that is true, in terms of legislation, it is primarily the congressmen that represent us. Governor Snyder strictly executes the laws put into place by the State Congress. Although I understand how Margaret is trying to find an inconsistency in the Democrats’ platform, I don’t think the “right to choose” and workers’ rights can be compared on the same plane. I completely agree with Gretchen’s statements about the governor doing what is best for the state. The majority of citizens did not support the bill, and he took advantage of a Republican majority in the House. The lame duck congressmen can just leave office without dealing with the aftermath of the bill. Snyder, however, must stay and answer to the implementations of the bill. That is one thing that the governor probably should have thought a little more about before abruptly passing the bill. I also agree with Stephanie’s point about the Michigan economy. The economy is centered around the auto industry, thus being a breeding ground for autoworker unions. A government official of a state that has such a high quantity of unions should not upset them, due to the risk of losing the approval of a large part of the constituency. A governor is supposed to act according to the majority, and this bill certainly does not reflect the majority. Evidence of that is shown by the media coverage and protests of the bill.
ReplyDeleteBecause the majority at the time this bill was passed in Michigan was one of a republican majority it is very unsurprising that this bill would be passed. Although as previously discussed, the measure of democracy used in the passing of the bill was questionable,it was passed legally and I'm very certain that if the democrats were in control one of their bills would have been passed the same way. Even though passing legislation with a lame duck legislature is probably not the most moral and democratic way to go about these things, the governor, who was elected by the people, I believe had the ultimate say. The people elected this man thus he is their representatives. Although he did not make the most popular decision, he was the appointed governor. It is surprising to me that Michigan would have even chosen a republican, thus for RTW, leader to govern their state.
ReplyDeleteI think Margret did bring up a good point how the states who have become right to work have gained jobs versus the states that were controlled by unions. I have to disagree with Gretchen's statement that the majority of the people obviously did not want it. I am not saying that I know what the majority of people wanted, but I think that it is incorrect to say whether the majority wanted it or not. There is not enough evidence to support either claim. I also think that having President Obama stepping in on a state matter was wrong. I believe that the president should stay out of state only issues no matter if he is for or against them. I believe by him doing this and taking a clear side made him look like he was still campaigning, especially since unions are one of the biggest donors to democratic nominees. Which brings me to another point. If a person did not support a candidate that the union supported, some of the fee they pay could go to the candidate of the union's backing. It makes no sense to give money to something you don't believe in but yet that is what people were forced to do since they had to belong. I believe this bill will help the unions become competitive again and go back to their main purpose of protecting worker's rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the points made by Payas. Though the bill was passed legally it was not democratic due to it being passed during a lame duck period and it was clear that there was a lot of opposition to this bill. Governor Snyder acted quickly because he had a short window of time to take advantage of the lame duck period. I think with the level of controversy he is facing with the unions and union backers, it will hurt Governor Snyder's chances of re-election. I also have to disagree with Cam. I don't think we can just make the assumption that if the Democrats were in the reverse position, they would do the same thing. If the statistics Margaret provided are true, then this bill should certainly help Michigan's unemployment. The statistics I found at the Economic Policy Institute do back up Margaret's point that RTW states have lower unemployment; however, RTW states also have lower median wages. Overall, the question seems to be will more people working for lower wages benefit Michigan's economy than less people working for higher wages?
ReplyDeleteMr. Baker pointed out that tough decisions need to be made to reach a goal. And when a particularly controversial one is made, it's inevitable to get unhappy and resentful citizens--Governor Snyder's approval ratings (at least temporarily) have plummeted. The Governor, much like the President when Obama Care was first passed, is facing a lot of push back. Both however felt that the issue was worth the political points (I forget the term Mr. Baker exactly used) it cost. Labor unions are furious, and that's understandable. The free-rider problem is a formidable one. The Bill's "right of passage" was speedy to the point of nonexistent, and it was passed in an arguably dishonest manner. But the "right to work" statistics that Margaret pointed out are hard to ignore. New jobs and lower unemployment rates are attractive and seem to be taking root in new right-to-work-states. Perhaps Snyder's gamble will pay off: his short-term unpopularity will be replaced with long-term benefits for the state as a whole.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, the bill was passed legally and democratically. However, since we are in a lame-duck session of Congress, many feel that this is not completely fair and the legislature is not completely representative of the opinions of the population, a point that has been made in the national fiscal cliff debate. This period of time is still in their terms so they still have the right to pass legislation. Although I do not agree with the Right to Work legislation, it was passed legally. Unions seem to be losing their stronghold in Michigan after the defeat of the collective bargaining proposals in the election, but I think that turning Michigan into a Right to Work state is a bit extreme, like giving an inch and taking a mile. Michiganders are a bit disillusioned with unions because of their depleted banks accounts during this economy and having to pay union dues out of every paycheck can be a considerable loss of money for a blue collar worker. This does not mean that Michiganders necessarily disagree with unions because of our industrial economy. In the end, the Right to Work legislation, in my opinion, will end up hurting Michiganders more than it will help them. The legislation allows those who decide not to join that union to be covered under any deals the union makes with the employer, and still benefit from the work of the union without having to pay their share. Although many make the argument that being required to pay and join a union is undemocratic, so is benefiting from something that you do not pay your share of. Another point is that if too many people decide to stop paying union dues because they still benefit, unions will begin to lose money and lose not only their members, but the benefits they provide, potential deals they make with employers, and the political power they have.
ReplyDeleteI think that the “right to work” law is bad for the state. The whole point of the law (which allows people who are protected by unions in their workplace to opt out of paying for that protection through union dues) is to make it harder for unions to exist. The reason why employers want that is that it means they can pay their workers less and don’t need to worry about workers’ safety as much. Where unions are strong, wages are higher, and there are rules about the amount of time employees required to work or have off, and there are better workplace safety rules and limitations against companies just firing people for no reason at all. The point of right to work laws is just to weaken unions—to drive down wages, to allow dangerous workplaces, which are cheaper for employers, and to limit the rights of employees. The justification seems to be that if we get rid of unions then more companies will want to come here to Michigan and there will be more jobs. But the problem is that the jobs and the companies aren’t good. It’s a “race to the bottom,” to see who can attract companies, but the jobs they offer have low wages and no benefits. There is no proof that limiting or preventing unions helps the economy. Clearly, it doesn’t, when you look at the rich states versus the poor states. There is a reason why the poorest states in the country are “right to work” and the states that have the highest employment and wages are not. Right to work laws come from the Confederate states of the South, where there is huge inequality among rich and poor; I don’t see why we in the North would intentionally try to be the South. I don’t see the point in breaking unions in order to drive down wages for workers. The less money they have, the less they spend, and the more the economy suffers. What breaking unions does is create a bigger gap between the rich and everyone else. We don’t need that now. While the supporters of the law might say that it doesn’t get rid of unions, what it does is allow some workers to “freeload” off the people who support the union, by taking benefits that they don’t pay for. That isn’t fair to anyone.
ReplyDelete