Right-to-work does not mean NO unions

You know how Democrats and liberals are always demanding choice? Sure, except when it comes to the choice an employee has to join – or not join – a union.

They are also totally against school choice vouchers … but that’s another article.

Yesterday’s free-for-all in Michigan was out-of-control, but the law passed in the State House and Senate.

  • After eight years of Democrat control of the governor’s office, Michigan put Rick Snyder (R-Mich.) into the seat two years ago. Snyder convincingly beat Virg Bernero (D) 58% to 40% .
  • In Michigan’s State Senate, Republicans have a super-majority (26-12).
  • In the Michigan House, Republicans have a 59 – 51 majority.
  • In a November ballot question, Michigan voted NO (57% to 43%) to Proposal 12-2 that would have made collective bargaining a right for public and private workers.
  • In a November ballot question, Michigan voted NO (56% to 44%) to Proposal 12-4 that would have given home health care providers limited collective bargaining rights.
The people of Michigan have spoken, but that did not stop President Obama from going to Michigan on Monday and getting the union thugs all worked up telling them “we shouldn’t be … trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions.” Of course, he lied to the crowd. The Michigan legislation Obama is taking about did not take away rights to bargain for better wages.

Right-to-work should really be called right-to-not-join-a-union. Before today, employees with union shops absolutely had to join the union wether they wanted their representation or not. They were forced to join. Forced to pay dues.

That all ends in Michigan, where workers are free to choose if they wish to join the union or not. The unions have a problem with this – hence all of their thugs taking swings at people and destroying private property yesterday – because current members will drop out since they are doing harm to employment opportunities for everyone in Michigan.

It’s not about politics, it’s not even about the economy for these union cronies. They want their big-dollar dues.

As defined in Wikipedia… with my emphasis.

A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees’ membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

13 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Right to work means right to choose.? No right to work, no choice.? Sounds “faintly” undemocratic, no?? Mighty hypocritical for backers of the “choice” party.
    ?
    Of course ?bama lies about it for his backers.?? It is what he does best.? It is what the “progdolytes” expect him to do.?
    ?
    If unions were so good, conscription and pay confiscation wouldn’t be necessary.?? Clearly, they are not, relying on the aforementioned, slathered with thuggery.? Sounds similar to the way Islam is enforced in Islamic countries, does it not?

  2. yeah
    yeah says:

    Its gotta suck having to nearly completely misrepresent your ideology in order for people to support it.
    Then again, when the refs in the game are wearing one of the team’s colors…
    ?

  3. JBS
    JBS says:

    Michelle Malkin has a good piece entitled,?There Will Be Blood?: Union Violence in the Age of Obama. http://michellemalkin.com/. Unions rely on the kind of violence typical of immature youths, the Mafia, despots and dictators. Not getting your way? Beat some up! Intimidation, coercion, threatening and
    If unions are sooooooo good, why are they dying? How come states (there are 24 of them now), with a right-to-work law, have better employment numbers, stronger private companies and are the preferred states of growing companies? States that border Michigan (#38) — Indiana (#18), Minnesota (#20), Ohio (#28),? Illinois (#36) and Wisconsin (#35)? are growing faster and are more business friendly. (Connecticut is #47! It would be interesting to juxtapose each state’s debt and deficits with right-to-work law.)
    The District of Columbia, illustrious home of our federal government, does not have a right-to-work law. Unions are may be good for big government Democrats but right-to-work laws are good for businesses and working people.

  4. GdavidH
    GdavidH says:

    It seems to me that the democrat mantra, especially through the first Obama administration, has been to allow non paying members of the “union”, i.e. the US of A, to reap the rewards and benefits gained through the hard work and labor of the members in good standing of said “union”. At the same time, there seems to be a membership drive to accept and enroll new members with no monetary support required.

    What are these unionistas complaining about? Right to work only encourages the same choice the dems have been advocating for years.
    ?I’m confused?

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Connecticut is a “closed shop” meaning that if you want to work someplace that the union and the management have an agreement on, you have to become part of the union. There are two ways: be a fully paid-up union member with voting rights or pay a slightly lesser rate and not be a voting member.
      Either way, you pay to work.

      • GdavidH
        GdavidH says:

        What’s your point?
        I made an?analogy?comparing the overall dem theology of taxation to how they view paying union dues. A hypocracy.
        ?I did not think I came across as not understanding how union dues collection works.

      • GdavidH
        GdavidH says:

        I never really left. Just couldn’t justify adding more spice to the dish until this came along. I have been angrily quiet about the state of politics, state and national. It’s depressing to have to go back out on the field when you are being bowled over.

  5. futureflyersct
    futureflyersct says:

    One point made by a union guy in an interview on Fox seemed to me to be important but overlooked. He said the new law in MI. Would actually give him more leverage within his own union as now if he voiced an opinion , ?leadership would be more prone to listen to him so that he didn’t ? vote with his feet. Previously they ignored him knowing he would pay either way. Maybe well get more reasonable positions from the union In the future? One can only hope. Or as Jim says ” from your lips to Gods ears”

  6. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    The union is being used by Obama to destroy the choice of the individual, and in the end the original prupose of the union.
    Consider the union as being a state while you read the 10th Amendment:? “The powers?not delegated to the?United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.?
    Obama would love to have the union take people’s choices away, and in the end he, or the federal Government,?will take the union’s (state’s) choices away.? Both would render the Constitution void, which is the goal of his ideology.
    Wake up?union members(sheeple), you were, and are?free?Americans before you were?union.?
    Power to the people!?

    • PatRiot
      PatRiot says:

      Obama won the loyalty of the auto makers unions with the bailout (some of which was their own tax money).? When the time is right?he will remind the membership that they owe him.? And that they will have to do things his way- -goodbye original union intent, hello brown shirts/government slaves.
      Just another group to use up and throw under the bus.?
      Just another bump in the road.?

Comments are closed.