Today Michigan legislators approved "right to work" laws that prevent unions from requiring employees to join unions and pay dues to them. Michigan is the 24th state to pass such legislature. However, it is the most union-heavy state to do so (it is the home of the United Automobile Workers). Many argue that the two bills passed today hurt workers by decreasing the power of unions to fight for better pay and rights. Among those who opposed the bills was President Obama, who claimed that these are less laws that about giving people the right to work and more about "giving you the right to work for less money." In addition, the Michigan capital was flooded with protesting unions members (including those from the United Auto Workers Union and teachers. A few schools even closed in order to allow teachers to go protest the passage of the bills.).So what do you think? Do these bills help make employment more fair by not forcing people to pay to work? Or are dues worth it in order to have the protection of a strong union? What would you think of it if this sort of legislation was passed in California?
You can read more about this issue here, here, and here.
Right-to-Work States vs. Forced Unionism States:
10 comments:
My father is one of the many people who work under a labor union, and to me they are very important. It ensures that there is equality between workers and ensures their rights. Being in a union has helped my dad keep a well-paid, steady job. I can see how not everyone is in favor of union dues and fees that they must "pay to work". It can be tough for some to come up with extra money to pay. My family is expected to pay union dues as well. However I believe it is a necessity to give back somewhat to the unions that help workers and their families.
I think although the law initially sounds good because nobody wants to have to pay to work, in reality it hurts the people that it is supposedly trying to protect. I think this is a sneaky way for the companies to be able to make there workers have less rights and make it easier for them to decrease wages and benefits. I wonder how much of the money fundraised to pass this bill came from big businesses that benefit from it.
I always thought that there should be something that allows people to have jobs without having to join a union. However I am not entirely sure how beneficial this will be. Though "paying to work" is a downside of being in a union, there are numerous positive sides in the forms of the job benefits that unions fight to protect. This law could create loopholes that allow companies to, like Sam said, take away rights from their workers. How exactly this will play out in the real world has yet to be seen, but perhaps it may not be as beneficial as it is trying to be.
Following up on Sam's comment, I also think that the law was made with good intent, but can be abused. If we deregulate our labor requirements now, companies have more power over union members, allowing them to fire union members and employ non-union members. This hurts the unions since they lose bargaining power. What we get out of this is a Guilded Age type scenario, where employers can fire current employees because of wage or rights demands. Less people will have jobs, and the ones that do may be in danger of low wages.
This is a topic where I haven't completely formed my opinion yet, but after reading the linked articles, I feel like there is more to the story. The NY Times piece did a nice job of directly contrasting support and criticism of the new law, but is this really as simple as "attracting business" vs. "weakening unions?" I understand that the issue reflects ideological polarization (right or wrong, Snyder and the AFL-CIO’s general counsel have both defended their supposed “pro-worker” stance, but each with strikingly opposite ideological reasoning). And perhaps much of the controversy surrounding this issue is party line based, but why has it become (or always been) this way? Since we were discussing bureaucracy in class today, this quote from the Reuters article stood out to me; “Supporters of right-to-work measures say some unions have become too rigid and workers should be given a choice of whether to join. They also say a more flexible labor market encourages business investment, citing ‘right-to-work’ states where some foreign automakers have put plants rather than in Michigan.” While I have a limited capacity to actually fact check this claim, the allegation itself seemed to be hinting at dissatisfaction with the inefficiency and limitations of a supposed “union bureaucracy.” Which, in theory, would fit perfectly with the party line polarization that already surrounds this topic. If it is true that a certain degree of “union bureaucracy” does exist that can possibly render the workforce less efficient and less subject to accountability—which I am not going to try to confirm or deny at the moment since I would like to sleep—then this dispute, at its very heart, is not just a party line issue; it could be equated to NYC Parks & Rec. v. Trump’s skating rink… in which there might not be an objectively “better” solution, but only a balance of moral give-and-take.
I must disagree with the majority of comments on this page. The unions have effectively established a monopoly on labor, and therefore needs to be regulated if it seeks to interfere with competitors unfairly in the labor market, namely non union workers. In essence, the unions have become the corporations selling labor, and have artificially increased prices on their services, while the companies employing these workers are actually the consumers in this market. Due to unionization, cannot search in the market for labor but rather must act in compliance with the few labor sources in the market. Thus this legislation is simply a weakening of the powers of what effectively is a trust or monopoly.
With all due respect, Anguna Munat
This whole issue comes down to how much power unions should be allowed to have and whether they are benefiting workers and our economy as a whole. States with right to work laws tend to be more pro-business and on average have faster growing economies. Also, just like in our Federal bureaucracy, it is very difficult if not impossible to fire many union workers who may not be up to par. Many workers don't want to have to join a union to have a job in a certain field because they feel that union dues are too costly or they don't support union activities and political stances (generally pretty far left).
That being said, unions serve an important role in society by looking out for the safety and well-being of workers. We must be careful when undermining union power but also keep in mind that not everything unions do is good for society since they are looking out for the interests of their workers alone.
In a way, I agree with Mr. Munat's sentiment and view on the issue between unions and non-union workers. Labor unions were started with good intentions of protecting workers and ensuring equality across the board, but over the past three decades, especially in the UAW, the relatively unchecked and giant driving force of a large labor union has been too overpowering in the labor economy. The massive power of unions has also indirectly created a workforce that is disputably less efficient and less responsible in terms of their jobs as a whole, and just as Anthony mentioned, has also made it much harder to reduce the number of bad or possibly unqualified workers at a large cost to employers.
Although unions have traditionally protected their workers and will continue to do so, their sheer size and power has grown out of control and is generally responsible for influencing workers that asking for artificial raises, even in times of recession and bailout controversy is acceptable. Thus, I feel the UAW has a large part in snowballing the Detroit crisis that has still not been returned to the status quo of a healthy and equal balance of power between workers and employers. By allowing a choice for workers to join or stay out of unions, corporations are allowed to regain a small portion of their hiring power they have ceded to unions over the years, as long as they do not immediately overpower the collective bargaining capacity of union members. Passage of this new "right to work" legislation effectively and arguably levels the playing field for employers as they have been the ones losing their own right to select sources of workers.
I'm confused at how unions could force all workers to join them to begin with, since it's not like a union can fire people from a company or anything. But if it works then okay fine. I suppose now that it's been outlawed, the worry is that people are going to drop out of unions and become moochers? And then unions lose power and everyone's pay goes down? I suppose it's more fair to pay dues to the unions that support your rights. But then, I'm not so certain that it's fair to force people to. It might be for their own good, though. I don't know how much economic impact this will have. Maybe it's more of a political issue that shows favoritism toward big businesses.
As much as I would like workers to have jobs without having to deal with the whole "joining a union" process, I do realize that in the long run, it would be better to keep the unions strong in order to have that constant check on businesses. As ugly as it sounds, companies are driven by their desire to make profits. I'd be shocked if the businesses in Michigan didn't cash out on such a law. On the other hand, Munat's comment about unions monopolizing the labor and artificially inflating the price of labor does make me wonder if the unions have been too aggressive and as a result, led to such a law.
Post a Comment