>


Give the power back to the workers. 

Repealing the law literally takes the power to choose away from the workers.  Let a worker make their own fucking decision if you really care about them.
And of course, the name will work as designed in the inevitable attack ads. People wont know what "right-to-work" actually means and it'll be taken more literally than it actually is. >

It should be called what it really is, “right to work for peanuts “, or maybe. “right to exploit”. 
Progressives have a lot to learn about word use and messaging. The right wing movement is really good at that. >

Correct. The reality of "Right to be fired without reason or notice" sounds too awful to sell. You can't have toxic conservative capitalism without lying to the workers who vote for you. >

That's not what is being repealed here.   If this law is repealed, you can still be fired without reason or notice in Michigan. >


“It directly affects unionized workers, but it will benefit all workers in Michigan,” says Shaiken. “If auto workers earn more, teacher wages go up. As people in the community begin earning more, this impacts the service economy, as well as manufacturing.”

Every worker benefits from unionization. Society benefits from stronger unions. This is great work from Michigan democrats >

I’m pro union, but why should people be forced to join one if they don’t want to?
e: downvoted for asking a question? no discussions about policy in r/politics? >

It’s not about joining them, it’s about union dues. So if you’re a teacher but not in a union, and the union wins all teachers in the area higher wages, it’s a classic free rider problem. You’re benefiting from the union but you’re not contributing to the cost of union representation, lawsuits, etc. >

Why can’t the union just fight for benefits for it’s members? Seems like that’s a more logical place to start than forcing everyone to pay dues, whether they want to or not >

Because if people are benefiting from the union without contributing, they why would anyone pay their dues? They’d stop, and eventually the union would fall apart, and those benefits would be lost - the free rider issue. >

If people don’t want union benefits, those benefits should not be forced upon them (along with associated dues). Again, the solution to me seems to prevent non-union members from benefiting from unions. Why don’t union advocates revise that portion of the law, rather than forcing unions to represent everyone whether they pay or not? Or in the case of anti- right to work people, forcing everyone to pay for the union so that they’re represented. >

Because it’s problematic for a union to win all teachers in Kewaunee County higher wages, oh except for Bob over here. If a court determines that workers are being unfairly treated, that applies to all of them. You can’t just pick and choose based on union membership because that would be equally discriminatory >

It's not problematic at all, you're creating a problem where none exists to justify enormous graft and coercion.  It is trivially easy to write a CBA that only applies to union members. >

“After adjusting for cost-of-living differences and other observable factors, we found that “right-to-work” laws are statistically associated with 16% lower wages for police officers and firefighters, 11% lower wages for construction workers, 7% lower wages for registered nurses, 5% lower wages for elementary and secondary school teachers, and 3% lower wages for manufacturing workers.” >

idgaf about police making less. Fuckem. >

That’s fine, but we’re all eating it here. Cops are gonna be overpaid with or without these extremely bad laws. >

Good. They were one of the biggest scams passed by Republicans for their wealthy donors.. >

For anyone saying that unions are detrimental or "don't help" you should remember one thing. A union is only as good as the members of the union make it. Contracts are voted on. Be active in your representation. Do you have a Steward or Staff Rep not doing their job? File against them. Vote them out. The second biggest reason that a union fails or does not represent their members is because those members are not engaged. The first is Republican anti worker policies and supreme court rulings. Until we as the working class take our mindset back to the 30s when it comes to fighting for our rights. We will continue to get stepped on. We need to weed out the corruption in Unions and grow the rank and file's teeth back. >

Finally someone does something right.  And then lawsuit comes and some idiot judge rule the repeal unconstitutional. >

Amen, let us be done with the "Right to be owned". >

Something to good to read about!!!!
Republicans love to name laws the inverse of what the law really is— Right to Work as a title is such a scam. >

I still don’t know how I feel about this. It’s easy to say “go union it makes your life better!” But what do you do for example as a carpenter if you’re surrounded by closed shops and the union isn’t taking more apprentices? Or if the union says they’ll take you but you have to start out as an A1 making $16hr when you were making $25 ? 
I know most of you don’t have actual union experience so I’m willing to explain some of the potential problems to you for your own knowledge. The third hand union rhetoric on reddit isn’t very accurate for the day to day union life >

All I know is that my union, which isn't a great union, it's like a b-/c+ union, still has managed to make sure that my college can't just arbitrarily not give me courses to teach, has done a good job of protecting my working conditions, and is the reason I make an (almost) living wage as a non-tenure-track faculty member. >

I see the concern with the naming, but even most of the stupid Republicans I know here in Michigan understand what a trash law this is.  Been hoping for this.  Give the power back to the workers.  A lot of businesses here don't deserve to be open with the way they treat people.