>

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That's not what is being repealed here.   If this law is repealed, you can still be fired without reason or notice in Michigan.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