Michigan Lawmakers Pass Right-to-Work Law

Violent protests erupt outside state Capitol.

Overcoming the large crowds that have descended upon the capital, Michigan House members approved legislation allowing workers to freely decide whether they wish to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Fights have broken out in front of the Capitol, and at least one warming tent has been torn down.

Watchdog.org’s Matt Kittle spoke with reporter Ryan Ekvall who is in Lansing, and saw the mob tear down the AFP tent.
The bill is the first of two considered by lawmakers, applying to workers in both government and private-sector unions.

The Republican-led House on Tuesday adopted one measure by a 58-51 vote, freeing government workers from compulsory union membership. A second bill, for private-sector workers, is expected to be passed later Tuesday.

Adoption of the laws would make Michigan the 24th “right-to-work” state.

Gov. Rick Snyder has indicated that he will sign the bills as early as this week.

Shouting “Kill the bill,” demonstrators attacked the warming tent of Americans for Progress, a conservative organization that supports the right-to-work legislation.

Unlike the labor battle in Wisconsin, which prompted the failed recall election of Gov. Scott Walker, Michigan union groups in the private and public sectors will still be entitled to collectively bargain for wages and benefits.

This article originally appeared at Watchdog.org.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    We're a very confused country right now, aren't we?

  • SugarFree||

    Any minute now the entire country is going to come out of closet.

  • ||

    You know what would be just? Forcing you to watch every episode of R Kelly's Trapped in the Closet.

  • ||

    I've watched that shit. It's incredible. How can you, of all people, not love it?

  • ||

    Sure I do. But NutraSweet? He has the attention span of a gnat. He's be clawing at the walls trying to get to his iPad halfway through the first episode.

  • SugarFree||

    What were you saying?

  • Enough About Palin||

    "He has the attention span of a gnat"

    I have encountered some focused, driven gnats in my day.

  • fried wylie||

    I have encountered some focused, driven gnats in my day.

    You have to take their lifespan into account as well. A gnat paying attention to something for 1sec would be equivalent to a human attention span lasting years.

  • ||

    So gnats live for less than 80 seconds?

  • John||

    Local elections seem to be decided on issues like the fiscal health of the government and the economy. Presidential elections are completely determined by who can ensure that Sandra Fluke has plenty of birth control. It is all very confusing sometimes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I used to have a pretty good idea about American politics. Now it's like it's some giant reality show.

  • John||

    Well, we do have President Kardashian.

  • alittlesense||

    I think it is President Snooki.......

  • John||

    No. That is the first lady.

  • Whahappan?||

    I think you mean "Wookie."

  • AlmightyJB||

    ba-da-bing

  • Ronulanus||

    That's what happens when the entire "mainstream" media is either extremely liberal, vastly neoconservative (FOX), or a sad combination of the two.

  • Enough About Palin||

    FOX is not neoconservative, dipshit. Oh, and please define "neoconservative".

  • dinkster||

    Are you high?

  • Rasilio||

    Neoconservatism: The marriage of the formerly liberal position of a strong international military presence and national greatness rhetoric with the conservative positions of limited government, a qualified belief in free markets, and social conservatism.

    A Neo Conservative is one who espouses such beliefs.

    Fox News definately qualifies.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    You're making Fox News sound more consistent than it is. They turn whichever way the right-wing wind is blowing at the moment. From 2009-12 that was actually somewhat (economically) libertarian. It's not likely to be the case in the future, of course.

  • AlmightyJB||

    On Pax Americana Fox is definately on the Weekly Standard bandwagon.

  • hotsy totsy||

    When did the spelling of definitely become definately. That's 3 times today at least.

  • Lord at War||

    Fail.

    The original "neocons" were simply liberal jews who supported the conservative warboner.

  • T o n y||

    The national electorate is Bluer than many local electorates. And Democrats actually got a higher popular vote in the national Congress than Republicans, despite the latter hanging onto the majority (thanks gerrymandering!). Republicans had good luck in state and local elections recently (which contributed to the House imbalance).

    Little matter though. It's quite obvious which direction history is pointing.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    There is no national vote for Congress. Also, the "national electorate" gave your guy 9M fewer votes than they did four years ago. So which direction is history pointing again?

  • T o n y||

    That there is no national vote for Congress is the point: essentially a bunch of hillbilly state-level lawmakers gave us the House, under whose semi-literate ineptitude the entire country gets to suffer. Our system truly is the best in the world.

    Name an issue on which the Republican position is gaining popularity. I don't think Obama winning with 8% unemployment indicates a country moving toward Republicans.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    essentially a bunch of urban machine politicians gave us the president, under whose semi-literate ineptitude the entire country gets to suffer.

  • dinkster||

    Team blue SMART, team red DUMB. Hur dur.

  • Calidissident||

    You do realize that Democrats can run up big margins of victory in the city districts, while Republicans win by smaller margins in suburban and rural districts, and in the end Republicans get more seats, independent of gerrymandering (which has always been a part of congressional elections)? You're assuming that both sides will have equal MOV in the seats they win

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Gerrymandering you say?

  • T o n y||

    So you agree that it's an absurd reality.

  • dinkster||

    An absurd reality supported by DEMOCRACY

  • T o n y||

    It's a perversion of democracy. I thought you guys were against the stranglehold of the parties.

  • dinkster||

    or is it a democracy of perversion?

  • Hopfiend||

    Gerrymandering would never happen under Democrats, but if it did, it would be purely for benevolent purposes. Republican gerrymandering however is always bad and nefarious. I don't know why you all can't see that. It is the truth because Tony is a Democrat.

  • Sevo||

    Hopfiend| 12.11.12 @ 6:25PM |#
    "Gerrymandering would never happen under Democrats, but if it did, it would be purely for benevolent purposes."

    That's the reason CA's legislature went from 56% to 67% Dems; benevolent gerrymandering by the Dem majority.

  • T o n y||

    I'm quite against gerrymandering in general. For national elections a national standard seems appropriate.

  • Monty Crisco||

    Right....

  • Hopfiend||

    I am actually in favor of her having all the birth control she can get.

  • ||

    We're just a little bi-curious. It's no big deal.

  • John||

    Couldn't we have just gotten it out of our system in boarding school like everyone else?

  • ||

    Master Shake: Somebody's a little bi-curious!

    Meatwad: I ain't no bi-curious. I'm a man's man!

    Master Shake: Not anymore! I've planted the seed of doubt!

    Meatwad: You don't say that! I'm a man, and you...if you need me, I'm gonna be in the garage...[in a deeper voice] hangin' Sheetrock, 'round an engine I'm rebuilding.

    Master Shake: Look at the way he rolls...

    Meatwad: WHERE'S MY CHEWIN' TOBACCO?!?

    Master Shake: ...just like a woman!

  • robc||

    Im even confused.

    I oppose RTW in general, but oppose the existence of PubSec unions even more, and this seems to be mostly a blow at PubSec unions, so its hard not to support it.

    Its not my state, so I can just sit back and enjoy the show, I guess.

  • John||

    Why do you oppose RTW? A business can still insist on its employees join a union if it wants to. RTW just prevents the unions from depriving people of that choice.

  • califernian||

    hunh? My understanding is the exact opposite, that RTW prohibits the employer from agreeing to require union membership from employees. Are you sure about your interpretation of these laws?

  • R C Dean||

    I haven't looked into in much detail, but I think cali's description is essentially accurate.

    In "closed shop" states, I think there generally isn't a law requiring employees to join the union. Instead, the unions just make that their number one non-negotiable demand, and threaten to close the employer otherwise. And why should the employer die on that hill? His out-of-pocket doesn't change. If the idiot employees want a union, screw them, let them all pay the freight.

  • T o n y||

    And why shouldn't the government step in and tip the scales for the employer, because, er, something!

  • R C Dean||

    Spacy, how does allowing employees to decide whether to join a union tip the scales in favor of the employer? Such a law doesn't change the wages, benefits, work rules, etc. that impact the employer, so why should the employer care?

  • T o n y||

    The law forbids unions and employers to enter into closed-shop agreements. It is a government restriction on freedom of choice. You are not justified in being pro-RTW for any libertarian reason.

    If you're going to go down the road of saying government coercion is justified in this manner in order to balance the coercion in the National Labor Relations Act, then we have a lot of issues to revisit, because libertarianism is no longer about minimizing government coercion, it's about using government coercion when convenient to accomplish certain ends, at which point what should you call yourself? Because it's no longer libertarian.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    It's annoying when die-hard doctrinaire libertarians lecture us on what positions are libertarian.

    But when Tony lectures us on it, it's downright hilarious.

  • T o n y||

    I'm told society must be forced to accept a whole range of likely undesirable outcomes because the single most important thing in the universe is adhering to a strict individual-rights ethos. Damning consequences, and consequentialism, is practically the entire point of libertarianism.

    So when people make exceptions it's worth noting. At the very least it's a way to ferret out the principled libertarians from the ones who've crawled ever so slightly from the muck of the Republican talking points they use for thoughts and attempt cleverness by calling themselves libertarian instead.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 12.11.12 @ 5:43PM |#
    "I'm here to post as many lies as I can get into a post"

    Got it, shithead.

  • Hopfiend||

    I find it hard to believe an educated adult holds Tony's beliefs, but then again, I live in Maryland and I see it nearly every day.

  • Sevo||

    Hopfiend| 12.11.12 @ 6:28PM |#
    "I find it hard to believe an educated adult holds Tony's beliefs,..."

    There's another alternative: being able to type /= being educated.

  • Monty Crisco||

    "At the very least it's a way to ferret out the principled libertarians from the ones who've crawled ever so slightly from the muck of the Republican talking points they use for thoughts and attempt cleverness by calling themselves libertarian instead."

    Attempting cleverness, indeed... physician heal thyself...

  • Brutus||

    There is a point here, but taking a look at the violent nature of the union side, it's hard to determine if an employer enters into such an agreement voluntarily or because his business will most likely experience a series of unfortunate events if he does not.

  • ||

    If you're going to go down the road of saying government coercion is justified in this manner in order to balance the coercion in the National Labor Relations Act, then we have a lot of issues to revisit, because libertarianism is no longer about minimizing government coercion

    Like gay marriage and medical marijuana? Should we oppose gay marriage laws becuase institutionalizing marriage is anti-libertarian? Should we oppose medical marijuana because it's not complete legalization, because requiring a prescription is coercive?

  • ||

    The law forbids unions and employers to enter into closed-shop agreements.

    Actually that's been illegal since 1947. See Taft-Hartley Act.

    The current RTW laws outlaw agency shops.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 12.11.12 @ 4:39PM |#
    "The law forbids unions and employers to enter into closed-shop agreements. It is a government restriction on freedom of choice."

    Amazing! Shithead posts two sentences without a lie! And then admits he's a hypocrite.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 12.11.12 @ 4:22PM |#
    "And why shouldn't post more lies?

    We got it. shithead

  • BelowTheRim||

    califernian, you had your chance yesterday but continued to muddle up one very very small point that is not even relevant to 99.999999 percent of employers.

    Plus you lied about Cali Contractors and their compolsory union membership/dues.

    Get off my site, you clogged it up something aweful yesterday.

  • califernian||

    hunh? sorry to burst your bubble but in fact I am direct, personal experience with the fact that cali contractors operate that way.

  • califernian||

    Plus no one has been able to explain to me why it's not ok for unions and employers to agree on being a closed shop, why that violates libertarian free-association and non-aggression principles and justifies use of government force to prevent such agreements.

  • R C Dean||

    You must have not have been reading yesterday.

    When you are talking about a contract that has been imposed on an employer against its will, there really isn't much in the way of free association, free contracting, or non-aggression principles left to violate.

    The entire contract is an exercise of force. Tinkering with what one side can include in a contract imposed on the other by force hardly violates libertarian principles.

  • T o n y||

    So now negotiating leverage is force that ought to be prevented by government action?

  • R C Dean||

    Its not "negotiating leverage" when the law requires the employer to enter into a union contract, Spacy.

  • T o n y||

    The law does no such thing.

  • R C Dean||

    Yes, the law does in fact require an employer to enter into a union contract if the union has "won" an "election".

  • ||

    why it's not ok for unions and employers to agree on being a closed shop, why that violates libertarian free-association

    Maybe because the employer & the union makes a binding decision for all prospective employees?

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    There's nothing wrong with a contract that affects potential future employees. If they don't want to be part of the contract they can look for a different job.

  • ||

    Maybe because the employer & the union makes a binding decision for all prospective employees?

    Nonsense. The employer decides who to employ and who to not employ. That isn't "making a decision for the employee."

  • ||

    The employer decides who to employ and who to not employ.

    Except that the decision to employ someone is conditional upon the employee giving up her free-association right (i.e. compulsory membership in the union).

    How about the truck system? The employer makes a condition of employment that the employee spends a certain percentage of her income in the company shop (at prices set by the employer): is that something libertarians support as a permissible outcome of the freedom to contract?

  • ||

    Except that the decision to employ someone is conditional upon the employee giving up her free-association right (i.e. compulsory membership in the union).

    The employee has to agree to the job to be hired. Therefore the employer is not giving up any right.

    How about the truck system? The employer makes a condition of employment that the employee spends a certain percentage of her income in the company shop (at prices set by the employer): is that something libertarians support as a permissible outcome of the freedom to contract?

    Yes, why wouldn't we be? Again, the employee has to agree to sign the contract, so there is no coercion.

  • ||

    The employee has to agree to the job to be hired. Therefore the employer is not giving up any right.

    The employee is giving up her right to free association (to not join the union). The employer gave its right to free association up when entered the closed-shop contract.

    Yes, why wouldn't we be? Again, the employee has to agree to sign the contract, so there is no coercion.

    That implies that the only aspect which determines the validity of a contract is lack of coercion when entering it (obviously the terms of the contract are enforced with -- at least the threat of -- coercion). So in Libertopia, it'll be an enforceable contract to kill somebody? How about contracts of collusion, for example firing of all unionized workers in an industry?

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    is that something libertarians support as a permissible outcome of the freedom to contract?

    That's disagreed upon. The doctrinaire ones will say yes, it is permissible. Others like myself would argue that's so unconscionable that there must be duress involved to make an employee agree to that contract. (and historically, in company towns where that happened, there was quite a bit of coercion by the employer)

  • ||

    I think Tulpa is trying to break the record for how many times someone answers a hypothetical with speculative non-sequiturs.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    You're fighting for employers' rights to be ass-raped by a union if they so choose, and you're calling me speculative?

  • ||

    Yup. Of course the difference is that I'm speculating about what should be (which is the only way to reason about what should be). You're speculating about what is (which is pretty meaningless without proof to back it up).

  • Seamus||

    Because unions aren't just ordinary private parties to a private contract. They are instead entities that enjoy special privileges given them by the National Labor Relations Act (aka the Wagner Act), privileges which are partially balanced by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (aka the Taft-Hartley Act, which allows state right-to-work laws). Would it be more in line with libertarian theory if we repealed both the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act. Yes, yes it would. Is that going to happen any time in our lifetime. No, no it isn't.

  • Rasilio||

    In an actual free market it does not and there would be no need for Right to work laws.

    However in a heavily regulated market where corporations are legally forced to recognize any union that it's employees decide to form the market intervention has already occurred and Right to Work is a necessary counterbalance to protect actual workers from being excluded from employment opportunities.

  • ||

    However in a heavily regulated market where corporations are legally forced to recognize any union that it's employees decide to form the market intervention has already occurred and Right to Work is a necessary counterbalance to protect actual workers from being excluded from employment opportunities.

    So basically the rational is that two wrongs make a right. I disagree.

  • ||

    So basically the rational is that two wrongs make a right. I disagree.

    This implies that a contract for a closed shop is a wrong; I thought that you held it to be a right.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    Plus no one has been able to explain to me why it's not ok for unions and employers to agree on being a closed shop

    It would be OK for them to do it, but given that the likelihood of this happening truly consensually (as opposed to being in response to union thuggery) is basically zero, it doesn't really impact freedom to ban such arrangements.

    Sort of like making it illegal to insert a running power drill into someone's anus, without regard to consent, is justified, even though it superficially affects freedom. No one in their right mind would consent to such a thing, and if you make it legal to do consensually it means you have to prove there was no consent to punish a person who did it without consent (just like rape).

  • T o n y||

    So can we question the extent to which the employer-employee relationship is consensual, and come up with some government coercion to protect against potential abuses on the premise that the relationship is probably inherently nonconsenual? Or are you just making a really lame excuse to take a nonlibertarian position?

  • tarran||

    Tony, sweetie, if you are selling your labor services to someone, you are in a consensual relationship - unless you are "selling" your services to that vicious kleptocracy known as the Defense Department of the Federal Government of the United States of America.

  • T o n y||

    So the same should go for closed shop workplaces.

  • tarran||

    So the same should go for closed shop workplaces.

    Nope.

    John Smith is very impressed by my skills and offers to hire me.

    I say "sure".

    He says "here's the contract."

    I look it over and say "I don't want to join the USWA," and line out that part of the contract.

    Now, in libertopia, John Smith is free to say "Sorry no deal" or "OK, you're hired!" as he desires.

    In a closed shop state, he is required to say "no deal" even if he wants to hire me, because a bunch of people I don't know who worked for him once participated in an election and decided to join the USWA.

    There's your violation of my rights, right there. Now, you are right that if I take the job and join the union, I am consenting to it. However, if I forego the job because I don't want to join the union and John wanted to purchase my labor and I wanted to sell it to him under terms we both found agreeable, then the fact the transaction didn't occur is non-consensual - in effect the USWA has, aided and abetted by the govt, committed tortuous interference with trade.

  • califernian||

    But in your scenario John Smith has already made an agreement with the union not to hire you unless you are in that union. how is this a violation of anything?

  • ||

    But in your scenario John Smith has already made an agreement with the union not to hire you unless you are in that union. how is this a violation of anything?

    It isn't. But certain "libertarians" will continue to equivocate to make it seem like it is.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    But in your scenario John Smith has already made an agreement with the union not to hire you unless you are in that union.

    Why in God's name would John Smith have agreed to that? You've not been able to furnish any examples where it's beneficial for an employer to make such an agreement.

    If the price of ensuring one freedom that many people want to have, is curtailing a "freedom" that would never be exercised anyway, oh well.

  • ||

    Why in God's name would John Smith have agreed to that?

    Why does it matter why? It doesn't.

    The employer has the right to make whatever stupid agreement he wants.

    Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean it is "never exercised." This is just a bad excuse for an argument.

  • Jordan||

    But in your scenario John Smith has already made an agreement with the union not to hire you unless you are in that union. how is this a violation of anything?

    Because the union can make that agreement for John Smith.

  • ||

    Because the union can make that agreement for John Smith.

    No, they can't.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    So can we question the extent to which the employer-employee relationship is consensual

    Of course you can ask that question. You're going to have to come up with some very good evidence to prove it is not consensual, however. We already have plenty of evidence of unions being coercive.

  • ||

    I think it's also fair to say that even in a perfect libertopia, closed shops would be frowned upon, though not illegal.

    There's a whole non-governmental social ethics aspect to libertarianism that's being ignored here. Sure, it would be LEGAL in Libertopia to refuse to serve blacks, make your employees join a union, or convert to your religion as a condition of employment. But in Libertopia, society would also be composed of people who generally frown upon coercive treatment of your employees, so it's not like we'd all be totally hunky dory with that arrangement anyway.

  • ||

    It would be OK for them to do it, but given that the likelihood of this happening truly consensually (as opposed to being in response to union thuggery) is basically zero, it doesn't really impact freedom to ban such arrangements.

    Given that this is a purely speculative argument with zero substance, it can be ignored.

    The level of fail in Tulpa's arguments never ceases to amaze me.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    The speculation here is being done by califernian. He has no evidence of an employer voluntarily entering the agreement he (and apparently you too) are desperate to protect.

    Your making the perfect the enemy of the good is also unamazing.

  • ||

    The speculation here is being done by califernian. He has no evidence of an employer voluntarily entering the agreement he (and apparently you too) are desperate to protect.

    It doesn't actually matter if it occurs or not. It doesn't change the fact that an employer should be able to do so.

    Saying it doesn't happen (which is false anyway, can you present an example of a coerced labor agreement?) is a non-sequitur.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    It doesn't actually matter if it occurs or not.

    To a doctrinaire libertarian, I suppose it doesn't. To those of us who apply liberty to the real world, it does.

  • ||

    To those of us who apply liberty to the real world, it does.

    You mean to Republicans?

  • ||

    This

    It doesn't actually matter if it occurs or not.

    after this

    Given that this is a purely speculative argument with zero substance, it can be ignored.

    sounds incongruous.

  • Sevo||

    califernian| 12.11.12 @ 3:37PM |#
    "hunh? sorry to burst your bubble but in fact I am direct, personal experience with the fact that cali contractors operate that way."

    Technically, any contractor who wishes to work on government contracts may not be required to be a union shop, but in practice:
    "State and Local Government Contracts: You must use wage data provided by the California Department of Industrial Relations in order to comply with their specific requirements."
    And those data somehow reflect union wages.

  • ||

    We're talking about private employers. That's who these RTW laws affect.

  • Whahappan?||

    A contractor isn't a private employer?

  • ||

    It can't insist they pay their dues though. An employer should be able to require that as a condition of employment if they want.

  • Calidissident||

    I agree, though I'm ok with RTW laws given existing federal labor laws

  • robc||

    Im taking the same possession on RTW that I do on other laws. Moving in the wrong direction just to balance some other wrong law is still moving in wrong direction.

  • Calidissident||

    IMO, it merely changes the nature of the government intervention, rather than adding to i

  • R C Dean||

    So, as a mere change to government intervention, it doesn't really offend libertarian principles, I take it?

    Looking at it from the perspective of the employer/employee relationship (rather than the union/employer relationship), I think there's a decent argument that RTW laws actually do increase freedom of contracting/association by giving employees the freedom to decide whether to join a union if they take a particular job.

  • tarran||

    That to me is the crux of the argument.

    If I want to hire Tony and Tony wants to work for me, the USWA shouldn't have the power to insert itself into that relationship.

    Given the EEOC's meddling in employment decisions though, reality is far more messy.

  • califernian||

    Just to be clear, the USWA does NOT have the power to insert itself into the relationship. You understand that right? The employer and the USWA have ALREADY agreed to not hire Tony unless he is in the union.

    Now, if the union could come into a non-union shop and somehow using force of law insert itself into the negotation between you and Tony, your point would be valid.

    As far as I know there is no way for the union to force you the employer to agree to their terms. They can certainly present a strong case but it all boils down to what it costs you to defy the union.

    See WalMart for examples.

  • ||

    Califernian will continue to be ignored. People will continue to state that unions force closed shop/agency shop agreements on employees/employers. Derp.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    heller, are you in full blown contrarian mode today? coming from me that's quite a statement.

    NLRA is force. Period.

  • ||

    This has nothing to do with contrarianism, as you should know. You guys are simply arguing on false premises.

    NLRA is force. Period.

    Forced bargaining, yes. Forced agreement, no. Nothing coerces an employer to agree to an agency shop. The costs of not agreeing to a union deal can be high, but that doesn't mean its coercion.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    Forced bargaining isn't coercion? Seriously heller?

    And you can bet if you don't have an agreement after two years or possibly less, NLRB is going to fry the employer's ass as this is evidence of bad faith negotiating. Plus, of coures, the restrictions on employer activity during the bargaining period.

  • ||

    Forced bargaining isn't coercion? Seriously heller?

    Reading comprehension fail? Seriously Tulpy-poo?

  • Jordan||

    Califernian will continue to be ignored. People will continue to state that unions force closed shop/agency shop agreements on employees/employers. Derp.

    Californian (and you) will continue to not understand the Wagner Act.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    It's hilarious that heller is ignoring you and I after bitching about califernian (who's been responded to by nearly everyone here) being ignored.

  • ||

    It's hilarious that heller is ignoring you and I after bitching about califernian (who's been responded to by nearly everyone here) being ignored.

    I'm sorry for reading everyone's posts instead of just yours. Don't have a tantrum Tulpy-poo.

  • ||

    Californian (and you) will continue to not understand the Wagner Act.

    It's you who misunderstands it. Forced bargaining is not the same thing as forced agreement.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    What do you think would happen if an agreement wasn't reached after a year and the union went to NLRB complaining that the employer was negotiating in bad faith.

  • ||

    There is no duty to agree, however, and if the parties deadlock (reach "impasse," in the jargon of labor law), the employer is free to operate his business as he did before bargaining began, and therefore he may alter the terms and conditions of the workers' employment.

    http://www.braunconsulting.com.....20016.html

  • Jordan||

    And if the NLRB rejects their declaration of impasse?

    Pretending there is no coercion when an employer is forced to bargain under the following constraints is operating on a Tony-level of derp:


    Examples of employer conduct that violates the law:

    -Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity.
    -Threatening to close the plant if employees select a union to represent them.
    -Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act.
    -Promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support.
    -Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they engaged in union or protected concerted activity.
    -Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they filed unfair labor practice charges or participated in an investigation conducted by NLRB.

    You might as well say that forcing a boxer to fight one-handed doesn't influence the outcome of a fight.

  • ||

    I'm not praising the law, I'm just making a distinction.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    And in the case mentioned there, the employer who claimed there was an impasse was bitch-slapped by the court which said there wasn't, and ordered the employer to reinstate all the employees fired with back pay and repeal its new policies. Good friggin luck proving to a court that there's a "good faith" impasse.

    And of course, it's not bargaining in good faith to demand that you not have to do business with the union. I suppose if a vacuum cleaner salesman came to your door, held a gun to your head and demanded that you negotiate the purchase of a vacuum cleaner in good faith, heller wouldn't consider the resulting sale invalid, so long as he didn't actually demand that you buy a vacuum cleaner.

    Again, realist libertarians are going to disagree with doctrinaire ones.

  • ||

    Yes, but that just illustrates that there is a problem of degrees in implementing the law. I don't support the law however it is implemented. So I don't care how good faith is interpreted.

    And I think you're missing the point with that analogy. Let's say there was a law that allowed vacuum salesman to put a gun to your head and make you buy a vacuum, would that justify another law that makes it so vacuum salesmen can't have guns?

    Even if collective bargaining was as black and white as you seem to think it is (all closed/agency shops are coerced!) that still doesn't justify RTW laws.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    The employer and the USWA have ALREADY agreed to not hire Tony unless he is in the union.

    That "agreement" was made under duress. Thanks to NLRA, which is government coercion, once the workers vote to certify, the employer has two choices: "agree" or go out of business.

  • ||

    That "agreement" was made under duress. Thanks to NLRA, which is government coercion, once the workers vote to certify, the employer has two choices: "agree" or go out of business.

    The NLRA doesn't coerce employers into agreeing to anything. You're confusing coercion with cost.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    No I'm not. The employer is COERCED not to change their employment situation during the bargaining period. The employer is COERCED to make an effort to reach an agreement, which is what "good faith" means at a minimum. And if they don't reach an agreement in a short period of time, the NLRB will COERCE them by levying fines.

  • ||

    Again, wrong:

    "There is no duty to agree, however, and if the parties deadlock (reach "impasse," in the jargon of labor law), the employer is free to operate his business as he did before bargaining began, and therefore he may alter the terms and conditions of the workers' employment."

    http://www.braunconsulting.com.....20016.html

  • Calidissident||

    The employer may not literally be forced into it, but the NLRA and NLRB definitely (with the force of law) make it a much more attractive option than it would be otherwise

  • ||

    Sure, I agree. But that a bad law in response to a bad law is still a bad law.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    And the employer in that case wound up getting coerced into reinstating employees, paying back pay, and repealing its new policies. So I don't see how that proves anything wrong.

    I mean, in theory you can get a CCW permit in New York City, so I guess that means their gun laws don't violate the second amendment.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    A cost whose easiest means of avoidance the government has forbidden is coercion.

  • ||

    Because they couldn't prove impasse in court. Does a problem with implementation of this bad law prove all closed/agency shops are coerced?

    And you still seem to be arguing as if I support NLRA or claim it is not coercive.

  • Calidissident||

    RTW does add a layer of coercion, but it also takes away part of the coercion of the NLRA. IMO, it's a net reduction in coercion

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    So because I have the opportunity to "prove" to the NYC police chief that I need to carry a gun, that means NYC's CCW permit system isn't coercive either. The fact that it's probably impossible to prove that to his satisfaction doesn't matter. Right?

  • ||

    Idiot, I never said the NLRB wasn't coercive, so your analogy fails.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    And you still seem to be arguing as if I support NLRA or claim it is not coercive.

    No, as if you're claiming that NLRA-forced bargaining produces valid contracts. Which you are claiming.

    If the contracts produced by forced bargaining are invalid, then RTW isn't coercive.

  • ||

    If the contracts produced by forced bargaining are invalid, then RTW isn't coercive.

    RTW doesn't distinguish between coerced bargaining and simple agreements, so you're wrong.

  • Sta|ker||

    Hmm...

    Florida's RTW is basically, "Hey, you wanna join a union fellow employee! FIGHT DA POWA!". "Nope, I rather keep my money and do a good job to keep said job."

  • R C Dean||

    You have to hope that these periodic displays of violence and thuggish behavior by the unions are eroding their support with the genpop.

    Anybody who has been around unions can tell you that they traffic in intimidation and all-too-credible threats. When you get right down to it, that's what a picket line is: a threat to do harm to anyone who crosses it.

    Unions: fine in theory, but in practice? A cancer.

  • ||

    I got to cross a Teamsters picket line earlier this year. It was a lifelong dream come true.

  • John||

    You are a God among men Warty.

  • SugarFree||

    He was just there to strip for them. Not really all that brave after all.

  • ||

    It was kind of disappointing, really. No one said anything to me, and there weren't even enough Teamsters to form a line around the building.

    The best part is that those scumfucks were striking against the Red Cross. Way to go, fuckstains.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    The Red Cross suck ass. Raised a kajillion dollars for Sandy (and Katrina in the day) and helped out squat in NYC. False advertising if you ask me.

  • Nuked||

    Half of my family lives in Long Island. FEMA and the Red Cross have been nowhere to be found. The only help is from individuals donating and coming out to help directly. All of these organizations have done nothing.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    The BO admin already got what they came for. Photo ops and pro-big govt editorials.

  • R C Dean||

    I recall, years ago, a bunch of union goons were posted at every door to the Wisconsin Capitol. The people I was with were afraid to go past them into the building.

    My reaction was "screw them, I've got business to transact in there." As it turns out, I was testifying on the other side of the union at a hearing. So it wasn't technically a picket line, but it was damn close enough.

  • tarran||

    I had the joy of being followed around a guy slapping his wrench into his palm meaningfully back in my LTV Steel days (the hourly guys were pissed that I wrote a computer program that audited production history on one of the mills and identified something like $20,000 per week of over-payment to the operators manning that mill based on their fraudulent data entry).

    Then my boss - who had commissioned the program - chickened out and told the union that I had written the damn program on my own initiative and threw me under the bus.

    Bastard.

    I don't react well to intimidation, so I figure that it would eventually have escalated to crane-bombing had I not gotten that plumb transfer to a different dept.

  • CE||

    Never tell anyone what you work on. "Computer stuff" is usually enough to say.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    And yet, almost every time there's a union thread some liberal shows up to claim that unions never use violence and intimidation.

    This just reinforces my conviction that liberals have either never been anywhere near a union shop or that they are simply liars.

    I can't make up my mind whether to be charitable towards them and accept the former explanation or not.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    You have to hope that these periodic displays of violence and thuggish behavior by the unions are eroding their support with the genpop.

    I'm sure the media will race to cover it just like they held BO's feet to the fire over Fast+Furious.

  • Whahappan?||

    Yep, I was watching ABC national news and I correctly predicted they wouldn't mention the union violence in Michigan.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "You have to hope that these periodic displays of violence and thuggish behavior by the unions are eroding their support with the genpop."

    If the violence, extortion and coercion inherent in the Union system hasn't driven these people away in the last 100 years, why would it suddenly do so now?

  • John-David||

    It's time to relocate my giant inflatable rat rental operation to Michigan.

  • califernian||

    Please please tell me you actually do have a business that I can rent a giant inflatable rat from. That is awesome.

  • Stephdumas||

    There was also peoples from the tea party who meet the unions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....FdAso5r7BM

  • Stephdumas||

    Another group who faced the unions.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....yIdOKr8E3g

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Plutocrats 1,862,926; Middle Class 0

  • RightNut||

    Is that guy in the orange vest trying to convince them to not tear down the tent? He says something like "they are saying unions are thugs, we dont need that shit" and then it looks like he tries to stop them from getting near the tent.

    If so, its rather brave of him to stand in front of a mob like that and ask for reason. Can anyone with better ears make out more of what he says?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I got to cross a Teamsters picket line earlier this year. It was a lifelong dream come true.

    I was a scab in college. That cured me of any sympathy for the noble Union Man. What a bunch of lazy, drunken, useless, thieving morons; the driving force behind the union was work less, steal more.

    It was a closed shop. When the strike was settled, the union goon in charge told me I had to join the union or I couldn't work there any more. I told him to stick the union up his ass.

  • tarran||

    What if they had said there wouldn't be meetings... would you have joined then?

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    "There will be blood," State Representative Douglas Geiss threatened from the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives today as the body debated legislation that would make Michigan the nation’s 24th right to work state.

    The gentleman should have a well-honed knife to his throat and a quiet voice in his ear asking whether to slice, or to laugh in derision. "Are you a dead idiot or a live clown?"

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    Too bad none of the Michigan GOP legislators was carrying a cane. Say what you will about Preston Brooks, he did have some good ideas.

  • Enough About Palin||

    When will these union goons realize that with smartphones, gooning doesn't help their cause anymore.

    [VIDEO] Union protester assaults conservative Steven Crowder

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/12.....n-crowder/

    Michigan protesters tear down conservative group's tent, with people inside

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/12.....le-inside/

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Those pesky smartphones weren't made by Unions!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    no one has been able to explain to me why it's not ok for unions and employers to agree on being a closed shop, why that violates libertarian free-association and non-aggression principles and justifies use of government force to prevent such agreements.

    Why should the government enforce a union policy which essentially asserts ownership over all workers everywhere?

  • tarran||

    I think that there are two issues being discussed and people are talking past each other on them:

    1) In Libertopia, a union and employer could enter into an agreement making the business a closed shop. Under such a scenario, RTW would be an intervention that violated the freedom of association. However, it's not clear to me how you can force someone to hire people in Libertopia + RTW laws.

    2) In the legal regime we struggle under, the employer really has no choice to decline the unionization of his business. Once enough employees vote to join the union, he is fucked for all time; going forward he must purchase his labor from the union. And the union gets a broker's fee for every laborer is "supplies".

    In such a regime RTW makes the employer less fucked. The union sets the prices he must pay for labor services, but he is allowed to purchase his services at those prices from anyone, and only people who want to have to kick the broker's fee to the union.

    In my mind, given that the government violates freedom of association by compelling a business owner to do business with a union, RTW lessens the violation of this important freedom by clawing back the right of the employer to hire people he wants rather than the people the union wants.

    In a RTW world, I believe an employer could still choose to only hire guys who pay dues if it was that important to him.

  • some guy||

    Ignore what I said below. tarran does a much better job. Kudos.

  • R C Dean||

    Nicely done, T.

    One thing to think about: The MI right to work law reads as follows (sorry for the caps, that's the way it is in the bill):

    AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF OBTAINING OR CONTINUING EMPLOYMENT TO DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
    (A) REFRAIN OR RESIGN FROM MEMBERSHIP IN, VOLUNTARY AFFILIATION WITH, OR VOLUNTARY FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION.
    (B) BECOME OR REMAIN A MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION.
    C) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OR EXPENSES OF ANY KIND OR AMOUNT OR PROVIDE ANYTHING OF VALUE TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/.....S-0116.pdf

    I think that link is to the right bill; legislatures can be screwy, and there isn't an "enrolled" final bill posted yet.

    That may prohibit an employer from voluntarily (that is, not because its required by contract) screening out employees who won't join the union.

  • califernian||

    2) In the legal regime we struggle under, the employer really has no choice to decline the unionization of his business. Once enough employees vote to join the union, he is fucked for all time; going forward he must purchase his labor from the union. And the union gets a broker's fee for every laborer is "supplies".

    The card check laws are absolutely a terrible violation of all libertarian principles, no question.

    But technically no the employer is not forced to do business forever more with the union once the NLRB forces all the employees into a union bloc. The employer is free to reject the union outright in which case the employees who got railroaaded into the unionization are the ones who get screwed.

    Although these laws are definitely terrible, employers are definiely not forced to go union, ever.

  • califernian||

    PS: I could be wrong. And to be clear, those laws that even force the employer jsut to recognize the union and silence individual workers from negotiating with the employer are indeed deplorable.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    I could be wrong.

    So you've been arguing two days on these threads on something you don't know the relevant facts about? Refusing to negotiate with a union certified by current employees is an "unfair labor practice" under NLRA. This very basic fact which you seem not to be familiar with, is the root of all the coercion that we are against.

  • ||

    In my mind, given that the government violates freedom of association by compelling a business owner to do business with a union,

    First of all, this is false, and even if it were true, RTW laws would still restrict the freedoms of employers who actually want a closed shop/agency shop.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    It's not false. Refusing to negotiate with a certified union gets you in seriously hot water with the federal govt. It's an unfair labor practice under NLRA.

  • ||

    And an employer can negotiate in "good faith" but still not agree to any deal. An impasse doesn't result in prosecution.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    In practice it does. I hate to sully your world of principles and A is A's with real world considerations, but that's the way it is.

  • ||

    By definition it doesn't. If the lawyers prove an impasse in court, that immediately resolves the issue. You can argue that good faith and impasse aren't well defined by the courts, but that is just an argument of degrees, not principle. And we are arguing about principle in case you forgot.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    Do you have an example of an employer who successfully argued that impasse had been reached? And I never agreed to argue about principle.

  • ||

    There are entire law firms that specialize in these cases Tulpa. Don't be an idiot.

    And I never agreed to argue about principle.

    Well that's what we've been arguing. Unless you are a fucking state legislator and this is all being read on the floor, dumbass.

  • Sevo||

    "RTW laws would still restrict the freedoms of employers who actually want a closed shop/agency shop."

    Please define "closed shop/agency shop"

  • ||

    Closed shop is when the employer requires that all employees be part of the union.

    An agency shop is when the employer requires that all employees pay dues to the union.

    The former is illegal under Taft-Hartley. The current RTW laws outlaw the latter.

  • some guy||

    Why should the government enforce a union policy which essentially asserts ownership over all workers everywhere?

    Government should not do this. But this has nothing to do with an employer and a union agreeing to be a closed shop. Really, even the union doesn't need to agree to this policy for it to be acceptable. If an employer wants to force his employees to join a union, then he should have the right to do so. If an employer wants to hire people who aren't in a union, then he should have the right to do so.

  • ||

    The problem is that under current federal labor law, the employer has to negotiate with the union. It is unlawful for him to fire all his employees and hire new ones.

    And because the employer is FORCED to bargain with the union, that means the union ultimately has final say over the terms of the contract. If there is any point that the union absolutely refuses to negotiate on then the employer has to accept that term.

    And what we have seen historically, is that mandatory dues as a condition of employment is one of those things unions have put in the non-negotiable category. That is what they have used their legal leverage to get - forced membership.

    Hence right to work RESTORES freedom of association. It doesn't impinge it. It restores the ability of workers to decide whether they wish to associate with the union or not.

  • ||

    And because the employer is FORCED to bargain with the union, that means the union ultimately has final say over the terms of the contract. If there is any point that the union absolutely refuses to negotiate on then the employer has to accept that term.

    That's not true. The law forces an employer to bargain in "good faith." It doesn't require the employer to agree to anything.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    The employer's activities are heavily restricted BY LAW during the bargaining period. They can't do anything that changes the conditions of employment. No raises, no workplace improvements, no promotions (except for existing management).

  • ||

    So? Not the same thing as being forced to agree to closed shop/agency shop. Try to stay on point Tulpypoo.

  • ||

    Well, if the union makes that an absolutely non-negotiable point then what choice does the employer have?

  • ||

    Impasse.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    And of course, being forced to bargain "in good faith" is itself a coercive thing. If the employer just says no to every desire of the union and offers no proposals of their own, they are in violation of the law. Maybe I'm just not libertarian enough to see how that's not coercion.

  • ||

    And of course, being forced to bargain "in good faith" is itself a coercive thing.

    I know it's coercion, but we aren't arguing about bargaining. We're arguing about whether the employer is forced to agree to closed shop/agency shop. He isn't.

  • ||

    The NRLA tilts the negotiating power in favor of the union and makes it possible for the union to make absolute demands. The union can stay on strike forever and the employer can't fire them and hire other people. The employer can't have any absolutes, since at the end of the day, the employer MUST come to an agreement and CANNOT deal with others. The union employees could conceivably go work for someone else. The employer isn't allowed to hire someone else.

  • ||

    That's false. Read the law if you don't believe me.

  • Sevo||

    "The law forces an employer to bargain in "good faith.""

    I think you're on a bind here; please quantify "good faith".

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    Depends on whether the GOP or the Dems have the white house.

    If the GOP is in charge the employer can hang employees from lampposts if they favor the union. If the Dems are in charge, the unions can do the same.

  • ||

    ^This

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    Once again showing that, even if the government isn't coercing businesses into contracting with unions, the unions are fully capable of supplying their own coercion.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I worked for many radio stations in my youth, but only one union shop. To work there, I was forced (basically against my will, unless I wanted to seek employment elsewhere) to join the IBEW; union dues were subsequently withheld from my paycheck on a regular basis. This was one of the key life experiences that encouraged me toward libertarianism.

  • Almanian.||

    This has been really fun to watch. A bunch of people from our facility went up there to protest. Then the whole toppling the tent thing.

    The angst among my libertard FB friends is delicious. Multiples of them are just outright saying they'd commit any violent act against "any Republican" if they were there. Their rage is so luscious!

    Stay classy, unions!

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    They don't like having their post Obama-vicotry party interrupted by GOP poopers.

    "Do you not know death when you see it, old man? THIS IS MY HOUR!!!!"

  • Cytotoxic||

    That was the perfect clip to link.

  • ||

    Let's remember that that clip was retardedly cut from the theatrical release of the film, because purist fanboys on the internet were upset that Gandalf's staff got broken. And OMG it's a continuity error, cause he has his staff back at th Grey Havens!
    Fucking retards.

    That scene belonged in the original release. Not the four hour extended cut with every other floor clipping included.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    I'm still pissed about the Scoring of the Shire being cut.

  • ||

    They never filmed that.

    By contrast, Gandalf vs. the Witch King was part of the essential narrative structure of ROTK as the screenplay was written. They set it up in the scene where Pippin and Gandalf witness the army coming out of minas morgul, and then never pay it off, because that scene was cut. Instead, you have Gandalf being all mysteriously worried about a Nazgul that he never actually encounters and someone else kills.

    Plus the thing that saves Gandalf in that scene is the horn call announcing the arrival of the Rohirrim.
    Which is way more dramatic than how it was done in the theatrical release.

    Some retard basically decided to eviscerate the climax of the movie because of a continuity error, and because some fanboys online who don't know shit about story telling were whining about it.

  • T o n y||

    It's pretty clear that, with some exceptions, the reflexive anti-union disgust reaction trumps intellectual consistency among libertarians.

    There are only two plausible reasons to be rabidly anti-union: you think your profits are maximized by reducing worker leverage by whatever means possible (in not necessarily libertarian ways, such as RTW laws), or you're interested in getting Republican politicians elected to office, and want to destroy the Democrats' only remaining large base of organized support.

    You can only claim unions have some undue power in society if you assume that all the favors given to corporations and business owners is a natural baseline. Which is absurd, of course.

  • John C. Randolph||

    You left out the third reason: unions today are nothing but another parasite that robs the workers to pay for hookers and blow for mobsters and politicians.

    -jcr

  • T o n y||

    Don't you mean Wall Street executives?

  • Brutus||

    Like Jon Corzine?

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 12.11.12 @ 4:40PM |#
    "Don't you mean Wall Street executives?"

    Shithead, he specifically posted "parasites". That would be you and your buds.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Nice try at deflection there, but not all Wall Street executives are bad, just the ones who are Obama fluffers like you.

    -jcr

  • tarran||

    It's pretty clear that, with some exceptions, the reflexive anti-union disgust reaction trumps intellectual consistency among libertarians.

    This is the same degree of 'insight' that has in the past led Tony to argue that the Industrial Revolution gutted the middle class (that must presumably have been thriving under feudalism), and to parrot the talking points of segregationists while claiming that anyone who disagreed with those talking points had to be racist.

    It's kind of cute really.

  • R C Dean||

    AFter some reasoned posts on why (a) RTW doesn't violate any libertarian principles and (b) RTW may actually advance the principles of free association/contracting for employees, Spacy's pro-union bootlicking reaction apparently trumps his ability to read and comprehend.

    Disagree if you will, but don't pretend we said nothing.

  • T o n y||

    I am not shy about saying I think the law should actively seek to protect workers. They will always tend to have less leverage, and it's not written in stone anywhere that employers should be able to be totalitarian agents.

  • Calidissident||

    So thinking employers should be free to hire and fire whoever they want means you think they should be able to be totalitarians? No one here is advocating to bring back slavery (and don't bring wage slavery or similar bullshit into this discussion. It's disrespectful to people who actually endured, or still endure, real slavery)

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 12.11.12 @ 4:48PM |#
    "I am not shy about saying I think the law should actively seek to protect workers."

    Protect workers from their own choices, shithead?

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    They will always tend to have less leverage

    Only if they don't have marketable skills. Which fits the Occupiers and probably yourself to a T, so it's beginning to make sense.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I think the law should actively seek to protect workers.

    If that were true, then you'd be cheering. Unions are predatory organizations whose goons routinely attack anyone who declines to join them.

    -jcr

  • T o n y||

    I love it when people put arguments into my mouth and then use that fabricated nonsense as a distraction from the point at hand.

  • pantherlax||

    You just described every single one of your posts on this site. Ever. Literally every time I think you can't possibly be less self-aware, you prove me wrong.

  • tarran||

    At this point, I am starting to question whether Tony is a very sophisticated version of the Eliza program.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Projection.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Your "point at hand" being nothing more than an argument shoved into other people's mouths to distract from the actual issue at hand, which is Unions using violence and intimidation to preserve their power as totalitarian agents over workers and consumers.

    You can't do anything right.

  • ||

    Tony said:

    I love it when people put arguments into my mouth and then use that fabricated nonsense as a distraction from the point at hand.

    Obviously. The real issue here in Michigan is how hypocritical libertarians are.

    Perhaps these libertarians are just enlightened progressives who understand that voluntary employee/employer relationships are just too dangerous. It's too important to leave to a free market. We need regulations to make sure everything is fair. After all, that's what government intervention is for, as dictated by our glorious democratic process,which is happening in Michigan. Who should force their opinion on the people of Michigan in this matter? You?

    Clearly, all progressives should be on board with that (unless they're hypocrites, right?)

  • Calidissident||

    *slow clap*

  • T o n y||

    I didn't say the law was illegitimate, just unlibertarian.

    If we could forget childish, tedious obsession with doctrine altogether and argue the actual merits of the law, that would be a very welcome change.

    Because RTW laws haven't produced better outcomes for the people of any state that's tried them, unless you happen to be the owner of a company.

  • Calidissident||

    Tony, in a free market, I agree that RTW would be unnecessary and unlibertarian. Given current labor law, it doesn't expand coercion IMO. This is like the people on here who argue against gay marriage because the government grants licenses, or against medical marijuana because doctors have to write prescriptions.

    Also, how is the second paragraph true? RTW states have lower unemployment rates on average, and adjusted for COL, higher wages and incomes

  • T o n y||

    Marriage equality doesn't increase coercion on anyone. RTW laws do, even if you make the absurd claim that unions are getting some kind of special deal from government while employers are getting shafted. (That line will be used until the last union is dead.)

  • ||

    Tony said:

    I didn't say the (RTW) law was illegitimate, just unlibertarian.

    But, then he said:

    Because RTW laws haven't produced better outcomes for the people of any state that's tried them, unless you happen to be the owner of a company.


    So, in this case, would your pragmatism prefer a more "libertarian" law?

  • Brutus||

    I didn't say the law was illegitimate, just unlibertarian.

    Get rid of any number of laws requiring an employer to bargain with a union, and we'll talk.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 12.11.12 @ 4:47PM |#
    "I love it when people put arguments into my mouth and then use that fabricated nonsense as a distraction from the point at hand."

    Shithead, calling you on your bullshit is the only way to honestly respond.

  • Calidissident||

    What were the segregationist talking points that he parroted? Not that I don't believe it, just curious as to what he said

  • XM||

    The only plausible reasons for anti union sentiments involves your preference not to hire a group of protected individuals who can just walk out of work if they disagree with your policy or resort to this sort of thuggish tactics. That's why unions are non existent in small businesses, but cheap illegal labor is popular.

    But you can unionize the undocumented workers, you say? Maybe. A lot of them will lose their jobs, and undocumented "scabs" will really reap their benefits.

  • MJGreen||

    you're interested in getting Republican politicians elected to office, and want to destroy the Democrats' only remaining large base of organized support.

    Because the former necessarily follows the latter.

    You can only claim unions have some undue power in society if you assume that all the favors given to corporations and business owners is a natural baseline.

    Bwahahahaha, beautiful false dichotomy. You really are a pro.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Has anyone considered the devastating effects this legislation is going to have on hookers and blow? What are the workers in the mobster and politician services industry going to do?

    -jcr

  • Cytotoxic||

    Conservatives and libertarians need to get comfy with baseball bats.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    Baseball bats? I thought we were a bit more, uh, advanced in our armaments.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Once enough employees vote to join the union, he is fucked for all time; going forward he must purchase his labor from the union.

    This a separate, but especially infuriating aspect: how many of the "freedom of association" tub-thumpers opposed to Right to Work also advocate for the business owner's ability to decertify the union and completely re-staff his* enterprise?

    *Another of the conversational hurdles is the failure to distinguish between actual owner-operators and professional managers employed by a partnership or corporation.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    That would be breeching the contract.

  • R C Dean||

    Would that be the contract imposed under duress? Outside of the union setting, such contracts are voidable, you know.

  • Rasilio||

    Only if the contract were currently in force, all Union contracts have built in expiration dates.

    A company should be able to say "At the expiration of our current contract with the union we will refrain from recognizing them any longer and will only hire non union labor"

  • R C Dean||

    Contracts entered into under duress are voidable at any time.

    Legally, of course, being required by law to enter into a contract isn't "duress". But it should be.

  • ||

    I'm not sure you could prove any of these labor contracts were made under "duress," let alone all of them.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

  • ||

    Proof that they were forced to bargain, not that they were forced to agree. Try harder

  • Sevo||

    heller| 12.11.12 @ 7:00PM |#
    "Proof that they were forced...."

    Nope, you try harder.

  • ||

    Look, even if contracts were made under duress, which they weren't, this law would still violate the rights of employers who want to have closed/agency shops. Do you have a justification for that Sevo?

  • Sevo||

    heller| 12.11.12 @ 7:18PM |#
    "Look, even if contracts were made under duress, which they weren't, this law would still violate the rights of employers who want to have closed/agency shops. Do you have a justification for that Sevo?"

    Yes, I do; see below.

  • ||

    I don't see a justification, I just see you minimizing the issue.

  • Sevo||

    heller| 12.11.12 @ 7:37PM |#
    "I don't see a justification, I just see you minimizing the issue."

    Call it what you please; I'm willing to take a 1% interference replacing a 50% any day, especially when 0% isn't an option.

  • ||

    There is no calculus of souls, nor is there a calculus of freedom.

  • Sevo||

    heller| 12.11.12 @ 7:57PM |#
    "There is no calculus of souls, nor is there a calculus of freedom."

    I hope you're not serious.
    Do you really propose that say, Hong Kong prior to the turnover is the moral equivalent of, say current NK?
    That sentient beings have no ability to judge between an absolute police state and anarchy?
    Oh, and you need to define a 'calculus of souls'; hat mean?

  • ||

    The difference between Hong Kong and North Korea is clear because Hong Kong respects most rights, while North Korea rejects most of them.

    The RTW law isn't giving anyone a right, it's just dictating an outcome. Sure it's the same outcome that alot of employers would get if they had the right to hire whomever they wanted, but that doesn't mean the law has given anyone a right or increased freedom.

  • Sevo||

    heller| 12.11.12 @ 9:07PM |#
    "The difference between Hong Kong and North Korea is clear...."

    And you've yet to answer the questions, so try again.
    Or, as is becoming pretty clear, you could shut up and not make a greater fool of yourself.

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    this law would still violate the rights of employers who want to have closed/agency shops.

    Just like murder laws violate the rights of people who want to be killed.

  • ||

    Of course Tulpa knows which laws are best for employers.

  • Rasilio||

    No it doesn't, unless there is some unusual wrinkle to the Michigan law not present in other places.

    There is nothing in the law which says that the company could not simply choose to hire only Union members and while it might not be possible for them to fire someone solely because they canceled their union membership it is a rather trivial matter to make sure those individuals are always first on the layoff list.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I find it very interesting that once Wisconsin ended payroll withholding of union dues, AFSCME lost 2/3 of its "members". That tells me that a supermajority of those government employees had no desire to be in the union at all.

    -jcr

  • The Late P Brooks||

    That would be breeching the contract.

    You apparently assume the "contract" favors one party over the other in perpetuity? Why wouldn't there be a separation clause?

    Why no annual renewal? Why no performance guarantees?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I am not shy about saying I think the law should actively seek to protect workers.

    I have noticed that. I have also noticed your apparent complete lack of comprehension of the concept of "ownership" and the entirely appropriate leverage it imparts in business decisions. If you don't like it, go build your own goddam turn signal factory.

  • ||

    I think it's fair to say that any contract that is binding for eternity would not be upheld under standard contract law.

    If the employer wants to fire every single union employee at the end of the contract and hire a totally new crew, he should be allowed to do so.

  • ||

    As I commented in the other thread, it's not inconsistent to support RTW on libertarian principles, for the same reasons that's it's not inconsistent to support gay marriage laws, even if the libertarian ideal is complete deinstitutionalization of marriage.

    You can base a position on which law would incrementally increase liberty for individuals given the present context. It's not anti-libertarian to favor an incremental improvement in liberty for workers even if the ultimate goal is no laws favoring unions and no laws forbidding closed shops. Not being forced to pay dues makes workers incrementally more free, given the context that employers are forced to negotiate with the union, and so are not really free to reject a contract that includes mandatory union membership.

    How is this different from the idea that givne the fact that government recognizes marriage, gays are more free if they are allowed to marry, than if we sit around waiting for marriage to be disinstitutionalized?

    Also, how is it different than supporting "medical marijuana" as a tactical move instead of pushing for complete legalization?

  • CE||

    So how did Obama win Michigan?

  • R C Dean||

    120% turnout in certain urban districts that went 98% for Obama?

  • Draft Tulpa 2016||

    Are you suggesting that Detroit may be corrupt?

  • XM||

    People really like Obama, but not all of his policies.

    He's Sally Fields. They really love him.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Closed shop is when the employer union requires that all employees be part of the union.

  • ||

    It was right the first time.

  • Sevo||

    heller| 12.11.12 @ 6:55PM |#
    "Closed shop is when the employer requires that all employees be part of the union.
    An agency shop is when the employer requires that all employees pay dues to the union."

    So under RTW, an employer cannot require an employee to pay dues to a union, correct?
    Easy to see where that comes from; an attempt at preventing the subrosa coercion of the unions.
    Yes, it certainly interferes with a perfectly free contractual arrangement and if every law had such minimal effects on free choice, there'd be little reason for anything like a libertarian POV.

  • ||

    So what is a bad law in response to a bad law?

    Trick question, it's still a bad law.

  • Sevo||

    heller| 12.11.12 @ 7:40PM |#
    'So what is a better law in response to a bad law?'

    FIFY. It's progress.

  • ||

    Progress, maybe. Freedom, not.

  • Sevo||

    heller| 12.11.12 @ 7:50PM |#
    "Progress, maybe. Freedom, not."

    When you find utopia, be sure to call. I'm all for it.

  • ||

    I'm not asking for Utopia, I'm just asking that we don't go the opposite way by supporting coercion.

  • Sevo||

    heller| 12.11.12 @ 9:09PM |#
    "I'm not asking for Utopia, I'm just asking that we don't go the opposite way by supporting coercion."

    No, you're not.
    This is an imperfect law replacing others far more imperfect; it is not moving in the wrong direction, it is doing the opposite.
    And it is doing so simply because the subrosa (and gov't-supported) coercion of the unions leaves little alternative.
    I'll simply state (again) that if *all* laws restricted freedom in this amount, I'd be voting blue or red in every election and smiling.

  • ||

    Draft Tulpa 2016| 12.11.12 @ 7:21PM |#|
    Again, realist libertarians are going to disagree with doctrinaire ones.

    By "realist libertarian" it seems you mean someone who would use coercion to achieve something slightly resembling freedom. I'll pass.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yummy yummy union tears:) Thanks Santa!

  • ||

    Going full Libertopia - if one side has the gov't in their camp isn't that coercive force?

  • Homple||

    I've gone long in brown cotton shirting and hobnails.

  • ||

    This can't be said enough:

    Yummy yummy union tears:) Thanks Santa!

  • uythsb||

    Merry Christmas

  • Monty Crisco||

    Must have been a lot of tea-partiers protesting. After all, we know they are the only ones who ever engage in violent, intimidating protests. Damn Tea-partiers. I expect to see this covered in all the msm channels tonight...

  • mfc||

    What could be more Liberal than affirming your right to work free from extortion? How Liberal can you be than to codify our right to choice? Now residents of the State of Michigan can choose to join a union... or chose otherwise. See? Choice!

    Are these people anti-choice?

  • attractions guide||

    Work law is very important.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement