This week Michigan became the newest "Right to Work" state. All week long there have been protests and demonstrations including a huge one in Lansing that turned into a brawl between pro-RTW and anti-RTW forces.
Now what the heck is "Right to Work" you might ask. Does that mean that everyone has a right to a job? No, what that means is that a union can no longer insist on what used to be called a "closed shop" where everyone HAS to join the union. Right to Work is just another way of saying "open shop". And of course the unions are dead set against it. To the point, apparently, of causing mayhem in Lansing.
An interesting statistic that has emerged out of the controversy is that only 20% of Michigan workers belong to a union. I am among the 80% that don't. So I find it quite entertaining to hear the predictions of gloom and doom and how Michigan is on the road to becoming Michissippi. Hey, in some ways we were headed there before Right to Work passed. Eighty percent non-unionized is a hefty chunk in a state that once was ruled by unionized industry. But on the other hand, it seems more and more evident that future jobs (such as in the biotech field) will require more specialized education than what is needed on an assembly line and these jobs are not likely to be unionized.
Now, I have studied labor history so I know that at one point labor conditions were so abysmal across the board that it was necessary for workers to band together to change things. A hundred years ago working conditions in U.S. factories were much like the factory in Bangladesh that recently burned with a large loss of life. Management then and management over there seems to be unwilling to do what it takes to make working conditions safe. When I heard about the Bangladesh fire I was reminded of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. Yet as I said about Wal-Mart, as horrible as these places are, they don't go begging for workers. Mainly because the workers who work there don't have many options.
But there was a lot of violence involved in the early labor movement and it wasn't always management's doing. Living in a once-predominantly union state one hears stories of what happens when unions don't get their way. Some of those threats came up in the comments about the Lansing free-for-all.
The unions are concerned that non-members would try to ride their coattails and reap all the benefits of being in a union without paying union dues. I'd say that is a reasonable concern. But what Right to Work does is give the employee a choice. If an employee does not want to join a union, then maybe the union ought to think about why that employee doesn't want to join that particular union. I've heard a lot of complaints about unions over the years, about where and how that union money has been spent. Sometimes it reminds me of George Orwell's "Animal Farm".
Back in the 1980's there was an attempt to unionize the company I was working for at the time. While there was no actual violence involved there were a lot of people who lost their jobs (probably illegally) for union activity. I kept my mouth shut but when it came time to vote I voted union. So did a great many other people. The company responded by claiming the election was unduly influenced by the fact that the movie "Norma Rae" had been shown a night or two before as well as a couple of other pro-union shows. They managed to get things tied up in court for a year.
Now, this is where things get interesting. Notwithstanding that they had no legal basis to do so (in other words, no contract had been signed) the union not only promised but guaranteed the moon to its supporters. About that time I was suspended for three days without pay for something that someone else did (the company even admitted it--afterwards--but would not reinstate my pay) so I went to the union representative for help. He was very sympathetic and set up a meeting with the labor board representative. Now you have to understand that if the company owners even thought that there was a chance I might be talking to those people (let alone actually talk to them), my career there was over. Instantly. So this was an area where utmost discretion had to be exercised.
The day of my hearing came. The labor board guy listened to my case and said "Yours is not a union case. I am only here to hear union cases." Well, I had told the union rep that, but he had assured me it made no difference. But that was not the worst of it. Turns out that while I was in having my case heard, the union rep told the other employees from the same company who were waiting outside that I didn't have a case because it was not union-related! So I had basically risked my job for nothing! For a fool who could not keep his G-D mouth shut, because he hadn't a clue as to what he was dealing with here. A fool who had promised to have my back when he knew that there was no way he could keep that promise.
Of course word got back to me and when it did, I was furious. I called him up and said, "You son-of-a-*****! I voted for your union. And now I hear that you are going around telling others how you in effect set me up. You will NEVER see ONE penny of mine in union dues! Never! And I am going to tell everyone how you screwed me."
I was lucky. Management apparently never found out that I had talked. And when it came time for a revote a year later this same union which had won by a landslide now found itself defeated so badly that it did not want to talk about it to the media. Management didn't have to use any strong-arm tactics; the employees could see for themselves that the devil they knew was preferable to the devil they didn't.
So, yes, I am "right to work". I believe the employee ought to have a choice and that it is up to the union to demonstrate why membership is valuable. And I don't mean by going out and slashing tires either. A union is no different than any other organization. Let them make their case and make it fairly.
Now what the heck is "Right to Work" you might ask. Does that mean that everyone has a right to a job? No, what that means is that a union can no longer insist on what used to be called a "closed shop" where everyone HAS to join the union. Right to Work is just another way of saying "open shop". And of course the unions are dead set against it. To the point, apparently, of causing mayhem in Lansing.
An interesting statistic that has emerged out of the controversy is that only 20% of Michigan workers belong to a union. I am among the 80% that don't. So I find it quite entertaining to hear the predictions of gloom and doom and how Michigan is on the road to becoming Michissippi. Hey, in some ways we were headed there before Right to Work passed. Eighty percent non-unionized is a hefty chunk in a state that once was ruled by unionized industry. But on the other hand, it seems more and more evident that future jobs (such as in the biotech field) will require more specialized education than what is needed on an assembly line and these jobs are not likely to be unionized.
Now, I have studied labor history so I know that at one point labor conditions were so abysmal across the board that it was necessary for workers to band together to change things. A hundred years ago working conditions in U.S. factories were much like the factory in Bangladesh that recently burned with a large loss of life. Management then and management over there seems to be unwilling to do what it takes to make working conditions safe. When I heard about the Bangladesh fire I was reminded of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. Yet as I said about Wal-Mart, as horrible as these places are, they don't go begging for workers. Mainly because the workers who work there don't have many options.
But there was a lot of violence involved in the early labor movement and it wasn't always management's doing. Living in a once-predominantly union state one hears stories of what happens when unions don't get their way. Some of those threats came up in the comments about the Lansing free-for-all.
The unions are concerned that non-members would try to ride their coattails and reap all the benefits of being in a union without paying union dues. I'd say that is a reasonable concern. But what Right to Work does is give the employee a choice. If an employee does not want to join a union, then maybe the union ought to think about why that employee doesn't want to join that particular union. I've heard a lot of complaints about unions over the years, about where and how that union money has been spent. Sometimes it reminds me of George Orwell's "Animal Farm".
Back in the 1980's there was an attempt to unionize the company I was working for at the time. While there was no actual violence involved there were a lot of people who lost their jobs (probably illegally) for union activity. I kept my mouth shut but when it came time to vote I voted union. So did a great many other people. The company responded by claiming the election was unduly influenced by the fact that the movie "Norma Rae" had been shown a night or two before as well as a couple of other pro-union shows. They managed to get things tied up in court for a year.
Now, this is where things get interesting. Notwithstanding that they had no legal basis to do so (in other words, no contract had been signed) the union not only promised but guaranteed the moon to its supporters. About that time I was suspended for three days without pay for something that someone else did (the company even admitted it--afterwards--but would not reinstate my pay) so I went to the union representative for help. He was very sympathetic and set up a meeting with the labor board representative. Now you have to understand that if the company owners even thought that there was a chance I might be talking to those people (let alone actually talk to them), my career there was over. Instantly. So this was an area where utmost discretion had to be exercised.
The day of my hearing came. The labor board guy listened to my case and said "Yours is not a union case. I am only here to hear union cases." Well, I had told the union rep that, but he had assured me it made no difference. But that was not the worst of it. Turns out that while I was in having my case heard, the union rep told the other employees from the same company who were waiting outside that I didn't have a case because it was not union-related! So I had basically risked my job for nothing! For a fool who could not keep his G-D mouth shut, because he hadn't a clue as to what he was dealing with here. A fool who had promised to have my back when he knew that there was no way he could keep that promise.
Of course word got back to me and when it did, I was furious. I called him up and said, "You son-of-a-*****! I voted for your union. And now I hear that you are going around telling others how you in effect set me up. You will NEVER see ONE penny of mine in union dues! Never! And I am going to tell everyone how you screwed me."
I was lucky. Management apparently never found out that I had talked. And when it came time for a revote a year later this same union which had won by a landslide now found itself defeated so badly that it did not want to talk about it to the media. Management didn't have to use any strong-arm tactics; the employees could see for themselves that the devil they knew was preferable to the devil they didn't.
So, yes, I am "right to work". I believe the employee ought to have a choice and that it is up to the union to demonstrate why membership is valuable. And I don't mean by going out and slashing tires either. A union is no different than any other organization. Let them make their case and make it fairly.
