The New Republic

Work is a civil right but so is the manner in which one decides to work. Unions are a vehicle for better working conditions and higher salaries and outlawing them should be illegal.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 12:06am

Snyder fooled some stupid Democratic primary voters in 2010 by pretending to be a liberal Republican Party candidate. Michigan has open primaries, and many Democrats, hoping to have a liberal Republican running against a Democrat for Governor, crossed over and voted for Snyder. Fools. I'll tell you a couple of things that will happen in Michigan. Snyder is going to be a one-term governor, and employees in a union shop who refuse to pay dues under the new law will be harassed in a very energetic way, for being the freeloaders that they are. The average worker in Michigan is not the wimp that most workers in the South are. Republicans have made some serious enemies in the Wolverine State.

- magboy47.

December 13, 2012 at 1:06am

Snyder claims he was forced to sign the right to work bill because unions had put a collective bargaining constitutional amendment in the last election. When he made that claim, he was wearing a button that said, "I'm a Republican politician, I don't have to make any sense when I talk." Boehner, Kanter, and even Romney all wear these buttons when speaking.

- Nusholtz

December 13, 2012 at 7:09am

The other favorite framing is "choice", almost as powerful as "right". Republicans are very good at framing; Democrats, including (sigh) Obama, not so much. While I sympathize with the authors' motives and goal, their remedy is, shall we say, problematic. Opening up the Civil Rights Act is unlikely to result in strengthening it; more likely it will eviscerate it. I've commented before that the term "labor" isn't exactly appealing to many, raising images of "agitators" and "corruption" and "featherbedding". Indeed, in my part of the country, many blame "unions" for our economic plight, most likely because we don't have unions and most people don't know anybody who belongs to a union; it's easier to demonize somebody you don't know. And the issue of framing goes well beyond unions. "Rights" and "choice" are the code words used by advocates for education "reform", led by Jeb Bush. Of course, what they actually mean is more teacher testing, reduction in funding for public schools, and more charter schools. And the use, or misuse, of words for propaganda works well in irony nation, where nobody says what they actually mean; we are all hipsters now.

- rayward

December 13, 2012 at 8:10am

If right-to-work states are so much better, why do they still have an unemployment crisis? That's the question that advocates and journalists have to ask. You can't foolishly repeat such a misleading term (it's even less tied to the truth than "death tax" or "death panels") without discussing its implications. This is what Obama tried to do by calling it the "right to work for less", but that simply isn't good enough. It's not a right to work. If there were a right to work, the government would be the employer of last resort and you'd be darn sure that Republicans would fight that tooth and nail. I suppose that the way to challenge this, though, is in a political debate or before a courthouse. Pick some aw-shucks case and put him or her up to asking far and wide why there are no jobs that this right entitles one to. Specifically, why he or she has sent out hundreds of applications and is losing unemployment benefits (thanks to Rick Snyder!) but is still not guaranteed a job or the means to continue seeking one. Do it every day of the week for a couple of months.

- chaitless

December 13, 2012 at 8:35am

Republicans are brilliant at exploiting the always present (if sometimes latent) American propensity to believe we are all isolated actors in a benign meritocracy. This propensity makes it possible and even simple for the farmer cashing huge subsidy checks to believe his success is entirely due to hard work, for the non-dues-paying employee in a union shop to believe that she derives no benefit from association with other workers, and therefor owes the union nothing, and for the under-educated worker who is never going to get beyond a subsistence income to believe that they too have a shot at an upper middle class existence, if they just work hard enough. The truth is there is no benign meritocracy out there, and the Republicans don't want one. They want, and are adept at moving us toward, a social darwinism that is anything but benign, and which makes no distinction between individual extinction through stupidity (with which I don't really object) and individual extinction through accident of birth, circumstance or disease, or being simply overpowered by forces beyond individual control. They will stop at nothing to make sure that no collective effort to control those things succeeds, because doing so breaks their favorite equation, in which money begets power begets money begets .....

- IowaBeauty

December 13, 2012 at 9:12am

The Canadian Supreme Court - incidentally, the most conservative we have had in decades - has found that at least with respect to public service unions, the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of association" means the right to "meaningful" association: the government may not, without at least consulting unions, impose labour terms and conditions on its workers. The law is unsettled, but the direction is unmistakable. The interesting thing, of course, is that the "collective effort" is anchored, and quite credibly, in individual freedoms. And it is a Berlinesque understanding of freedom, of positive freedom: a freedom that cannot be meaningfully exercised - freedom to join a union, and have the union actually mean something - is not one worth preserving. A slate of cases are winding their way to the Supreme Court now - will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

- icarus-r

December 13, 2012 at 10:20am

Iowa, you this cannot be topped. Unexplored is how warped a citizen's mind has to become to conform to this thinking, to advocate for it in the name of party loyalty. Shutting off your mind to facts is one thing, but they have to shut off their soul in the process - with increasing rage and paranoia and scapegoatism the natural byproducts. Scary.

- WandreyCer

December 13, 2012 at 10:26am

Building on what Iowa and others have said, the sad reality is when most of the average voters support these "right to work" laws, I recall when CO passed it's version some time ago, and talking to my liberal parents who were in 'favor' of the law because they thought it was a bill to exclude union coercion in the workplace. But what they didn't realize is these 'right to work' laws also are thinly veiled laws that give employers carte blanche to terminate employment without reason. Many of the anti-union people I know have never had interaction with or know anyone who has been a member of a union. They fail to realize that without organized labor there would be no 5-day, 40 hour work week, no holidays or paid vacations, no work safety laws or employee protections from employer abuses. That child labor would still be acceptable, minimum wage would be zero and the working world, even in the professional realm, would look vastly different than it does today. Explaining this and the glazed-over look on their faces appears as the rusty gears turn inside their heads processing those facts. I've never belonged to a union myself, but had an uncle that was a member of one, I have interactions with trade union members on job sites and find that the vast majority of these people are hard working, working class citizens. Some of these trades make pretty good money but in exchange for that, the grueling nature of their work is such that they lose 10 years off their life expectancy. I don't begrudge them the fruits of their labor. In fact I find that more noble than the third-rate Wall-Street trader making 100x more for basically gambling on the market. The U.S. likes to think of itself as this flattened meritocracy and rewards those who work hard and honestly but in reality, we've become accustomed to the corporate concept that the well-being of the worker is disposable in the march towards corporate profits and "obligations to stockholders."

- singlspeed

December 13, 2012 at 11:20am

Michigan is the most unionized state in the Union, but only 17% of its employees are in unions. And, still, Republicans are beating the unions-are-the-only-problem-with-job-growth drum. Only 7% of employees in America are in unions. Republicans want that to be 0%. They literally want American workers to be at Third World wage levels. If unions and taxes are the problem in the business world, why are business people making record profits? Because most of their employees are in the Third World, that's why. Republicans simply don't want Americans to be employed, if they are going to insist upon making living wages. And they proved it when they sabotaged Obama's Jobs Act. Republicans are nothing less than economic terrorists. Fortunately, the American people are beginning to realize this. The GOP's approval rating is at 30% and their disapproval rating is at 44%. And Obama's approval rating is at 53%. And Ashley Judd is going to smoke that toad Mitch McConnell in his bid for re-election in 2014. The times, they are a-changin'. That's simply due to the anti-American radicalism that defines today's GOP. The average American is not an extremist. And the Republicans are going to have to learn that if they are to survive as a political party in America.

- magboy47.

December 13, 2012 at 11:38am

Singlespeed said it best, although all commenters here are on their game today.

- magboy47.

December 13, 2012 at 11:44am

The unspoken complement to "Corporations are people" is "Unions are not people."

- potterte

December 13, 2012 at 11:52am

People should be free to join or not join a union. As an employer, I should be free to negotiate or not to negotiate with a union. If I choose not to negotiate with a union, I will suffer the consequences of my unionized employees either going on strike or quitting. If there are others (unions call them "scabs") who will do the job for less, I should be free to hire them and if, as the unions claim, their work is of inferior quality or quantity, I, the employer, will suffer those consequences as well. Employment should be a mutually beneficial arrangement in which both parties benefit. We all have the right to work but we do NOT have the right to force someone else to give us a job. I know many people who could not find a job so they created their own job by starting a business or providing a service. Corporations are not people and unions are not people; both, however, are ways for individuals (members of unions or shareholders of corporation) to join together for some common purpose. I find it interesting that liberals disagree with "choice" when it comes to unions (and most economic issues) but love the word "choice" when it comes to killing their unborn children (which right I fully support). I also find it abominable that most liberals and conservatives believe that there is a "right" to confiscate (through taxation, inflation, etc.) others' wealth or income to use for their own preferred purposes. “Any alleged ‘right’ of one man [e.g., members of a union], which necessitates the violation of the rights of another [e.g., an employer], is not and cannot be a right.” — Ayn Rand Freedom works; government doesn't! Individual Freedom & Personal Responsibility Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

- dalefogden

December 13, 2012 at 1:02pm

Why shouldn't workers have the right, if they choose, to work for less money and keep more and not have to pay homage to union bosses?

- dmking316b

December 13, 2012 at 1:29pm

Krugman has recently posted some blog entries about income distribution is due to who controls capital (e.g., http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/human-versus-physical-capital/). That's highly relevant to this discussion because, without unions, workers really have no recourse and are completely at the whim of employers. Krugman explains how this applies to college-educated, white-collar workers as much as blue-collar workers. Dalefogden's comment that employers are free to hire people who will do the job for less puts me in the mind that high unemployment is to the advantage of the capital owners, who can easily control wages because of the desperation of potential workers. They can keep making the large profits they are currently enjoying and have no incentive to change the status quo. Only unions can affect that.

- mrheckman

December 13, 2012 at 1:43pm

dmking316b, the problem with your assertion of "the right to work for less" is that it affects all the other workers including those beyond your particular job description or industry. As it is, real wages and benefits haven't begun to keep pace with the cost of living and the distribution of income/wealth in America is worse than a banana republic; many working people are impoverished. And also, we aren't getting full time hours in some cases; in others, very long hours are demanded - sometimes they are rewarded with overtime but in many other cases they are not. I worked for a company in 1993 that demanded super long hours of secretaries, didn't pay extra for them; they claimed we were "management" which is absurd. No way are secretaries "management." I called the feds and they were aware of this company, said they'd be glad to prosecute but that they were so backlogged with labor abuses it would take years. So I quit and moved on. Next job, same thing. This time at least I eventually was rewarded with a title (assistant manager) along with ever-increasing responsibilities - and past a certain point no wage increase because I was told I had maxed out the money at that position - THEN I found out I was underpaid by $25,000K/annum vis a vis the former occupant of that job (a man). Etc. So, the "right to work" is Orwell-speak for "the right to work for less, under worse circumstances, and take all your friends down with you." Is that what you want? PS since when are elected union leaders "overlords?" I think for "overlords" you want to look in the executive suite.

- Sophia

December 13, 2012 at 2:34pm

Come to think of it, I got time and a half for overtime at exactly ONE job in my whole life. That sucks. One big company, international company, gave "comp time" but it was one-to-one IF you could get off. The problem with comp time is your work piled up and you got more in the hole. Etc. I could write a book. How to work your tush off for decades and wind up about as secure as a sparrow in a tornado.

- Sophia

December 13, 2012 at 2:37pm

It seems the authors and most here don't understand that the MI law doesn't make unionizing illegal - it's more insidious than that - it gives unionized workers the freedom to reject paying union dues. I seems to me that that is an infringement of the commerce rule in that it infringes on the rights of individuals to contract - to democratically vote and collectively bargain working conditions, dues paying, etc. DonMc

- NR138704

December 13, 2012 at 3:31pm

“Any alleged ‘right’ of one man [e.g., corporations], which necessitates the violation of the rights of another [e.g., an employee], is not and cannot be a right.” See how that works dale? The issue isn't about "choice." The bill passed in Michigan eliminated non-union members from pay a 'fee' so to speak for benefits they enjoy that were negotiated by other union employees. You seem to believe the issues is coercion by a union member to make you give them a job. This is not the case. The union is not forcing you to take a job. The union isn't forcing you to join. So therefor the assertions that "right to work" is about not belonging to a union is false. The purpose of 'right to work' laws have nothing to do with 'choice' and are written to facilitate employers being able to negate an 'benefit' that might have been negotiated in good faith by the company and the union employees.

- singlspeed

December 13, 2012 at 4:55pm

Hopefully these unions will negotiate that their contract applies to them only and not to any non union worker, that their health care package is seperate (hence saving a ton of money in pooling). Let these non union workers find out exactly what it means to not be in a union.

- blackton

December 13, 2012 at 5:26pm

I was a member of a union for ten years. While I was irked when my boss informed me two weeks in to the job that she'd "forgotten" to tell me that I had no choice in the matter - I was not "paying homage to union bosses," (such hyperbole and melodrama, the media twists our brains). It was much more dull. I was passively noticing dues taken out weekly and commented. I never saw a union boss nor did I pay homage to anyone. The precinct rep they sent to placate me was an exhausting, articulate, pitiless union soldier who made no headway with me whatsoever that first month in making her case, but I ended up eventually considering her family. (She died of brain cancer a few years ago. a thousand people at her funeral. But I digress). Look, either you can handle the collective power construct or you cannot. I eventually found it very empowering, but I get that it can feel coerced. Best we acknowledge that. I had to be talked in to it and I'm a social worker on the Upper West Side. Let's be honest here.

- WandreyCer

December 13, 2012 at 8:54pm

dmking does ask a reasonable question, but as Sophia points out, it's a larger world than just one set of union employees. Expanding on Single's comments, one of the affects of union bargaining, is that union jobs become better paying jobs. Which means that workers, instead of working for minimum wage, can jump to a job that pays more higher wages for the right kind of work. That means non-union employers have to pay more to get employees. That's why unions want everyone to pitch in a little, non-union employees benefit from the bargaining too. The same applies to insurance, retirement, and other benefits. On the flip side, I once owned a small business that had enough employees that could bargain if they wanted to. I support unions, but it's pretty intimidating once people talk about unionizing. At the time there was little to no support for smaller businesses to learn how to work with unions. That's a major failing. The Chamber of Commerce seemed to only want to prevent them, at the least, not deal with them, and as far as I could find, there wasn't a real non-partisan non-profit (business owners and union supporters together) type group around to help dispel some of the fear. A group like this could provide low cost information to small business owners, as well as provide some counter-messaging to some of the more ridiculous claims made by either side. Maybe there's something like this around now, but I haven't looked as I'm not an employer at the moment. A lot of nice posts here too.

- jet

December 13, 2012 at 9:14pm

And, the article was well done too.

- jet

December 13, 2012 at 9:15pm

The authors believe that the battle of solidarity (organized labor) vs. individual rights is a losing one. Instead, they introduce the issue of civil rights into the conversation. Companies should be focused on honoring the spirit of the Civil Rights Movement, but that doesn’t mean that labor unions should be a part of the equation. Companies across a broad range of industries should and do provide their employees with a good wage and strong benefits as well as equal opportunity for career advancement in the workplace, and Nissan can certainly be counted among them. You see, simply stated, Nissan believes in equal opportunity and the sense that hard work should be rewarded with a clear path toward upward mobility as well as financial security. The citizens of Mississippi are excited about the job opportunities that have emerged since Nissan’s plant opening. A Nissan job is cherished which indicates a great relationship between management and workers. Nissan has accomplished this level of success through the direct, open relationship between the company and its employees. In fact, unions have tried eight times to organize Nissan plants for more than 20 years. The employees have rejected them each time, and there is little interest now. At some point the UAW has to learn that ‘no means no’.

- bigdog

December 14, 2012 at 1:18pm

bigdog, As a former UAW and Teamsters and SEIU member, I heartily agree with you that no union is needed if the employer is fair to employees. But Nissan is a Japanese company, and the Japanese have a much different attitude to their employees than most American employers do. The Japanese respect loyal employees as an indispensable part of the organization and are determined to take care of them until they die. Most American employers, especially the large corporations, see even loyal employees as the enemy out to bleed and cheat the employer. Unions are just "proof" of this to these kinds of employers. The Japanese treatment of employees is socialist in nature because of the communal nature of Japanese society. The American attitude toward employees is often Us against Them. And I've worked in enough jobs in America to verify this, in places with or without unions.

- magboy47.

December 14, 2012 at 1:43pm

P.S.: If Americans were to buy Nissan and keep their present plants in the U.S., you would find that the new employer would not be so concerned about the welfare of its employees as the old one was. Look at the way American companies treat their employees in the Third World, where many of their workers are literally slaves.

- magboy47.

December 14, 2012 at 1:56pm

Thanks to WandreyCer for the comment and conclusion, "Look, either you can handle the collective power construct or you cannot. I eventually found it very empowering, but I get that it can feel coerced. Best we acknowledge that. I had to be talked in to it and I'm a social worker on the Upper West Side. Let's be honest here." Every time anyone on the left tackles this I just sense we are flying just above the trees when the mountain ahead is 10000 feet high and the only way to the runway is over. Repetition of adages and attitudes that worked 30-90 years ago, that really stopped working 30 years ago, isn't going to work no matter how much we echo chamber it. And IowaBeauty really puts the problem into relief with "Republicans are brilliant at exploiting the always present (if sometimes latent) American propensity to believe we are all isolated actors in a benign meritocracy." Like it or not, LOTS of people feel this way. It's a false consciousness, but it is widely and deeply held. In fact, an out loud statement of many of the attitudinal arguments written right here, immediately disqualifies the speaker from further reasoned discussion with most holding this false consciousness. Something like this is game over, discussion over, go home, "Michigan is the most unionized state in the Union, but only 17% of its employees are in unions. And, still, Republicans are beating th unions-are-the-only-problem-with-job-growth drum. Only 7% of employees in America are in unions. Republicans want that to be 0%. They literally want American workers to be at Third World wage levels." And don't get me wrong, I agree that "They literally want American workers to be at Third World wage levels." I wish I had the answers, I don't, but I can assert from sufficient experience: the old game is so well known, playing it is tantamout to losing, and hence: Michigan is lost. The problem is bigger than unions. Unions are a part of it, but for one, I think unions themselves must change - they need to shed the provincialism. How? I don't known entirely, but I am sure it starts but taking inventory of all the attitudes that have turned people away from unions, putting them in a box, and dumping them over the side. Then never looking back. I think it ends with a complete restructuring of public corporations in the US, where we recognize that public corporations, whether headquartered in the US or overseas, are public, and subject to public rules to receive their public charter, and both employee and local stakeholder representation on corporate governance is morally mandated, and essential to the survival of capitalism in the US, itself. In between, I don't know, but I'd venture a guess that it will take nothing less than a restructuring of the Democratic Party from an identity coalition, to one that is principally concerned with labor and the middle class.

- dcwood10

December 14, 2012 at 7:39pm

The authors believe that the battle of solidarity (organized labor) vs. individual rights is a losing one. Instead, they introduce the issue of civil rights into the conversation. Companies should be focused on honoring the spirit of the Civil Rights Movement, but that doesn’t mean that labor unions should be a part of the equation. Companies across a broad range of industries should and do provide their employees with a good wage and strong benefits as well as equal opportunity for career advancement in the workplace, and Nissan can certainly be counted among them. You see, simply stated, Nissan believes in equal opportunity and the sense that hard work should be rewarded with a clear path toward upward mobility as well as financial security. The citizens of Mississippi are excited about the job opportunities that have emerged since Nissan’s plant opening. A Nissan job is cherished which indicates a great relationship between management and workers. Nissan has accomplished this level of success through the direct, open relationship between the company and its employees. In fact, unions have tried eight times to organize Nissan plants for more than 20 years. The employees have rejected them each time, and there is little interest now. At some point the UAW has to learn that ‘no means no’. Signed, Harry C. Alford, President/CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce ®

- bigdog

December 15, 2012 at 1:30pm