Michigan unions fight to enshrine bargaining rights in constitution

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

markomalley

Guest
From the Washington Times:
They have been playing defense elsewhere across the Midwest, but labor unions in Michigan have gone on the attack with a proposed first-in-the-nation amendment to the state constitution that would enshrine a right to collective bargaining for public — and private-sector workers — and invalidate any past or future laws to the contrary.

Proposal 2, backed by Michigan’s teachers and other public-employee unions, is being closely watched by labor and management groups across the country after a string of setbacks for the union movement in states such as Wisconsin and Indiana. Other states are likely to follow Michigan’s lead if voters approve the measure Nov. 6, analysts here say.

But Gov. Rick Snyder, who has a business background, generally has shunned the more confrontational approach toward labor adopted by fellow Republican governors such as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker. Much of the state’s business establishment also strongly opposes the measure, saying it will hurt competitiveness and take a big bite out of the state’s ability to control spending.

“It turns government unions into a superlegislature,” said F. Vincent Vernuccio, labor policy director of the pro-market Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich., which calls the measure costly and overreaching. “If passed, it will give government unions an effective veto over legislation passed by elected representatives.”
The actual text of the measure that will be on Michigan ballots is:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:
  • Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.
  • Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.
  • Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.
  • Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.
Read point # 3 really, really carefully. It says that union contracts will override state law.

Wow. That will absolutely kill all industry that remains in the state.
 
I’m kind of divided on this; I don’t won’t to support public school teachers, but on the other hand, Unions do provide middle-class jobs to working folks as opposed to “Mcjobs”, and hence stable communities and steady tax revenue for public services like public libraries, parks and museums.

Once Globalization ravaged Michigan, the local governments started to threaten to close public libraries, parks, and museums, and police and firefighter services, unless city and township taxpayers ponied up more $$$ in order to save these community institutions and services.

I would think, in a free society, working men and women have the right to enter into agreement with one another and form a trade union, and bargain collectively, if that is what they want to do.

I don’t think it will be a job killer, since only a small percentage of the workforce in Michigan is unionized, or that killing jobs has much to do with it, since most of the unionized jobs are public sector jobs, and the State of Michigan often provides tax breaks and incentives and low or no corporate income tax rates for Michigan businesses.

Didn’t say I was going to vote for it but “Da Man” almost owns everything now: “lock, stock, and barrel” as they say.
 
PUBLIC SECTOR Unions are horrible for the economy. Private sector unions already have a right to collective bargaining.
 
Using a state constitution to protect a general right of association (to include unionize) is one thing, but to enshrine your particular type of association, FOREVER, is a bit much.
 
Read point 4… a single person can be unionized against… to me that is WRONG!
This bill is a huge step away from individual freegom:mad:
 
There are LOTS of deceptive scare tactics being thrown around. Some of this stuff is totally dishonest. Protecting people against abuse and all that kind of stuff which has nothing to do with the proposal.

Trust me, the unions have done very little to protect anyone against abuse. Employees in public unions have a much worse track record than Catholic priests ever had. There is no proof whatsoever that unions help with that.
 
Wonder how many people will stay in Michigan if it passes? Hopefully if it does there will be an exodus of people who don’t agree with the measure. It basically turns the state over to the unions
 
Read point 4… a single person can be unionized against… to me that is WRONG!
This bill is a huge step away from individual freegom:mad:
But that single person may employ tens or hundreds or thousands of workers.🙂
S/he is free to bargain with individual workers who have chosen to form a union.👍
 
Unions were started to protect people in dangerous jobs from being exploited by corporations. Unions being moved into public employee was a misuse of their function. They ask for gov’t protection from the gov’t… no sense
But the attempt to deny future lesilation against this, I don’t think even the Supreme Court could uphold such an anti-democratic move.
Okay I’m super upset about this… I am not going to return to this thread.
God Bless
 
Wonder how many people will stay in Michigan if it passes? Hopefully if it does there will be an exodus of people who don’t agree with the measure. It basically turns the state over to the unions
Michigan already has people leaving in droves.
  1. The business climate is better now, but that’s not saying much. People go south for jobs and lower taxes. Gasoline taxes in Michigan are ridiculous.
  2. Michigan has a new 4 year lifetime limit on welfare. People are heading south because of that too.
 
Public sector unions milk middle class taxpayers , destroy jobs for the mass for the unions that are infiltrated with communism. It’s a mess. These public sector unions have pensions unfunded in the billions that taxpayers once again will have to bail out.
 
From the Washington Times:
They have been playing defense elsewhere across the Midwest, but labor unions in Michigan have gone on the attack with a proposed first-in-the-nation amendment to the state constitution that would enshrine a right to collective bargaining for public — and private-sector workers — and invalidate any past or future laws to the contrary.

Proposal 2, backed by Michigan’s teachers and other public-employee unions, is being closely watched by labor and management groups across the country after a string of setbacks for the union movement in states such as Wisconsin and Indiana. Other states are likely to follow Michigan’s lead if voters approve the measure Nov. 6, analysts here say.

But Gov. Rick Snyder, who has a business background, generally has shunned the more confrontational approach toward labor adopted by fellow Republican governors such as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker. Much of the state’s business establishment also strongly opposes the measure, saying it will hurt competitiveness and take a big bite out of the state’s ability to control spending.

“It turns government unions into a superlegislature,” said F. Vincent Vernuccio, labor policy director of the pro-market Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich., which calls the measure costly and overreaching. “If passed, it will give government unions an effective veto over legislation passed by elected representatives.”
The actual text of the measure that will be on Michigan ballots is:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:
  • Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.
  • Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.
  • Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.
  • Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.
Read point # 3 really, really carefully. It says that union contracts will override state law.

Wow. That will absolutely kill all industry that remains in the state.
While I respect the plenary power of states, this should upset hard-working Michiganders. Unions are appealing to ballots and the courts to circumvent elected government.

Frankly, my patience with Midwestern states is running out very fast. If they want to bypass their TEA PARTY governments then it gets to a point where they deserve what they vote for.

Minnesota and Illinois are already in some serious trouble. Minnesota is hanging by a thread with a shocking 2010 result that put the Rs in charge of the state legislature. I do feel for rural Illinois to an extent because they just can’t carry Cook County. About 90% of the counties there have their head screwed on straight.

Romney needs to make it clear right after election day that states will NOT be bailed out under ANY circumstances.
 
I guess that it is nice to see the 20th century corporate greed being balanced out by 21st century union greed. I guess.
 
There should be absolutely no public sector unions at all.

I don’t have a problem with the existence of private sector unions because people shouldn’t be prohibited from forming such an organization if they wish, but they are not good things and kill jobs and the economy. They were necessary at one point but that time has passed.
 
I’m kind of divided on this; I don’t won’t to support public school teachers, but on the other hand, Unions do provide middle-class jobs to working folks as opposed to “Mcjobs”, and hence stable communities and steady tax revenue for public services like public libraries, parks and museums.
Addressing the bolded part - NO THEY DON"T!!! Employers provide jobs. Unions only represent workers other than the handful of people who actually work for the union.

Just a mental exercise for you - why would there be a need for a constitutional amendment if UNIONS provide jobs?

People here in Texas sure seem to be finding good jobs that are not “Mcjobs” and we are a right-to-work state. Go figure.🤷

Peace

Tim
 
I have to say I hope our Graduate Assistant union keeps going - I know Michigan was trying to get rid of them! I’ve iss the country and enroll, then find out that the school decided to cancel their job and funding. The union stopped that at my school. Even with a union, we get barely any health insurance because it’s not legally a full-time job, but we have to sign a contract that we won’t take on another. I’d hate to see what they’d try to pull without a union.
 
Wonder how many people will stay in Michigan if it passes? Hopefully if it does there will be an exodus of people who don’t agree with the measure. It basically turns the state over to the unions
All of them will stay; those who leave will be a negligible number IMO.
 
People here in Texas sure seem to be finding good jobs that are not “Mcjobs” and we are a right-to-work state. Go figure.🤷
Source of data that Texas has so many good jobs available?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top