9 votes

Michigan Right-to-Work: A Victory for Liberty?

Look past all the vague sloganeering and competing economic claims, and you'll find that right-to-work comes down to one simple and undeniable principle.

Michigan is about to become the 24th right-to-work state--but it's not just any state. It's essentially Big Labor Headquarters--and a place where the negative effects of union power were vividly displayed for all to see. No wonder that state residents objected a November ballot proposal that would prevent right-to-work from passing. And that labor initiative has now backfired, since the state house, senate and governor could vividly see that a majority of the state was open to this liberty-enhancing measure.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I call BS on that. NO ONE IS


They are coerced by a need to eat.

Pretending that people can just leave one job and find another is all fine, except that the work place issues will be the same. You do what the boss says, even if it is illegal or dangerous, or you are without a job. Yes, people CAN quit or get fired, but they cannot go find a different job where the expectations are not exactly the same - do whatever the boss says or be fired.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

deacon's picture


that is true.but are people forced to work for a union shop?
or do they do it willingly? i say they did it willingly

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

deacon's picture

a down vote for a question?

man up,and state why
but i bet you won't

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Michicgan joins the coalition of "Right to get f#*ked" states.

Idaho has been "right to work" for decades. It sucks. You have no idea what has just been unleashed on you, but I assure you, it ain't liberty.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.



Are you alright?

First of all, Ron Paul strongly supports right to work for obvious reasons. He understands economics and usn't in favor of screwing half the population over through unemployment and high prices so snotty, union workers can have their above-market wages guaranteed with guns and badges.

And Ron Paul worked for who in what "Right to work" state?

I know, I am a heretic, but I do not believe Ron Paul is infallible. I am telling you, I have lived and worked here for nearly 20 years now, and the employers screw over employees routinely and employees have no recourse. My position is not "pro-union" my position is get the government OUT of the middle of employer - employee contracts. I don't care what you "believe" I have lived it and right to work is not a good thing.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

which part of this sounds like 'corporation' to your socialistic


"the House passed the measure making membership and payment of union dues voluntary for public sector employees such as teachers by a 58-51 vote"

this is where you've moved on since the crazies and the 'ron paul is wolf in sheep's clothing's? oh, right, you are still in the crazy postings from time to time, my bad

deacon's picture

oh me,oh my

the ones who have no damned authority to pass bills
did in fact pass bills
yay lets all roll up our skirts and rejoice
yeah boy,such a great day in everyones lives the ones without
did something they cannot!!!!
such a great day for all involved
btw,does this even involve you? like do you live here?
you better live here,as your testimony is nothing more than
a Canadian trying to vote in our elections

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

A little defensive there?

And offensive, all at once. Does not change what will happen. Here in "socialist" Idaho, we have had the "right to work" for long enough to know how it works.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Congratulations Michigan!

Workers should have the right to participate in a Union or not if they choose. Perhaps even have competing Unions within a company for different issues. To force people to pay for something they do not want is theft. Perhaps next would be to replace Income taxes and instead individuals can donate money to the government if they wish to or not.

This is not black and white.

People should not be forced into unions, nor should they be fired for trying to engage in group negotiations. "Right to work" is not about freedom from union coercion, it is about letting the corporations in on the coercion.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

In a sense, yes. In my mind

In a sense, yes. In my mind right-to-work is a perfect example of how one government intervention logically leads to another government intervention to address problems created by the original government intervention and so on. (In this case, compulsory unionism.)

I have mixed feelings about it as something of an un-libertarian solution, but I do admit to enjoying seeing all the loathsome union whiners crying and rending their garments over it. They're very, very loud but as far as I can see lack overall public support for their ongoing racket.

deacon's picture

gollly gee dave

i said basically the same thing as you did there
and yet what did i get out of it?
oh yeah i remember,a union backer, a pr agent
wow have the times changes so much since i left?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I don't think we are saying

I don't think we are saying quite the same thing. I'm arguing that unions are and always have been economically destructive and violent organizations that tell a lot of fairy tales about their usefulness that too many people (yourself included) unfortunately believe.

You don't like right-to-work legislation for reasons that I don't think you've articulated very well. I have some issues with it from a libertarian perspective (which I've admittedly not elaborated on). It's not yet clear our reasons for critiquing right-to-work are the same. And your responses in which you keep claiming unions make workplaces safer do make you sound like a pro-union apologist, protests to the contrary.

Corporations are legal fiction.

they have outlived their usefulness and need to go.
without corporations...I am not so sure we would need unions.
Fiat money and corporations are the problem. not companies.

deacon's picture

oh please!!!

this is no victory by any stretch of the word
it is a failure

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Thank you

Thank you for illustrating my claim that opponents of right-to-work tend to rely on vague sloganeering.

Try to stop corruption. Go ahead. Whistleblowers are HOSED.

See corruption at work? Better not say something. My husband blew the whistle on a company that was endangering people, probably killing them although we could never prove that. He called the "anonymous" tip line and was fired in 30 minutes. (1 week after getting an award for being such an exemplary employee.) "Right to work" - they did not have to prove why they fired him.
I blew the whistle on a doctor doing blow while on call. I had to find a new job. Right to work.
Enjoy your new "right to take it how they tell me" state.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I can see bad times from this

I can see bad times from this enforcement known as law. Present day isn't the time for this law. What is good for the present is what you said above: Remove government from the work/jobs scene, the employer-employee relationship.

Moving from one government made environment, the creation and maintenance of unions, to a new government made environment, the dissolution at least of the ability to fire someone wrongfully, at a time businesses are scrutinizing every penny trying to avert going out of business or being bought out, will come at the expense of the employee. Big time. I see this expense occurring in two ways.

One, because times are how they are, where there is very little free market, meaning that government permission is needed in almost every endeavor OR failing that permission the government attacks the individual for nonsense in his endeavor, this law allows union and especially nonunion companies to work their employees more than what is normal for one person. Not only will the employee be without recourse in his job for this exploitation, outside of his job -- in the market, which isn't free and is highly regulated -- he will have no recourse, that recourse being the ability for him to create, to do, to provide, for himself, whose economy name is the free market.

There is almost no free market for the populace. The only place where the market is free is on the down low, where work is anything but steady. The ability for self providence is greatly different now than it was 50 years ago and is more different the further back this evaluation goes. Atop the inability to self provide, an inability the government made, job availability is uncommon and the number of descent paying jobs are fading fast. The location of the government in relation to union jobs is behind the company so it, the company, can intimidate, threaten and get rid of employees easily, that is, make slaves out of people, the demoralization of people.

Second, societal problems. This dissolution will inject angst in union people, a somewhat large demographic, and while times get tougher, their angst will rise and meet the frustrations of non-union people without jobs, creating a (concocted) society approaching self destruction and clamor for external control.

Time are tough. Ahhhh. I don't know why Ron Paul and people of our ilk say it's a good time be a live. I could live without coercion and the (fabricated) degradation. Continue being yourself, fishy. Keep on going.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

So, you're implying a company that hires

you shouldn't have the legal right to fire you? Unless, there is some stipulation in the hiring contract explaining the conditions under you can and cannot be fired, a company should have the legal right to hire and fire whomever its owners choose for whatever reason they choose. That's called freedom!

You are being deliberately obstinate.

A company that is killing people should not get to fire you for trying to stop them from killing people. They should get in trouble for killing people. That is called "justice."

And I hope my former employer does your surgery.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

deacon's picture

beg your pardon?

do you have something against what i typed?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I guess If you say so

than it must be