Opinion

The Great Debate

The right-to-work coup in Michigan

By Nelson Lichtenstein
December 13, 2012

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder’s decision to sign a right-to-work law is just the latest battle in Midwestern Republican legislators’ convulsive campaign to eviscerate union political clout. Lansing, Michigan, now follows Madison, Wisconsin, Columbus, Ohio, and Indianapolis, Indiana, as a state capital flooded by union partisans — in a spirited, but vain, effort to forestall these laws.

Unions stand at the core of the Democratic coalition today. They are the last organizations remaining on the liberal side that can effectively appeal to white, working-class men in the Rust Belt swing states. They were crucial to President Barack Obama’s victory there.

So whatever the opposition and the shady legislative tactics, Snyder, his billionaire backers and the rest of the Michigan GOP made the cold political calculation: Break unions’ political power now by stripping them of the ability to raise the funds needed to hire staff, mobilize voters and keep up liberal pressure on state and local officials in the months after the election. Even as Citizens United allows many conservatives to raise unlimited funds, Democratic Party prospects are likely to plummet — turning Michigan as steadily red as Texas.

But there is a lot more going on here than partisan politics. Obama was not quite right when he told a Michigan factory audience on Monday that right-to-work laws have little to do with economics and “everything to do with politics.”

Partisan wrangling, even over hot button issues like voter ID laws, has never been enough to generate the passions that compelled tens of thousands of rank-and-file union members to surge into Madison, Lansing and other Midwest state capitals where Republican legislatures were poised to pass these laws. Our highly charged politics also can’t explain conservative politicians’ determination to use unorthodox, perhaps even unconstitutional, tactics to rush these laws through.

Indeed, liberalism seems to have won a second wind, and Obama and the Democrats swept Michigan and most other Midwestern states. So why do we now find the opponents of trade unionism so emboldened?

Conservatives argue that a right-to-work law can convince industry not to flee the state, while liberals denounce the new statute as a threat to the middle class. Economists have used up a lot of computer power parsing a multitude of inconclusive answers.

But none of this explains the polarization or the passions that the fight over these right-to-work laws has unleashed. That’s because this conflict is about something far bigger — the meaning of solidarity, a way of feeling and thinking about the world of work that is the basis not just of the union idea, but of a humane cooperative society.

“The most important word in the language of the working class is ‘solidarity,’” declared the long-shore union leader Harry Bridges more than 70 years ago, during the turbulent era that thrust West Coast dockworkers on the path to becoming the best-paid, blue-collar workers in America.

Walter Reuther, the legendary president of the once powerful United Automobile Workers, put this in near-religious terms. “There is no power in the world,” Reuther said, “that can stop the forward march of free men and women when they are joined in the solidarity of human brotherhood.”

To understand how right-to-work laws stand in deadly opposition to union solidarity, look back on the violent industrial era that began with the bloody railroad strike of 1877 and extended well into the 20th century. Strike violence in those years was omnipresent, because a conservative judiciary declared union solidarity, in effect, a conspiracy against the public. Unions, the courts often ruled, were a racket that extorted wages and jobs from hapless employers — though these employers  were as gigantic and  powerful as the Pennsylvania Railroad and U.S. Steel.

Local and state officials, backed by the courts, sent police and the militia in to break up picket lines and protect strike breakers — unionists called them “scabs” — whose right to work was threatened by union efforts to solidify the workforce against the employer. Indeed, the phrase “right to work” was coined in 1902 by market-minded Progressives, who found any institution that sought to thwart the free play of supply and demand — be they trusts, monopolies or trade unions — inherently corrupt.

The New Deal’s 1935 Wagner Act was designed to civilize the world of work by strengthening unions in order to facilitate the “friendly adjustment of industrial disputes.” With the National Labor Relations Board, the Wagner Act “certified” a union as the exclusive bargaining agent for a group of workers.

That was not enough, however, to ensure that these new unions could withstand a hostile employer — either when times were tough, as during the Roosevelt recession of 1938, or during World War II, when the warfare state set wages and the unions gave up the right to strike.

So the government encouraged the spread of the union shop. This institutionalized solidarity by mandating that as a condition of employment a worker had to join the union and pay union dues. To most unionists, these requirements were like taxes and citizenship — crucial to insure strength and unity against any foe.

That worked well during the great postwar boom. But many employers and politicians, especially those in the Jim Crow, low-wage South, hated the new power of the unions. Especially if it even hinted at solidarity between black and white – on the job or off. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act gave states the right to pass right-to-work laws that made the union shop illegal.

In the South and Mountain West, conservatives jumped at this opportunity. State legislators often declared as a rationale their support for workers oppressed by “labor bosses.” “Pot-bellied Yankees with big cigars,” read one Dixie handbill introduced into the Congressional Record in 1953, will make whites “share the same restroom with Negroes and work side by side with them. It comes right out of Russia.”

A National Right to Work Committee, funded by the most retrograde textile, oil and plantation interests, tried to extend these anti-union laws to the North. That failed for many decades. But the committee’s lawyers did everything they could to chip away at the institutional solidarity this is central to union power.

They have not only fought the union shop, but also the capacity of labor organizations to use member dues in the realm of politics. This is now the crucial arena for capital-labor conflict, because the strike weapon is virtually dead.

With union density in the private sector now at less than 7 percent, most unions are far too small and isolated to win a showdown with a determined corporation. As in the early 20th century, there are too many potential strike-breakers, too many non-union shops and too many unsympathetic public officials to make it possible for most work stoppages to affect the business balance sheet of any particular company.

Thus the union turn to politics and the right-wing effort to blunt that labor weapon. Obamacare, higher taxes on the rich, infrastructure spending, an extension of unemployment benefits: All these public policies would help working Americans. But, as Scott Hagerstrom, the Michigan director of the Koch brothers-backed Americas for Prosperity, told the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference, “We fight these battles on taxes and regulations, but really, what we would like to see is to take the unions out at the knees so they don’t have the resources to fight these battles.”

Hagerstrom later expanded on this to a Salon reporter, denouncing “the damage that the union culture, the union bosses, have done.”

Enactment of the Michigan right-to-work law is a serious defeat not only for the unions but for the very idea of social solidarity. It promises an evisceration of union political and bargaining influence in a state once ground zero for labor power.

Can the liberalism mobilized by Obama’s re-election sustain itself in the absence of a vibrant union movement? The history of this nation and that of virtually every other Western democracy argues to the contrary.

These events in Michigan have now put us on the path to a most dangerous experiment.

 

PHOTO (Top): Trent Mauk (L), of the Plumbers and Pipefitters union, faces a line of police wearing riot gear, who are preventing people from entering the state building with the office of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder in Lansing, Michigan December 11, 2012. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

PHOTO (Top Insert): Michigan Governor Rick Snyder at a news conference in Lansing, Michigan December 11, 2012. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

PHOTO (Second Insert): Walter P. Reuter in front of a WPA mural during the 1940s. Credit: Walter P. Reuther Library

PHOTO (Third Insert): Demonstration during the Chrysler strike in Detroit, Michigan in 1937. Credit: Walter P. Reuther Library

Photo (Fourth Insert): David Koch, executive vice president of Koch Industries, at the Economic Club of New York, December 10, 2012. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

 

 

 

Comments
22 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

if the republicans really believed this, they’d include the police unions -but they don’t dare lest the police stop defending them from the protesters.

Posted by sgreco1970 | Report as abusive
 

if the republicans really believed this, they’d include the police unions -but they don’t dare lest the police stop defending them from the protesters.

Posted by sgreco1970 | Report as abusive
 

more BS from politicians, unions and their special interest groups.

Posted by SlickJax | Report as abusive
 

The best thing about this law is that if an individual does not want to join the Union, then he doesn’t have to pay the union. Even if he was not in the union he would have to pay the fee’s of the union with his pay check, in my opinion to simply line the pockets of union officials. Thank god people will now have the freedom of choice when it comes to working and joining a union, if they choose.

Posted by drewpers | Report as abusive
 

Snyder turned himself into Egypt’s Morsi. Michigan is not as small as Egypt and it connected to all communities larger than just its border limits. The rights to fire people without overseen by anybody is like those bosses can pressure workers into prostitution disregarding human dignity in work places.

Posted by beancube2101 | Report as abusive
 

I can believe most are against right-to-work, just like I can believe most are for mandated health insurance, even though it does nothing to curb free-market insurance cost or free-market healthcare, ingenuous. I blame advertising. We idolize Unions, and bad Unions hide behind it, but never mind, you’re all right, we should all be required to do something, even if that means paying union dues to only secure your right to ask for a wage increase, at most. News flash, this ain’t the 1930′s, you can ask your boss for a raise, if you’re worth it.

Posted by ZackShoemaker | Report as abusive
 

Unions are not all good or all bad, they had their place 30-60 years ago but they have gotten greedy. It is not the union members that are the problem is the union bosses who are looking more and more like the mafia everyday! Also, union members tend to get violent when they are crossed why because they feel threatened their free rides are almost over!

Posted by EdgePrice1978 | Report as abusive
 

What organization that demands payment from those that want to work before they can work?

Unions. No, the Mafia. No, wait, it is unions. Alright, both answers are correct. Yeah, that’s America.

Posted by AThousandClowns | Report as abusive
 

I understand Federal and State employees can not strike. but a private industry and local government sticking its nose where it dont belong. This is unconstitutional and goes against EEOC labor laws period. A private entity can not ask the state or local officials to side with them during strikes. Its called freedom of enterprise. Just like football , hockey, basketball players can go on strike, does this apply to them too?

Posted by SteveAbdelkoui | Report as abusive
 

Police and fire unions protect workers who carry a greater risk of wrongful termination. Police and fire workers are more likely to become the target of frivolous lawsuits than a typical auto worker so it makes more sense for them to be represent by a union capable for ensuring fair treatment. Workers in most other industries are protected by employment laws. Auto workers provide unskilled labor and require union representation about as much as a grocery bagger. Be honest with yourself and admit that the real benefit of the UAW is to squeeze the automobile companies for an extra buck fifty and hour and to make sure your still allowed to talk on your cell phones while you do your jobs.

Posted by Mr_Frick | Report as abusive
 

So what you’re saying is by giving workers the right of CHOICE is BAD? Either you’re with us or you’re not?!

Posted by 4USCitizen | Report as abusive
 

It’s ironic when Democrats point and say “look… a billionaire behind the GOP!” Remember when you point at someone, you’ve got three pointed back at yourself. In this case your other fingers are pointed at billionaire George Soros, who is the money and power behind Obama.

Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind.

Posted by bluewater23000 | Report as abusive
 

The entire argument posted by the author assumes that workers will flee the unions in droves. How else can the unions lose the funds they need to continue to buy government votes? If workers would rather take the job offers that a business puts forth than to pay union dues, something is horribly wrong with the unions. The unions want the choice to be “join or starve”. In a free society they choice should be “join us and get a better deal or take what the company offers”. The choice should always belong to the working man.

Posted by JimT46 | Report as abusive
 

Unions serve their purpose – but this article is another spinning of yarns about the solidarity and yes how unions solved racism. Everything the liberals put out there has to pull the race card. Unions abuse of tinkering with production and overreach of power has strangled the very people who they were meant to help. Time has moved on and we are not competitive – sorry but when a guy turns a wrench on a production line and can afford a summer home in Florida – there is something askew here. The market determines value and people make their own decisions about what they want to do in life and are paid accordingly. OSHA protects workplace safety, labor lawyers protect employees. If you want a union and see value in it – then join one. Unfortunately – they have become an extension of the corrupt and liberal Washington crowd – playing with the labor force and stuffing the pockets and ballot box of the democrats. It is a charade they gladly join until they have destroyed an industry and their children’s future. We as a country won’t have a pot to pee in if something doesn’t change – drastically in Washington. There are problems in any system – but I choose freedom.

Posted by xit007 | Report as abusive
 

Unions = waste

Posted by keebo | Report as abusive
 

Of course it is about politics. Unions always use their coerced union dues to fund Democrats, who in turn give them political favors. You notice how bankruptcy laws were preverted when Obama bailed out GM? Who cares about the investors, we have to make sure inflated union pay/benefits don’t suffer.

Posted by moonhill | Report as abusive
 

Right to work laws are just one of the tools business uses to drive down wages and destroy benefits for American workers.

For 50 years, Republicans fought to protect business from the greed of workers and Democrats fought to protect workers from the insatiable greed of employers. That worked pretty good. About 40% of workers were represented by unions and during that time America built the biggest and most prosperous economy the world has ever seen. Unfortunately, K Street finally got through to the Democrats and for the last 30 years both Democrats and Republicans have helped business use free trade, illegal immigration, union busting, and deregulation to increase profits by driving down wages and destroy benefits for American workers.

Even that worked okay for a while but that strategy has now caught up with itself. Business increased their profits for a while but they also broke their own customers. Now, neither businesses nor workers prosper.

Posted by wigglwagon | Report as abusive
 

Before retiring, I lived in a right-to-work state. And, though I’m pro-union, I believe in one caveat. Union membership should be a personal choice, not forced upon anyone. There should be no implied restriction saying any person “must” join a union in order to have a job. That’s what right-to-work is all about.

I was a union member for many years. But, I admit it was under the fanciful belief that union leadership had one and ONLY one purpose – to represent me and other members when it came time to negotiate wages, benefits, and job protection. Period. I quit the union only after it became clear that leadership was more concerned with spending my dues for other purposes … ie., giving grants or loans to other unions as a “sign of solidarity,” giving donations to politicians and PACs that I might not support, and spending lavish sums on conventions or junkets that could have been better spent on more (and better) attorneys skilled in management/labor negotiations.

When union leadership spends dues money on its core purpose – representation of membership on wage, benefit, and job protection issues … and ONLY on those issues … a union can be a worker’s best friend. Problem is, I don’t see too many unions today that do that. Therefore, right-to-work laws are an important tool to force unions to “earn” their membership by deeds, not just by their mere existence in the workplace.

Posted by Chronicle236 | Report as abusive
 

The bottom line is power. Large unions, large corporations, and large governments are all powerful. They are run by powerful people who enjoy their power.

None of them are very concerned about the needs of the workers.

Posted by Yaakovweeeeeee | Report as abusive
 

Some bullet points:
- Citizens United only allows conservatives to raise unlimited funds? Thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t see that in the legislation.
- if you were going to invest YOUR life savings to open a factory, would YOU choose a right to work state OR embrace the pleasures of dealing with unions?
- if unions are so benevolent, why would workers need to be FORCED to join? Wouldn’t they flock to unions voluntarily?
- if your employer is a foe, why work for him?
- are you an individual succeeding through merit or are you a faceless member of a social solidarity movement?
- what dangerous experiment have we embarked on? Freedom?

BTW – I have worked in a closed shop as well as in right to work states. My Career took off when I was allowed to work as an individual and my salary increased based on my merit, not on someone else negotiating for me. I now EARN multiple times what I made as a member of a union.

Posted by urukhai2 | Report as abusive
 

Now we have got to go after this nonsense of “right to work”
=
Governor Rick Snyder says, …. if workers see no “value” in unions they should not have to pay union dues.
=
Oh! Happy Day for those workers who are attracted, not to those employment opportunities in a low wage job, but they do see this “value” in an employment opportunity making a good living wage, not having to pay their fair share in union representation. Not one penny, in recognition of the livable wage he or she is about to receive, and acknowledging some support for what unions fought for, and who will continue to fight for, health benefits, safe working conditions, retirement benefits, a living wage, worker representation.
=
Realizing the “value” choice these workers made, with good safe working conditions and benefits, they can now feel secure in stable wages, and now, maybe for the first time, or in a long while, being able to feed and care for their families. Being able to purchase those things that a living wage offers. Living the American dream. Perhaps now, being able to put a down payment on a home? Being able to sleep at night. All this because he or she made the right “value” choice and decided to rather than take a job opportunity with lower wages, with no benefits, these workers realize without too much thought, there is a better “”value”” in the union environment, and with no union participation whatsoever to support the very environment that choices in what “value” offers. One which fosters good working conditions now, and into the future. The other without.
=
My advice to those who it applies to, you make that job choice, but when you go to bed at night, before you fall asleep, think about your “values“ in not supporting those others who sacrificed and made it possible for you to enjoy and benefit in what your choice in “values” has made possible. Have a good sleep.
=
I don’t understand, why is the police and fire unions exempt? Let’s make this fair for everybody while we are destroying this country.
Where is this “equal protection” of Article 1 of the Michigan Constitution speaks of?

Posted by haiki | Report as abusive
 

@haiki

I negotiate my own salary. I don’t need a union. I produce better than union workers, and I get paid more, and have better benefits, than my union counterparts in my industry. Unions have done absolutely nothing for me. And I take great pride in doing absolutely nothing for them. Unions and organized crime have gone hand in hand throughout history. I feel overjoyed that they can no longer forcably take money out of the workers pockets in yet another state.

Posted by TheNewWorld | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •