Michigan passed law that repeals the State's current "right to work" laws for private sector employees

Michigan House Democrats passed legislation Wednesday night over GOP objections to deliver on a key promise to union activists: repealing the state's right-to-work law.

The law, established by Republicans in 2012, allows workers in unionized jobs to opt out of paying union dues and fees. Michigan — a state steeped in labor history — could become the first state in nearly 60 years to ditch its right-to-work law.

"It has done nothing but hurt hardworking Michiganders," said bill sponsor state Rep. Regina Weiss, D-Oak Park. "It has allowed people who don't pay union dues to take advantage of union benefits."

Democrats championed their bills to repeal the law as a boon for workers' rights that would strengthen unions and help reverse wealth inequality. "It gives union members their power back," said state Rep. Jim Haadsma, D-Battle Creek, who chairs the House Labor Committee. "It restores balance in negotiations."

Republican lawmakers countered that the legislation will harm Michigan's economic competitiveness and make unions less responsive to workers' needs.

"This is about forcing Michigan workers to join a union," said House Minority Leader Matt Hall, R-Kalamazoo. "If a union is providing the value, then people will join."

The legislation — House Bill 4004 and House Bill 4005 — both passed by a one-vote margin with all Democrats sticking together to support the measures.

HB 4004 would repeal right-to-work for public sector workers. A U.S. Supreme Court decision barring public sector unions from requiring employees covered by collective bargaining agreements to pay union dues renders HB 4004 unenforceable. But proponents of the bill want to change Michigan’s labor laws for public employees in the event the court overturns the decision.

HB 4005, meanwhile, would repeal Michigan's right-to-work law for workers in the private sector.

Both bills were modified late Wednesday to include a $1 million appropriation to the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity to respond to public questions about the legislation and implement it.

The appropriation means that the legislation is not subject to a public referendum in which voters could reject the law. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in her first term issued an executive directive promising to veto any legislation "that circumvents the right to a referendum."

The votes took place the same day the House Labor Committee heard testimony on the bills and sent them to the floor for a vote.

Tens of thousands of Michigan workers currently protected by union agreements don't provide any financial support to the union. State Rep. Jimmie Wilson, D-Ypsilanti, said eliminating right-to-work will "repeal the right to freeload."

The share of workers covered by a union declined before Michigan's right-to-work law kicked in and continued to fall in the subsequent years. Most Michigan employees are not covered by unions today. Democrats who supported the bills Wednesday posit stronger unions will secure higher wages and force all employers to keep pace.

https://apnews.com/article/right-to-work-michigan-repeal-df5520a3f7c3f497e8aac7bd729f3569

EDIT. The bill for private sector employees has passed! Now they need to pass the one for public sector employees.

OP starts below.

Well, this is potentially exciting and something, quite frankly, I wasn't expecting. Getting rid of the laws that allow employees at unionized companies in the private and public sectors to opt out of paying dues, but at the same time take advantage of the things they bargain for would give the unions more power to organize and bargain for the employees. This is, of course, at a time when union bargaining power is at historic lows, and naturally is also sorely needed.

These two bills still need to pass the state senate, and even though democrats have a narrow majority there as well, I don't know if it can due to the possibility of a filibuster. I can't seem to find information on Michigan State Senate rules regarding a filibuster option. If it's the same as the federal Senate rules they need a two-thirds vote to overcome it, which, they technically have with 20 democrat member to the 18 republican members as they would need 18.6 (rounding up I assume, so 19). Any further knowledge on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

I'm going post this here. Feels appropriate.

This is good.

Moving forward, being in a union will be incredibly important to securing one's financial future, ability to live comfortably without killing one's self through work, and more.

The fact that people were able to manipulate themselves into a job and benefit from unions without paying dues is pretty messed up.

Unions are coming back, and are as important as ever.

I always thought this was such a weird loophole. I'm glad it's being addressed.

@mrbojangles25: on the flip side, should an employee be required to join a union to be hired for a specific job?

If they want to forgo the benefits and get treated worse than the unionized employees, sure, but that's a difficult scenario to accomplish as well, and it still hurts unions because it allows them to be kicked out in favor of employees who would choose to have far less power in the workplace.

it ought to be their right though, not a requirement for employment.

my first job as a kid was as a cashier at a grocery store. as part of employment i was required to pay into the ufcw union despite as a 16 year old who was not making cashiering a career. i would have opted out if given the option.

Are unions expensive in US?

I think I get everything I pay in union dues back in reduced taxes.

Unions receive dues from their members. Before PA became right to work, union dues were a deduction against income. I'm not sure if other states do that.

I'm paying roughing $60 a month in dues. Not really seeing the benefit vs any other nonunion job I've had. I've seen the union protect lazy people though. That's frustrating. Hopefully this law won't make the union reps richer but instead lower union dues.

@comp_atkins: "it ought to be their right though, not a requirement for employment.

my first job as a kid was as a cashier at a grocery store. as part of employment i was required to pay into the ufcw union despite as a 16 year old who was not making cashiering a career. i would have opted out if given the option. "

I'm always told by conservatives that you always have the right to leave your job and find a new one if want. So technically you did have a way of opting out. I'm not saying that this argument always works well in practice for a number of reasons, but what stopped you from looking for another position at 16? Most people aren't tied down at that age.

You're not paying dues because you're making a career. You pay for the negotiated contracts.

i just REALLY wanted to bag groceries and deal with asshole customers

@joshrmeyer: The great thing about the free market is that it works both ways. You’re free to find a non-union job if you think you can do better. Good luck though 👍

@tjandmia: Yeah I didn't know Kroger was union based. When or if I ever work for another company I'll take that into consideration. I like the idea of a union but don't see the need in practice. There's laws in place to protect employees. Where I work, it's almost impossible to get fired. The attitude is "They can't do anything, the union will protect me." And it does. This only benefits employees who don't come to work on time, just don't show up for work at all, or call out frequently, or people who are just there for a paycheck. I'm sure every union is different but the one I'm part of, I'm not seeing the benefit. When I worked for Walgreens, a nonunion company, the benefits were way better. Where does all the money go to? Seems excessive.

Unions should help negotiate when it comes to wages and other benefits. My own pay would be worse if it wasn't for unions.

@horgen: Competition does that. In my case, grocery stores around here compete with wages. The small difference a union may make doesn't offset the dues. I voluntarily pay my dues because I like the idea behind them. I just wish more came from it, and they quit protecting employees that should be let go.

No competition doesn't do that. Historically corporations have worked for profit, not employee benefits/wages. If competition actually worked the way you think it does, then we would have NO need for minimum wage.

Unions protect employees against employers. If an employee is a bad employee then an employer needs documentation on that. When they don't do that then there is no paper trail that the employee is not meeting their obligations. In short, if an employee cannot be fired for an infraction, it's due to the incompetence of the employer.

@LJS9502_basic: Minimum wage isn't needed. How many jobs pay minimum wage? McDonald's here in my tiny town start at $12/hr. Which is right around what the other fast food places pay. They could pay minimum wage but employees would go work at other places. Walgreens starts at $15/hr here. Non-union. You can compare similar places to work and the difference is minimal between union and non-union... The union makes that paperwork a whole lot harder than it should be and yes, employers fail to bother filing it for that reason. They do protect employees,and that's why I pay. But from what I've witnessed so far, they protect the wrong ones. Which is leading to a bunch of lazy employees staying around while the good ones are leaving to work where they're appreciated and they're tired of picking up the slack. If you are a decent employee, what exactly does the union need to protect you from that laws don't already do?

Minimum wages is needed. Do you know the history of business? They didn't start giving decent wages/benefits/hours to employees until unionization. I hope you aren't under the impression that business does what's right for their employees.

No unions don't make it harder, management is just inept. I work in management and they know why they have difficulty removing bad employees.

@LJS9502_basic: Nearing no one is paying minimum wage anymore and it has nothing to do with unions. Employees have more power than corps now. Non-union companies have been raising wages a lot recently. In fact, it seems like the non-union places here in my town pay more than the union ones. I'm referring to fast food, grocery, dept stores. The dues are just too high for what you get in return, from my experience. It could be and probably is different elsewhere. Fortunately for the $10/hr workers here(or anyone else), they aren't required to pay the union dues. Which kinda sucks for the rest of us, and I guess is what this whole thread is about. Maybe they can do a percentage of pay for total dues owed, so these low paid employees are still paying something but not as much as someone making twice the amount.

Lol, you get a couple years of rising low end wages on the books and the ghouls come out advocating for removing the minimum wage.

Unions got me an extra paid day off... Which always comes after having Thursday off, so I get a long weekend. :D

The state senate has passed their own version of this bill. Now they have to reconcile, but it absolutely appears this is happening! Power to the workers!

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiggFodHRwczovL3RoZWhpbGwuY29tL2hvbWVuZXdzL3N0YXRlLXdhdGNoLzM5MDA1MTctbWljaGlnYW4tc2VuYXRlLXZvdGVzLXRvLXJlcGVhbC1yaWdodC10by13b3JrLWxhdy1pbi12aWN0b3J5LWZvci1vcmdhbml6ZWQtbGFib3Iv0gGGAWh0dHBzOi8vdGhlaGlsbC5jb20vaG9tZW5ld3Mvc3RhdGUtd2F0Y2gvMzkwMDUxNy1taWNoaWdhbi1zZW5hdGUtdm90ZXMtdG8tcmVwZWFsLXJpZ2h0LXRvLXdvcmstbGF3LWluLXZpY3RvcnktZm9yLW9yZ2FuaXplZC1sYWJvci9hbXAv?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

The state senate has passed their own version of this bill. Now they have to reconcile, but it absolutely appears this is happening! Power to the workers!

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiggFodHRwczovL3RoZWhpbGwuY29tL2hvbWVuZXdzL3N0YXRlLXdhdGNoLzM5MDA1MTctbWljaGlnYW4tc2VuYXRlLXZvdGVzLXRvLXJlcGVhbC1yaWdodC10by13b3JrLWxhdy1pbi12aWN0b3J5LWZvci1vcmdhbml6ZWQtbGFib3Iv0gGGAWh0dHBzOi8vdGhlaGlsbC5jb20vaG9tZW5ld3Mvc3RhdGUtd2F0Y2gvMzkwMDUxNy1taWNoaWdhbi1zZW5hdGUtdm90ZXMtdG8tcmVwZWFsLXJpZ2h0LXRvLXdvcmstbGF3LWluLXZpY3RvcnktZm9yLW9yZ2FuaXplZC1sYWJvci9hbXAv?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

these companies are raising wages because of competition. If there wasn't any competition, they wouldn't bother doing it. Many companies are relocating to cheaper areas, where minimum wage is lower. But this does two things: 1) Ironically it causes the cost of living in that area to go up, which put pressure on wages and 2) increases competition for labor. Without this kind of outside force, the employers would pay the bare minimum, starvation wages if they could get away with it.

This is another reason we need to ban all mergers, aquisitions of any sort. These fucking courts approving these mergers, aquisitions etc are the worst. We need far far far more competition in the marketplace. Competition is the best thing for the people and i've said this countless times. If it were up to me, id ban all patents, trademarks, IP laws and let the sharks go at it, eat each other up, spit each other out, and the fat cats all get a nice slimming down.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2023/03/21/michigan-house-democrats-voting-to-repeal-right-to-work-restore-union-scale-prevailing-wage/70032724007/

Lansing — The Democratic-led Michigan Legislature voted along party lines Tuesday on landmark legislation to restore prevailing wages for state construction projects and repeal the right-to-work law that barred union contracts from requiring membership fees as a condition of employment.

The Michigan Senate took a final vote on the bill to repeal the right-to-work law for private employers and sent the measure to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's desk on Tuesday afternoon. The Senate passed the bill 20-16 along party lines after the legislation cleared the House in a 56-52 party-line vote.

Way to go Michigan! Still need to pass the one for public employees, but this is a huge step in the right direction.

In Argentina the wealthiest people in the country like Hugo Moyano are union leaders.

They make it so that not only you have to pay union fees regarding of which company your work for, but also they are so wealthy they can buy politicians to keep annexing more and more industries in to their union.

They have greatly contributed to the inflation problem by not allowing wages of some sectors reach market prices or near market prices and as result the food prices in Argentina are extremely high.

They also pay politicians to defund the competition (they mostly do truck industry, so they defund the train network)

They are also often involved in violent clashes on the street, many times involving soccer hooligans.

I have zero trust in unions as a result of that and i think being able to opt out is an extremely necessary tool to force them to be honest.

@nirgal: you can always choose to work in a non-unionized company. In the US, and this goes for Michigan as well, there are far more non-union companies than unionized ones. It would be much easier to find work at company without a union.

@Serraph105: well in that case, i don't see the unionized companies being able to compete with the non unionized ones.

Unless they are some sort of monopoly, or they are able to unionize entire industries. In which case, you will be left without a choice.

I agree, but then they should lose any of the benefits.

In an ideal situation, the positives of union so far outweigh the negatives (if any) that'd you'd have to be either a fool that objects to it on principle or an idiot to not join the union.

I know there are bad unions (the police, for example) and they sometimes end up with too much power, but it can and has been done well in the past and present day.

@putemincamps: if they were forgoing the payment of union dues, unions that they are currently part of, then yes. Most likely they will have to start paying the organization that they belong to. If they don't like it they can seek work elsewhere and the unions will have to improve what they offer or die off.

Edit. It's worth noting that because unions are a natural part of the free market, they have to offer decent enough benefits to it's members to justify it's continued existence or the union will die off naturally. If businesses really want to keep unions from forming naturally in the first place all they have to do is maintain commitments to treating employees well and compensating them well along with it.

Compensating employees? Is this is a joke?

Never heard of any anti union worker turning down the money/benefits the union got for them.

@horgen: lol god you're a fun person.

@putemincamps: "They chose to take a job with company, at a wage negotiated by the union, but offered by the company, regardless if they join the union or not."

Your example is a perfect example of a person being a freeloader in the world of unions. A person who takes the union negotiated wage, but doesn't join the union is a person who is getting the benefits of a union without paying for it. That wage would be lower without the union's involvement.

I'm good with unions in general, but there are shenanigans that can arise that get more complicated because of them. One time I got a job, and I enjoyed it and it took a lot of effort to get my foot in the door. Well, union, and you had to be there so many working days before you could join. Halfway through, they voted to go on strike.

So I asked the company people what do I do? They said If i didn't come to work, they'd fire me.

I asked the union reps what to do, they said if I crossed the lines I'd never join the union. Never joining the union didn't mean I could just keep working there, either.

Aside from that, I've seen a ton of buddy systems go down that kept people who'd normally been fired by HR on the job because of unions, and it's very hard to step over your reps. We're talking sexual harrassment, kick backs, and all that stuff. Maybe white collar unions are a little more civilized, but you can get into a whole lot of crap that will bleed into your outside life if you double cross or "snitch" on the union in smaller towns/companys in the sticks.

Glad you've never experienced it. But I don't agree that people should be forced to join a union. Not the person's fault the union would have a problem if the company had it's own workforce on site as well, doing the same job with different rulebooks.

If the company offered lower wages to people not in the union, everyone would join. Doing it this way the company tries to paint the union as unnecessary.

It's amazing to me how many people believe employers care about their workers and would do that right thing if they had a choice.

Good! "Right to work" is bulls***...