Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Freedom of choice passes in Michigan: So why the violent protests?

Congratulations to Michigan legislators for refusing to bow to union intimidation and do what's best for Michigan and its citizens. We now have an opportunity to be more competitive and have more jobs.

Right to work does not impede unions in any way. It simply means that a person does not have to be forced to join a union as a condition for employment. If unions are so great, then they have nothing to fear from right to work because employees will want to join a union if it's a good thing for them. The legislation passed today simply means the choice is up to the individual. Of course unions despise right to work because they know most people don't want to join unions if they don't have to, and the fewer who do, the less money and power the unions will have.

If union members are sincerely interested in their own economic bottom line, they should keep in mind a study from the West Michigan Policy Forum that found of the 10 states with the highest rate of personal income growth, eight have right-to-work laws, and economist Richard Vedder found that there is a 23% higher rate of per capita income growth in right-to-work states.

But aside from the economic benefits of right to work legislation, the crux of its worthiness comes in the fact that it offers freedom to the individual to choose what's best - to join a union or not. And isn't "choice" supposed to be a good thing?

What wasn't good, by the way, was the behavior of the union thugs and even some public officials today in Lansing and the threats of "blood" and more civil disobedience. Tearing down privately owned tents with women and children in it, punching reporters, foul language and mayhem are all despicable things. Violence and threats like we saw today is never acceptable and does nothing to give credence to the unions' complaints.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


  1. Right on with your post. All I can say is, "Gee, those poor underpaid Warren Con teachers." They really served as good role models to our students. My tax dollars are going to support their right to protest. What are they protesting - that there might be less money going to support presidential candidates like Obama? He got elected because of the government, teacher, and auto workers unions. Like it or not, those union dues all went for the Democrat union pacs in their support of Obama.

    Is the quality of education going to diminish in the Warren Consolidated School System if some teachers opt out of belonging to a union? I think not. These poor souls who have to slave at teaching 5 classes a day with prep hours, snow days, holiday vacations, summer vacations, pensions, teacher aides, etc. they're going to stop being effective? The teachers in the nice neighborhoods of Warren and Sterling Heights don't appreciate how well they are off and how good they have it. Try teaching (an oxymoron) in Detroit. Try teaching in a private school (Catholic) system, or in a charter school. Are those teachers less qualified? Are they less dedicated? The answer to those questions is "absolutely not." And they do not belong to any union. If they do not perform well, then there is no arbitration. They are fired, period.

    And these public school teachers should not be trying to brainwash the young minds they are entrusted with into having them believe that they are "God's chosen people" and what they did in protest in Lansing was such a noble cause - for whom?

    And as for the automobile workers union, why isn't anyone, especially in the news media, questioning why it is that American Axle closed down shop in Detroit/Hamtramck and moved their whole enterprise to Mexico?

    If there is a right to work in Michigan, maybe there will be less outsourcing to China if the work climate is made to be more attractive for companies and employers.