HUGE, GREAT NEWS! Michigan supreme court upholds right to work status for state workers

HUGE, GREAT NEWS!

Michigan supreme court upholds right to work status for state workers

posted at 8:01 am on July 30, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

While taking place at the state level, this one could be very big for the Right to Work movement. The state supreme court in Michigan has dealt a double blow to the unions and the state government apparatus which is essentially owned by them. The Justices ruled yesterday that not only is Right to Work the law of the land for private industry, but it applies to public sector workers as well, and they can’t be forced to participate in unions against their wishes. (Detroit Free Press)

The Michigan Supreme Court, in an opinion that has the effect of making state employees subject to Michigan’s 2012 right-to-work law, ruled Wednesday that Michigan’s Civil Service Commission never had the authority to impose union fees on state workers, even before the controversial law was passed.

The 4-3 ruling is a blow to the United Auto Workers and other unions representing about 36,000 state employees, who argued only the bipartisan Civil Service Commission — not the Legislature — can set the conditions of employment for civil servants.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/30/michigan-supreme-court-upholds-right-to-work-status-for-state-workers/

Duh.......The Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations ("Wagner") Act permitted state Right to Work laws even before Congress passed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act amendments.  Each State has this choice and Michigan has voted to be right to work.  This is a funny post.  Michigan could choose next week to return to a non right to work state, and the Michigan Supreme Court ruling would be meaningless.  This has been the law long before this decision, and just because public employee Unions think they are special or exempt does not make it so......The United States Supreme Court has made it clear......again double duh.  The funniest thing is reading the comments of the stupid people who thinks this is some type of new ruling.....one person even comments how he wishes the Supreme Court would adopt this rule.....triple duh.....stupid is hard to fix.

Yes, stupid is hard to fix.

If what you posted is anywhere near being close to accurate, why are the unions going berserk over the decision and continuing to LOSE members?

I am glad you asked.  The public unions wanted to keep collecting dues until the State Supreme Court ruled.  It was a flat out dilatory tactic by the public unions and had NO merit.  I support unions which make things.  I do not support public unions right to strike among teachers, fire and police.  Here is the old law which our Supreme Court ruled.

1963 - Retail Clerks Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 747, 375 U.S. 96

The Court held that state Right to Work laws may prohibit "agency shop" agreements under which employees are required to pay fees to unions to defray the costs of collective bargaining. In a second decision in the same case, the Court ruled that the state courts, not just the National Labor Relations Board, can enforce state Right to Work laws. (The National Right to Work Committee financed this case in the Supreme Court for the nonmember plaintiffs.)

As you can see the public unions got away with this delay and continued collection of dues because the Supremes said the state courts have the final say on the State's legislation which allows right to work.  I hope this helped you understand how stupid the article was and the comments.  The outrage should be that they should not be rewarded by keeping those collected dues.

Unions are losing membership because some can freeload and not pay dues and get the benefits of the union representation.  The problem is that unionization has shifted over to the public sector which makes NO sense.  A public servant serves the public.   A private sector employee does NOT serve a private employer.   I strongly believe in private sector unions and collective bargaining to bring equity to the bargain.  However, folks who choose public service should not have a strike as an option, it makes as much sense as unionizing our military.  I am more conservative than most on this forum about the abuses of public unions over the last thirty years as we have lost manufacturing and the unions have migrated to areas which a positions of public service.....non congruent and wrong.  Pace and Gunz were always angry with my positions, but local government is being crushed by contracts which are not serving the public.  If a person does not want a public service job, get another job in the private sector.

2seaoat wrote:I am glad you asked.  The public unions wanted to keep collecting dues until the State Supreme Court ruled.  It was a flat out dilatory tactic by the public unions and had NO merit.  I support unions which make things.  I do not support public unions right to strike among teachers, fire and police.  Here is the old law which our Supreme Court ruled.

1963 - Retail Clerks Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 747, 375 U.S. 96

The Court held that state Right to Work laws may prohibit "agency shop" agreements under which employees are required to pay fees to unions to defray the costs of collective bargaining. In a second decision in the same case, the Court ruled that the state courts, not just the National Labor Relations Board, can enforce state Right to Work laws. (The National Right to Work Committee financed this case in the Supreme Court for the nonmember plaintiffs.)

As you can see the public unions got away with this delay and continued collection of dues because the Supremes said the state courts have the final say on the State's legislation which allows right to work.  I hope this helped you understand how stupid the article was and the comments.  The outrage should be that they should not be rewarded by keeping those collected dues.

NO union has EVER made ANYTHING.

There should be NO public unions. Period.

2seaoat wrote:Unions are losing membership because some can freeload and not pay dues and get the benefits of the union representation.  The problem is that unionization has shifted over to the public sector which makes NO sense.  A public servant serves the public.   A private sector employee does NOT serve a private employer.   I strongly believe in private sector unions and collective bargaining to bring equity to the bargain.  However, folks who choose public service should not have a strike as an option, it makes as much sense as unionizing our military.  I am more conservative than most on this forum about the abuses of public unions over the last thirty years as we have lost manufacturing and the unions have migrated to areas which a positions of public service.....non congruent and wrong.  Pace and Gunz were always angry with my positions, but local government is being crushed by contracts which are not serving the public.  If a person does not want a public service job, get another job in the private sector.

Public sector employment used to be protected by civil service regulations. These "right to work" laws do not differentiate between public and private sector employment. They're equal opportunity in relegating the work force to indentured servitude, and should rightfully be called, right to starve, or right to be poor.

http://wrongforeveryone.org/behind-right-to-wor/

Unions do help productivity in the Private Sector.  They are essential to level the playing field as can easily be determined the attack on Unions has resulted in the destruction of the middle class, anemic median income index, and a nation adrift.  However, Unions and their political power in state and local elections results in unfair advantage to workers who are simply overpaid serving the public......when greed drives the public service sector, society suffers.  Sorry, I am absolutely against strike powers for public unions and believe any kind of slow down should be met with harsh consequences.  I am an avid supporter of private sector unionization.   Unions made this country and its people strong.  The loss of their numbers is largely responsible for the loss of the middle class.  I am not against public service employees having the right to collective bargaining, just they cannot slow down or strike.

2seaoat wrote:Unions do help productivity in the Private Sector. They are essential to level the playing field as can easily be determined the attack on Unions has resulted in the destruction of the middle class, anemic median income index, and a nation adrift.  However, Unions and their political power in state and local elections results in unfair advantage to workers who are simply overpaid serving the public......when greed drives the public service sector, society suffers.  Sorry, I am absolutely against strike powers for public unions and believe any kind of slow down should be met with harsh consequences.  I am an avid supporter of private sector unionization.   Unions made this country and its people strong.  The loss of their numbers is largely responsible for the loss of the middle class.  I am not against public service employees having the right to collective bargaining, just they cannot slow down or strike.

Good of you to sum up your whole post in one, hysterically funny, sentence.

How did that work out in railroads, airlines, automobile manufacturers and other fields?