The “bad news”:http://www.annarbor.com/news/graduate-student-unionization-bill-heads-to-snyder/?cmpid=mlive – the Michigan state legislature passed the bill denying RAs recognition as public workers, on a party-line vote, and it is heading to the governor, who has announced he will approve it. The legislation has been hustled through incredibly quickly, to prevent the opposition from mobilizing. The interesting news – this, together with other similar of the Republican state government, is pushing Michigan unions into “looking for a referendum on organization rights”:http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120311/POLITICS02/203110303/.
bq. Michigan unions are fighting back with a sweeping proposal that would enshrine collective bargaining rights in the state constitution and put them beyond the reach of state lawmakers. The measure would serve as a pre-emptive strike against a possible right-to-work movement in Michigan, and potentially could undo some of what the state Legislature has done in the past 14 months related to unions and bargaining powers. It also could serve as a get-out-the-vote rallying point for Democrats as they seek to re-elect President Barack Obama this fall.
bq. … Union members and other supporters would need to collect at least 322,609 valid voter signatures by early July to put the proposed constitutional amendment before Michigan voters in November. The measure reads that “no existing or future law of the state … shall abridge, impair or limit” the collective bargaining rights outlined in the proposal. That could nullify possible Michigan efforts to pass a right-to-work law, which would prohibit labor contracts that require workers to pay union representation fees. Michigan Republicans are divided on the issue, but debate has intensified since Indiana recently became the first Rust Belt state to adopt such a measure.
I have no expertise _at all_ in Michigan state politics, but this seems a hopeful step. Rick Kahlenberg has a “recent op-ed”:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/a-civil-right-to-unionize.html?_r=1&ref=opinion and a “new book”:http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/Intro_Kahlenberg-Marvit.pdf/++atfield++file (PDF of first chapter) arguing that the right to unionize ought to be included in the Civil Rights Act. That’s a long term project, but state-level efforts like the one starting in Michigan might help it along a bit (it would be nice to see “Scott Walker go down too”:http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20120312/APC010401/120312106/Photos-video-story-Walker-recall-effort-turned-930-000-signatures?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CAPC-News%7Cs while we’re at it).
{ 18 comments }
hattip 03.13.12 at 7:23 am
Whyn do you confound collective barginning per se with Government employee unions.
No one is the least concerned with the former and most outside of those employed by the Government are dubious about the latter, and that included FDR when he was alive.
Government employee unions are profoundly immoral for they perforce rely on political maneuvering. The unions in effect levy a tax, and are not accountable for it.
It is highly corrupt. The Democrat Party in effect worked out massive indirect funding from the taxpayer: The taxpayer must pay the union which then contributes to the Democrats. It is a hideous perversion of our system.
This corruption most certainly should include academics.
It is extremely simple to understand. Why do you not make this distinction?
Steve LaBonne 03.13.12 at 12:19 pm
Illiterate troll, go infest Redstate or some such sewer, where you belong.
Back on topic, the folks in Michigan are fighting for all of us, and I wish them the best.
Barry 03.13.12 at 1:48 pm
What always amuses me is the sheer ignorance of these people. I have yet to hear an argument which is either original or true. All I see are copy and pastes of decades old arguments, which were refuted decades ago.
Barry 03.13.12 at 1:54 pm
Along with ‘my field is DIFFERENT!’ from people who seem blind to both the reality of their field, and to the fact that this argument is used all over the place.
Marc 03.13.12 at 2:41 pm
@1: People have the right to seek collective bargaining, period. It may or may not be the best solution for every situation, but we associate prohibitions on collective action with totalitarian regimes for a reason.
On the subject of practicality- petitions haven’t been as successful in Michigan as elsewhere in the Midwest, unfortunately, and I don’t know why.
js. 03.13.12 at 4:29 pm
Since this was a point of some contention on here recently, let’s please also note the use of “Democrat party” in comment 1.
Barry 03.13.12 at 5:00 pm
“People have the right to seek collective bargaining, period. It may or may not be the best solution for every situation, but we associate prohibitions on collective action with totalitarian regimes for a reason.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I seem to recall some academic making a big fuss about that recently. Comment after comment after comment. He really didn’t like it, and made absurd arguments against it.
He also didn’t seem to have a day job, considering the sheer volume of posts.
Marc, can you help me recall the name of that guy?
Barry 03.13.12 at 5:04 pm
(sorry for the long line length; I mistakenly thought that WordPress understood line wrapping. Could a poster please fix? thanks)
Marc 03.13.12 at 6:40 pm
Barry: let me use simple words for you.
One question is whether people have the right to form unions if they choose to do so.
Another question is whether doing so is the best choice for all circumstances.
If you can’t tell the difference between these propositions then I can’t help you. And judging from your behavior there isn’t much point in having the two of us talk about anything.
James 03.13.12 at 10:18 pm
The danger of public unions is that through the unionization process the unions claim ownership of the public service in question and obtain the ability to withhold that service at will. This danger is exemplified by the fact that police are allowed to unionize but striking is illegal. While this is the law, police strikes do occur such that there is a specific name for it, blue flu. So this raises the question: Is the fundamental right of unionization greater than the citizen’s right to own and control public services?
Barry 03.14.12 at 11:05 am
“If you can’t tell the difference between these propositions then I can’t help you. And judging from your behavior there isn’t much point in having the two of us talk about anything.”
Marc, please see my post #4, and meditate on the implications of that + your hundreds of posts in the previous threads.
Barry 03.14.12 at 11:08 am
James, I read ‘LA Noir’ a few years ago (if you’ve seen ‘LA Confidential’, then I can describe the theme of ‘LA Noir’ as ‘LA Confidential’ was a favorable look at the LAPD).
One of the things mentioned in ‘LA Noir’ was that before strong civil service protections and police unions, police officers were incredibly vulnerable to their superiors and the Mayor’s office; an officer with 29 years in could be fired at will, losing their pension.
This meant that the executive branch of the city government could use the police as they willed. The citizens, of course, could STFU, unless they had sufficient mass to elect a new mayor *and* make that mayor do things differently. And of course a police force which literally serves the administration is useful to have in keeping power.
It (and a few other things) were eye-openers for me.
MinaWest 03.14.12 at 11:40 am
I just read this book and I thought you might be interested. It’s Allan Ornstein’s new book, Wealth vs. Work: How 1% Victimize 99%. The book describes how the U.S. has been divided into separate estates, with catch phrases that harshly sort people into “winners†and “losers,†Wall Street and Main Street, and rich and poor (or working poor); and, how the government of the people has been replaced by big business and financial interests. Other topics include excellence vs. equality, education and income, manufacturing jobs, outsourcing jobs, unions and collective bargaining, unfettered capitalism, millionaires and billionaires, tax reform, college tuition and student debt, pension plans, merit and talent, innovation and technology, immigration, China and India and emerging global issues. It’s a provocative and gritty book-worth the read.
Martian 03.14.12 at 2:24 pm
I’d recommend treading a middle road, guys…too much Union muscle can be as destructive as none at all.
If you want to see the worst excesses of Union powers, look at the UK in the 1970s, or France for much of the last half of the 20th Century. Or google ‘Len Mclusky’ now – he’s a 70s throwback over here.
John Protevi 03.14.12 at 3:24 pm
@14: The “Union muscle” of the University of Michigan RAs will be a fearsome thing indeed. “Nice microscope you got there, Poindexter. Be a shame if anything happened to it.”
If you want to improve your efforts, Martian, you need more Saul Alinsky and “Chicago way” in there.
Barry 03.14.12 at 5:12 pm
Martian
” I’d recommend treading a middle road, guys…too much Union muscle can be as destructive as none at all.”
That is a valid point, and I promise to remember it in the event that union power in the USA becomes destructive.
After having an iceskating party in Hell first, of course.
Barry 03.14.12 at 5:14 pm
I guess the nome de comment was appropriate, though.
J. Otto Pohl 03.17.12 at 1:37 pm
I know nobody here cares. But, there is currently a nation wide strike by university lecturers here in Ghana. I have a small post up on blog about it. It appears that labor organizing among faculty is much more advanced here than in the US.
Comments on this entry are closed.