Truth Squad calls tech foul on pro-RTW ads


Who: Michigan Freedom Fund

What: Radio and TV ad

Truth Squad call: Technical foul

The debate over Right to Work legislation has spilled out from the State Capitol and onto the state’s airwaves.

Michigan Freedom Fund is backing both TV and radio ads supporting passage of RTW.

Michigan Freedom Fund was organized as the "Atlas Strike Fund," a 501(c)(4) corporation with the state last month by Eric Doster of the law firm Foster Swift in Lansing. Several weeks later, the name was changed to Michigan Freedom Fund and a Trevor Pittsley was named as vice president. Pittsley is identified on his linkedin page as the manager of Doster's campaign for the court of appeals in 2008. Doster's profile page on Foster Swift's website says he is the longest serving general counsel of the state Republican Party in history.

Questionable statement: “Choice. We cherish it. And there’s a plan to protect our freedom in Michigan. It’s called freedom to work. Because joining a union or not joining should be your choice.”

That’s the opinion of organizations such as the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce that want to make Michigan the 24th Right to Work state. The ad presumes to speak for workers, but presents no evidence that workers want a say in whether they should be required to join unions in workplaces governed by labor contracts.

Under federal law, workers don’t have to join unions in workplaces that have union labor contracts. But they do have to pay dues or a fee.

Questionable statement: “And choosing not to join shouldn’t cost you your job. It’s about fairness and empowering workers. More control over your employment and your pocketbook. ”

Michigan law allows companies and unions to collect dues or fees from a worker after the first 30 days of employment, said Robert McCormick, a Michigan State University law professor. An employee can be terminated for not paying those dues or fees.

But workers pay dues in exchange for a variety of union benefits, including collective bargaining for wages, benefits and working conditions. Those things arguably empower workers, as well.

Questionable statement: “Under freedom to work, workers can keep what they earn instead of being forced to pay dues to political causes they don’t support. That’s a choice we deserve. ”

Workers already have that choice under federal law, which allows them to prevent their dues from being spent on purposes other than collective bargaining, McCormick said.

Questionable statement: “And freedom to work will mean more jobs, making Michigan more attractive to new businesses. New jobs moving Michigan forward. That’s freedom to work.”

The contention that RTW will lead to a more jobs and business investment is the central stated contention of those supporting the measure. But the evidence of that is much in dispute. Supporters have produced studies showing higher job growth in RTW states, while opponents say other studies show wages and benefits are less in RTW states. They call RTW “Right to Work for less.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 13 of the 18 states with the largest declines in the unemployment rate over the past year were RTW states.

Some economists say RTW states also are attractive to workers and businesses because of non-RTW factors, including better weather, lower energy costs and fewer government regulations.

But RTW states are among the poorest states, as measured by per capita personal income. Eight of the 10 states with the lowest per capita income in 2011 were RTW states. Seven of the top 10 states in per capita income were non-RTW states.

Questionable statement: “What won’t change? Collective bargaining remains a federally protected right. Freedom to work safeguards workers’ rights to bargain collectively.”

Private sector workers have collective bargaining rights under federal law, but those rights are not extended to public workers. The ad says RTW safeguards workers’ rights to bargain collectively, but that might not be the case for public workers, depending on the language of any final version of a Right to Work law.

Overall impression: The Michigan Freedom Fund's president is Greg McNeilly, the former executive director of the Michigan GOP and manager of Dick DeVos’s failed gubernatorial campaign in 2006.

The ad makes inaccurate and misleading claims. While it’s true that workers can be fired for refusing to pay dues or fees in a closed union shop, the union dues provide them with economic benefits that include bargaining for wages, benefits and working conditions. And union members can choose to not have their dues used for political purposes under federal law.

The ad claims RTW protects collective bargaining rights, but it’s actually federal law that protects those rights for private sector workers.

Michigan Freedom Fund claims that RTW will bring more jobs and business investment to Michigan. But it cites no evidence for that claim, which masks an unspoken reason the fund and others are pushing RTW: to strip political power from labor unions that usually back Democratic candidates and causes.

Foul or no foul: Technical foul. Workers in closed union shops don’t have to finance union political activity. The ads also imply that RTW status, by itself, leads to job growth. There’s plenty of uncertainty in economic circles on that claim.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Mush Room
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 3:15am
I think the author needs to look up what "closed shop" means. Closed shops were outlawed by the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947.
Randolph Knipp
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 5:17pm
The author argues that the worker (who does not want to pay dues) actually benefits from the union's intercession in his behalf. But the problem is that the union spends significant resources (from the dues payer's contribution) for political purposes that are at odds with his beliefs and preferences. Therein lies the rub. The union dues payer is forced - by virtue being held captive to the union - to support activities directly opposed to his basic beliefs.
Sun, 12/09/2012 - 3:43am
The author is clearly not unbiased in this debate and their feelings toward Michigan becoming a Freedom to Work state. One can look to Indiana for an example of the most recent state to grant workplace freedom and equality to all workers and its impact on economic activity. Indiana has seen over 100,000 jobs created, several companies invest and has rose to the top on site selectors lists as a result. The concept of Freesom to Work simply gives all MI workers the freedom to choose whether or not they would like to join or financially contribute to a private labor union. The author is wrong in their claim that this right exists today. Without MI becoming a Freedom to Work state, workers are forced to financially support a private labor union, regardless of whether the union is providing a benefit, attentive to members needs or supports political causes out of alignment with members. Freedom to Work puts decisions about workers' take home pay and their affiliations back in their hands. Nothing else in MI will be impacted - collective bargaining will continue as its federally protected and private labor unions will still exist and be supported financially if they provide good customer service to members. I do not believe the ads being produced in support of more workplace fairness and equality for MI workers deserves a technical foul if the author truly has an unbiased opinion. The statements in question aren't lies and scare tactics, unlike the comments from union bosses on Freedom to Work.
Terry Fillow
Tue, 12/11/2012 - 10:44pm
You cant count companies that were already there. You cant count companies that came before the date the bill was signed. These are companies that are leaving Indiana! Manitowic plans to close its Indiana facility and move the jobs to Cleveland, Ohio.16 Diamond Foods plans to close its Indiana facility and move the jobs to California.17 Whirlpool plans to move the jobs remaining in its Evansville, Indiana, facility to Benton Harbor, Michigan.18 Gunite (Accuride) closed its Indiana facility and moved the jobs to Illinois.19
Sun, 12/09/2012 - 5:02am
I think the writer has to examine his/her personal preferences more carefully; to say that an employee doesn't have to support political activity is disengenuous as there is no practical and effective means of keeping dues from being applied to political activities. Law cases have been required to recover from Unions dues used for political purposes, but a union will spend if you don't sue. In general the tone tried to suggest balance but betrays the underlying bias
Sun, 12/09/2012 - 8:09am
None of this is about the facts, instead, it's an opinion piece. The writer doesn't like the idea of RTW laws, and supports mandatory union membership. That's fine, but that simply reflects a certain world-view bias. "The ad ... presents no evidence that workers want a say in whether they should be required to join unions..." The fact that no evidence presented doesn't change the simple fact that a substantial number of employees would prefer not to be coerced into joining a union. "Supporters have produced studies showing higher job growth in RTW states, while opponents say other studies show wages and benefits are less in RTW states. " Apples and oranges. Many RTW states have lower costs of living, and therefore can provide a quality lifestyle without the burden of, for example, very high housing costs. See, for example, New York. I could go on. This entire "analysis" should be an embarrassment to The Bridge.
Gene Markel
Sun, 12/09/2012 - 11:22am
The National Labor Relations Board was formed under the Wagner Act which was modified by Taft Hartley. From what I gather today is that this legislation and the NLRB no longer exists. Back to the dirty thirties.
Ric Curtis
Mon, 12/10/2012 - 9:21pm
Had hoped Michigan Truth Squad would lead into an unbiased analysis. Sadly disappointed but still optimistic. Unbiased analysis yet to be extinct but certainly an endangered form of expression.