Legislature poised to act on Right to Work

The Legislature opened its 2012 “lame duck” session this week. Where’s that phrase come from, anyway? Well, it was first used as a down-on-his-luck stockbroker, since an injured duck who cannot keep up with the flock is an easy target for predators.

In the political world, lame ducks are something else again: Officeholders who were not re-elected in fall elections but whose terms do not expire until the end of the year. Lame ducks are in a peculiar position: Their short life in office limits their continuing power, but as they do not have to face the consequences of unpopular votes and so are relatively free to make (ahem) “principled” choices.

So how and where will the ducks fly this year? I spent a couple of days in Lansing last week, noising around to catch up on the gossip about the coming lame duck session.

The possibility of so-called Right to Work legislation (also called “Right to Work for Less” by opponents) is sucking almost all the oxygen out of the State Capitol. A bunch of Republican heavyweights, mostly business types from the west side of the state, are fiercely lobbying legislators to take quick advantage of big GOP majorities in both the House and Senate and pass it once and for all.

Other Republican lawmakers -- those who have to face future elections -- are squirming. If they vote “yes,” they most certainly will be the objects of fierce opposition from Democrats and their allies in organized labor come election time. If they vote “no,” they almost certainly will face opposition in primary elections in 2014.

Most Democrats have no such worries; they’re against RTW, which would mean abolishing the union shop, and that’s that.


Not surprisingly, lots of people are trying to find pathways out of this vise. Some are advocating “Right to Work Lite,” a measure that would affect only public employees. I didn’t hear much support for the version. But a variation of this that seems to be attracting a fair amount of attention would exempt police officers and firefighters.

Not wanting to see a repetition of the political explosion that erupted in Wisconsin after the legislature passed and Gov. Scott Walker signed limits on collective bargaining for public sector unions, Gov. Snyder has said, repeatedly, that RTW “is not on my agenda.”


Fair enough, but my sources all say that if the Legislature passes RTW in some form, he has little choice but to sign.


In hindsight, it now looks as though organized labor -- and especially United Auto Workers President Bob King -- overreached badly in deciding to put Proposal 2 on the November ballot, a proposal which would have placed collective bargaining rights squarely in the state constitution. Voters turned it down decisively.


Physicists talk about “Newtonian Dynamics,” in which one action produces an equal and opposite reaction. Put in less fancy words, one overreach almost always leads to another, from the other side.


The blame game in Detroit


Turning to another topic: The Detroit City Council and Krystal Crittendon, the city’s top lawyer, are doing themselves – and maybe the city – no good with the folks who run Lansing.


They’ve turned attempts by the state to play nice via the Consent Agreement into a sham, slow-walking or killing attempts at reform and voting repeatedly against attempts to get the city out of financial chaos. Now it appears Detroit is nearly out of cash and facing the reality of payless paydays for employees.


The sense I get is that it’s not a matter of “if” the city goes into Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, but “when.” This represents a big change in attitude from six months ago, when people were still somewhat hopeful things would work out. Today, some people are arguing bankruptcy would be a far better solution than death by slow strangulation by racial politics and city employee unions.


My guess is what’s going on right now is wholesale maneuvering by all – Mayor Dave Bing, council members, Gov. Snyder, State Treasurer Andy Dillon – to avoid being blamed when the city, indeed, goes bust.


Revamping elections


Talk of political reform – clamping down on the cottage industry of petition signatures for hire that facilitated the burst of ballot proposals, for example – was strong just after the election.


Turns out at least eight other states have enacted restrictions on government-by-amendment, although most lawyers I talked with said constitutional protections to freedom of speech in the U. S. Constitution would likely prevent a complete ban.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the political reform talk turns serious after the turn of the year.


Michigan’s campaign reporting requirements are a joke, and the injection of millions in anonymous special interest money into the races for state Supreme Court was offensive to any conception of clean politics.


That’s unlikely to happen in this session; I doubt anybody wants to drop political reform into a pond filled with lame ducks. But you may be sure of hearing a lot of strangled quacking coming out of Lansing over the next couple of weeks.


Editor’s note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics. He is also the founder and chairman of the Center for Michigan, a nonprofit, bipartisan centrist think–and–do tank, designed to cure Michigan’s dysfunctional political culture; the Center also publishes Bridge Magazine. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of the Center. He welcomes your comments via email.


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.


sam melvin
Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:01pm
FORGET the right to Work LAW...MICHIGAN HAS NO JOBS that are iussed by the LEGISLATURE.Even our returning Vetreans?soldier have no chance. THEY (legiuslature ONLY HIRED OUT OF STATE PEOPLE) starting with the TOP......Time to give our soldier a JOB/Position : to report on each representative weekly for landing , so hire 10 Soldier for each office 10 yes to keep it from getting corrupt/legal an hourly report and on how many hours work outside THE CAPITOL.report on convention meeting and the cost of FOOD/travel /hotels etc. we citizen need to know IF we get out monies worths.
Mike R
Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:39pm
Does anyone out there understand what Mr. Melvin was trying to say? Please, Mr. Melvin, re-write your letter with at least some small attention to spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntax so we can comprehend the point you're trying to make.
Glenn Roehrig
Tue, 11/27/2012 - 2:45pm
Have somebody proofread your comment before you send it in. This is illiterate.
William werhane
Tue, 11/27/2012 - 3:55pm
Mark Your comments have no merit.
Fri, 11/30/2012 - 12:41pm
Dead on assessment Phil.
Big D
Sun, 12/02/2012 - 7:54am
"...RTW, which would mean abolishing the union shop, and that’s that." Not the expected outcome. What makes you think this? However, if Michigan had RTW, and the union shop ended up abolished, that would mean that a majority of current union members abandoned ship. If that happened, that would be VINDICATION for the newly granted freedom. It's curious that Democrats want all sorts of new "human rights", but keep certain power-concentrating oppression in place. RTW has been proven to be an economic stimulus, one that doesn't take trillions of tax, borrow and spend dollars.
Sun, 12/02/2012 - 11:51am
Thoughtful comments and good insights into wht is happening; keep up the distribution of balanced and insightful information. Thanks
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 8:03pm
Union leadership in Michigan needs to be crushed, after what they tried to do to us citizens with their state-wide proposals in November. Michigan must become a right-to-work state, or it will never recover from its doldrums. By the way, RTW does not mean the end of unions. It simply gives employees a CHOICE....pay into the corrupt unions, or don't. Those die-hard lefties who want to remain in the union can still pay dues into the union coffers if they so CHOOSE. They must like to support union presidents who make 6 figure incomes for sitting on their arses.
Wed, 12/05/2012 - 12:13pm
If by "business types from the west side of the state" you mean "grassroots conservatives from everywhere in the state", you would be right.
Mike R
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 4:24pm
Open letter to Governor Snyder: 1) You've gone to great lengths over the past months to convince us that you were opposed to RTW legislation coming up, let alone that you'd sign it into law. So what happened, and why are you suddenly endorsing it? Sadly, the apparent conclusion is that you're caving in to a right wing, lame duck legislature, thereby belying your carefully cultivated moderate image. 2) Union wages more than cover the small percentage paid in dues. 3) The "choice" whether to pay dues would evaporate once unions cease activities due to a lack of an income stream. Clearly, this is a union busting tactic, nothing more. 4) Many people rightly label such laws "right to work for less" laws. There is no study, no statistic, no evidence anywhere that RTW laws actually result in increased economic activity or a positive financial benefit to anyone other than the business owners. Again, union busting and nothing more. 5) In virtually every instance, unionizing results in higher wages, better benefits, a safer workplace, and a more prosperous community. Conversely, the states that traditionally have had RTW laws are, with few exceptions, the least prosperous in the Nation. So apart from anti-unionism and plain greed on the part of Republicans, there appears to be no rational reason to adopt such laws. 6) Again in derogation of the moderate and bipartisan talk that got you elected, this action will more deeply divide this State and certainly destroy whatever good will non-Republican citizens of Michigan bear toward you, jeopardizing your future agenda and any second term. Please reconsider your stance and stop this insane race to the bottom before you and the Tea Baggers start an "uncivil war".