Do you support changing michigan to a "Right to Work" state? (environment)

[Mo-77]

Labor issues have a significant impact on the construction management profession. Currently, two labor-related issues are being publicly debated, and their eventual outcome will directly affect how many construction projects are executed. These are:

1. Right to Work – There is a petition drive underway to change Michigan to a “Right to Work” state.
-What does this mean?
- If successful, what changes will take place on construction projects?
-What are the arguments for this change?
-What are the arguments against it?

2. Immigration Reform – The U.S. economy uses undocumented immigrants to make up a significant percentage of its workforce. Most agree that the construction industry contributes to this situation in a major way. In the past few years, Congress has made attempts at immigration reform, but without success.
-Why hasn’t the federal government been able to solve this mess?
- What are the issues involved?
- Who benefits from the status-quo, and who suffers?
- What now appears to be the best compromise in getting reform passed?

[4WDGreg]

$5 per hour jobs will not help anybody. Well, except the business owners that is. What would the business owners do with their economic windfall from union busting? Create more jobs? That only pay $5 per hour? What would be the point of that? Speeding our nation's downward spiral toward China's standard of living? What a wonderful utopia that would be!

[JimmyInGreatLakes]

Originally Posted by 4WDGreg

$5 per hour jobs will not help anybody. Well, except the business owners that is. What would the business owners do with their economic windfall from union busting? Create more jobs? That only pay $5 per hour? What would be the point of that? Speeding our nation's downward spiral toward China's standard of living? What a wonderful utopia that would be!

Um, ANY job would help a lot of people in this state that are earning $0/hour at present. Every time a Toyota or a Honda plant is to be built, Michigan is last on their list while the right-to-work states are first. We can turn away from that reality and hold on to our "union forever" mentality until the last one out of Michigan turns out the light or make a change that attracts someone, ANYONE, to do do business in Michigan again. The plum auto jobs paying $29/hour are gone forever anyway. The new Michigan auto workers make just as much as any out-of-state foreign car company worker but at least they get the pleasure of forking over union dues. Why line the pockets of Union reps anymore?

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by JimmyInGreatLakes

Um, ANY job would help a lot of people in this state that are earning $0/hour at present. Every time a Toyota or a Honda plant is to be built, Michigan is last on their list while the right-to-work states are first. We can turn away from that reality and hold on to our "union forever" mentality until the last one out of Michigan turns out the light or make a change that attracts someone, ANYONE, to do do business in Michigan again. The plum auto jobs paying $29/hour are gone forever anyway. The new Michigan auto workers make just as much as any out-of-state foreign car company worker but at least they get the pleasure of forking over union dues. Why line the pockets of Union reps anymore?

It's good to see some reasonable people here - if you're wondering why companies (and their jobs) are moving from Michigan en masse, the union mentality is almost always reason number one. Michigan isn't in a vacuum - the state is competing with other states that are not wedded to the unions as well as other countries overseas. As a result, companies (which the general public seems to love to rip on for trying to be profitable but then they ask for jobs that pay above market value) have plenty of choices other than Michigan. Why would any state that wants to improve their economy place more restrictions on the ones that are bringing jobs to the table when they could easily go elsewhere?

[burgler09]

I mean no disrespect, but I have seen many union workers. They do almost whatever they want to do on the job with little to no fear of being fired. The only thing they have to worry about is being late to work, that is the way you get canned. If you look at the stance from a business point of view, why would you want to pay an unskilled worker 30+ dollars an hour when you can go somewhere else and pay a worker much cheaper, even in a different state! I think a union is a good idea at heart, but in the end they got too greedy and hurt themselves.

[wanderer74]

The initial post almost read like someone was posting the questions from a school assignment, which makes me skeptical about answering but I will anyway in such a way that it can't be helpful for a school paper. I used to be strongly against the idea of "right to work" because my dad is a UAW member and always told me that "right to work" would result in all the jobs paying $5 an hour with no benefits and I believed that. Then I lived in TX, which was a right to work state, and suddenly discovered that...hmmm, surprise, the jobs *didn't* all just pay $5 an hour with no benefits. Actually the economy was good and there were a lot of jobs, the area was booming, and jobs would often start employees at lower wages (or as temps) and when the employees proved that they were good workers and would stick around they would raise the wages and offer benefits. Most jobs that were unskilled would usually pay somewhere around $12-15 an hour with benefits once you'd been there a few months, which I think is a fair wage for something unskilled. I've since noticed that the states that have good economies and job markets right now are almost all states with "right to work" laws, and I DON'T think that's a coincidence. If you look at the unions in Michigan, they're constantly trying to reverse the direction by getting employees to work for lower wages and fewer benefits, which doesn't suggest that the old union model is sustainable. The historical fact that Michigan is a union state has been really bad for the economy here and companies don't perceive MI as a friendly state to do business in for that reason. I think that the prevalence of unions is also affecting the mindset of non-union workers here too. I just started work at Starbucks yesterday (the only job I've been able to find in 7 months despite my degree!) and my manager said that he's had an impossible time finding people to work at a new store that's opening because everybody wants to come in as management. He had one entire training group of 5 people of which none of them showed up! And this is an area with a much higher unemployment rate than average, and better jobs than Starbucks are few and far between. The manager said that he had 19 year old kids who had never held a job at all who expected to get hired directly into management! Of course it can't be proven that this sense of entitlement above one's qualifications is due to the union mentality. But having seen what my husband's experience with working for a union company here was like (abusive management and no support from the union, but the pay was good) and what it was like living in a right-to-work state, I can only assume that MI would be much better off as a right to work state and that we might actually be able to attract employers again someday. But I don't see that happening any time soon because the pro-union faction in MI is much too strong and will keep people scared of the idea of right-to-work laws by saying all the jobs will pay $5 an hour....while meanwhile our state continues to lose jobs and have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. I think that people need to wake up and realize that the "Michigan=union" mentality IS what's hurting our state economy!

[ErikU19]

I support the change and will vote for it if i am still here....I'm off to Texas by the end of the year. I'm selling my company and my future wife is going to find another RN position....2 more young hard working people out of MI...sad state of affairs!

[Rapunzll]

I'm for anything that will diminish the unions strangle hold on this state.

[Wrinkle]

I worked in Construction many years, and if right to work was so beneficial why did we see a continual flux of southern workers from Alabama, Florida and other lower paying states coming to Michigan to secure work?

I have worked as well in Florida, Alabama, and they have two gates, one for union skilled labor and one for direct hire off the streets. The very people bitching about illegals flooding the country are the same ones who hire and pay their people lower wages.

Many of the home construction in Florida, Ala, use illegals hired off the street, they pay these people 8 bucks an hour and charge the contractor 12 bucks an hour. Do these folks have a pension, do they pay federal income tax, do they even have an opportunity to pay for heathcare insurance?

The fact is the illegals come here because the average american is too cheap to pay them a decent wage and exploit them at every turn.

While they decry union labor, they serve as the direct broker between the worker and the contractor. Its called contract labor, without paying into Workmans Comp funds.

I dont want a state that employs such tactics, and will vote against it.

I dont know about technical jobs in Texas, or elsewhere, those people will be hired based on their qualifications and thats like comparing apples and oranges.

I do know this I have a very good pension, and healthcare, and its because my union provided me with a good pension. Construction unions do a lot of good, they train their own workforce, they fill temporary jobs, and they create a stable well qualified workforce.

Yes, I worked for every dime of it too.

I dont see any benefits for lowering the bar in this state.

I dont see what advantage it would have in factory jobs, they are already paying lower wages to begin with, so whats the point?

[Bydand]

Originally Posted by Wrinkle

I worked in Construction many years, and if right to work was so beneficial why did we see a continual flux of southern workers from Alabama, Florida and other lower paying states coming to Michigan to secure work?

Because Michigan is just a better state to be in .

I have worked as well in Florida, Alabama, and they have two gates, one for union skilled labor and one for direct hire off the streets. The very people bitching about illegals flooding the country are the same ones who hire and pay their people lower wages.

Sounds like you are trying to imply that non-union workers are unskilled. I have worked as an Electrician for 26 years and most of them (all except 6 months) were worked and trained as non-union. I will put my skills and knowledge against any union electrician. I would also put MOST of the non-union guys I know as very well trained and very knowledgeable. Union/non-union is NOT a basis for determining if the person is skilled or not.

Many of the home construction in Florida, Ala, use illegals hired off the street, they pay these people 8 bucks an hour and charge the contractor 12 bucks an hour. Do these folks have a pension, do they pay federal income tax, do they even have an opportunity to pay for heathcare insurance?

They are illegals, it is going to happen "right to work" or not. To imply that Michigan doesn't have illegals working within the borders because of the unions is ludicrous.

The fact is the illegals come here because the average american is too cheap to pay them a decent wage and exploit them at every turn.

I'm sure you didn't mean this the way it came out. Nobody would come to an area to purposely work for dirt wages and be exploited.

While they decry union labor, they serve as the direct broker between the worker and the contractor. Its called contract labor, without paying into Workmans Comp funds.

Self-employed weather union or not falls into the same situation for workans comp. Illegals are operating outside the law anyway so you cannot hold them up as an example of non-union workers in general.

I dont want a state that employs such tactics, and will vote against it.

I dont know about technical jobs in Texas, or elsewhere, those people will be hired based on their qualifications and thats like comparing apples and oranges.

In this aspect, I agree with you. Any state that promotes illegals is not a place I want to live OR work. "Right to work" does NOT attempt to bring in illegal aliens. All right to work does, is allow somebody not to HAVE to pay union dues if they are working in an union environment and are NOT union. Right now, Non-union employees working in a union shop do not have the benefit of union representation (nor should they), but they DO have to pay union dues. No representation, should also exclude the worker from paying the union. They do not fall under the wage scale 100% in that I have never seen a union shop pay a non-union worker more than 55 to 80% of union wage. (Talking construction, not anything else because I have no experience in those type work environments).

I do know this I have a very good pension, and healthcare, and its because my union provided me with a good pension. Construction unions do a lot of good, they train their own workforce, they fill temporary jobs, and they create a stable well qualified workforce.

Yes, I worked for every dime of it too.

Some of you guys and gals works very hard in very demanding situations and HAVE worked very hard for your benefits. I have nothing against union workers at all, most I know are hard-working decent people. Most I call friends and we help each other out when needed (on and off the job). I have had union guys give me a hand with something on a job where there were non-union and union shops working side by side. Just as we helped when they needed a hand with something. No ulterior motives, or other foolishness.

Union workers ARE very well trained, and it is a joy to work with most of them. Just don't make me pay your dues when there isn't enough union guys to fill the need for a job and call me in for a few weeks "white-paper". Right to work isn't going to end the unions, it isn't going to be a boon to non-union workers or contractors either. Illegal workers are not going to increase because of it, they are here anyway and taking both union and non-union jobs away.

I dont see any benefits for lowering the bar in this state.

I dont see what advantage it would have in factory jobs, they are already paying lower wages to begin with, so whats the point?

I don't see it as lowering the bar at all. The standards are remaining the same, the workforce is remaining the same, the Contractors are remaining the same. It just removed the extra burden placed on the little guy stuck in the middle of paying union dues and not getting anything in return. No extra benefits, wages, protections; it also doesn't take those away from the union people standing right next to him either.

I am not for non-union moving in a taking away union jobs at all. There will always be union, just like there will always be non-union. They each have their place.