Dad sent me this article from Fox News, which reports on how Michigan became the 24th right-to-work state.
Excerpt:
Republicans rushed right-to-work legislation through the Michigan Legislature Thursday, drawing raucous protests from hundreds of union supporters, some of whom were pepper-sprayed by police when they tried to storm the Senate chamber.
With six-vote margins in both chambers, the House and Senate approved measures prohibiting private unions from requiring that nonunion employees pay fees. The Senate was debating a similar bill, with Democrats denouncing it as an attack on worker rights and the GOP sponsor insisting it would boost the economy and jobs. Separate legislation dealing with public-sector unions was expected to come later.
Because of rules requiring a five-day delay between votes in the two chambers on the same legislation, final enactment appears unlikely until next week. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who previously had said repeatedly that right-to-work was “not on my agenda,” told reporters Thursday he would sign the measures.
[…]In an interview with The Associated Press, Snyder said he had kept the issue at arm’s length while pursuing other programs to bolster the state economy. But he said circumstances had pushed the matter to the forefront.
“It is a divisive issue,” he acknowledged. “But it was already being divisive over the past few weeks, so let’s get this resolved. Let’s reach a conclusion that’s in the best interests of all.”
Also influencing his decision, he said, were reports that some 90 companies had decided to locate in Indiana since that state adopted right-to-work legislation. “That’s thousands of jobs, and we want to have that kind of success in Michigan,” he said.
Do right-to-work states create more jobs than forced-union-dues states, like the Republican governor says?
The radically left-wing Washington Post takes a look at it:
The Facts
We searched the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site to find data on each state’s non-farm, seasonally adjusted employment during the past 10 years. Just as Romney said, right-to-work states have better employment numbers on the whole.
Romney’s camp relied on numbers from the BLS household survey. The data, which his team compiled in July, show that right-to-work states experienced a net gain of 3.6 million jobs during the past decade, while “union states” saw a net loss of 900,000 jobs over the same time span.
The updated BLS numbers are right here.
Unions are a Democrat constituency, and that means that unions support abortion and gay marriage. It is wrong that unions are able to force socially conservative workers to pay dues that are used to elect pro-abortion and anti-marriage leftists. Right-to-work laws protect workers from being forced to support causes that violate their consciences. They can pay the dues if they want to, but they don’t have to. You shouldn’t have to support abortion and gay marriage just so you can work.
Now ask yourself another question. Why would Democrats want to prevent job creation? Could it be that they want more people to be dependent on government for their daily bread, so that they can control them and coerce them into voting for bigger government?
Democrats are the party of dependence, debt and unemployment. They hate jobs, they hate business. That’s why we have seen an explosion of debt, unemployment, taxes and regulations over the last four years, with more to come in the next four. You can’t argue with these numbers, and no amount of spirited teleprompter-reading will change what actually works. And what actually doesn’t work.
Related posts
- Twinkies company liquidates due to demands of greedy labor union
- Indiana passes right-to-work law and is now open for business – and jobs
- Do right-to-work or forced union states create more high-paying jobs?
- What is a “right-to-work” law, and why do Democrats oppose them?
- Florida Republicans ban automatic deduction of union dues
- Republicans introduce national right-to-work legislation
- Ohio Republicans pass bill to cut bloated union salaries and benefits
WINTERY KNIGHT 
This is astounding to me. I can’t believe that this passed in Michigan. We’ll see if it actually gets signed into law, but it’s hard for me to imagine it even getting this far. I lived and worked in Michigan for quite some time and the unions there are fierce. I couldn’t believe that at my job if I didn’t want to be in the union I still had to pay 85% of the union dues!
Not only that, but when I figured out the pay at my part time position and the raise that the “union got for me.” I discovered that the union dues–which increased with my raise–actually meant that my raise was only .02$-.05 an hour as opposed to what it looked like on the surface (.25$)!
I can see why companies fled to Indiana, because things like this actually made employees like me dejected. I could hardly believe the unfairness of the whole thing. But the union would also fight tooth-and-nail for employees who were legitimately godawful, while those of us who just showed up to work and didn’t steal never benefited from it (apart from those monster .02$ raises)!
LikeLike
It’s a little disturbing to me how closely that map on right-to-work states versus union states matches the Romney versus Obama 2012 election map. I wonder if there’s a connection?
LikeLike
Yes. The states that don’t understand basic economics (e.g. – Obamaphone lady) went for Obama. They think that all this spending is coming from “Obama’s stash”.
LikeLike