The uncivil war over unions
Last week’s union protests in Michigan, the cradle of organized labor, have been startling in their fierceness, and they are not entirely irrelevant to Montana.
Thousands gathered in the state capital of Lansing for protests that were marred by violence. Among other incidents, a correspondent was repeatedly assaulted and a mob tore down a large tent occupied by supporters of the right-to-work legislation that was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Snyder. Violent rhetoric was rampant.
“This is just the first round of a battle that’s going to divide this state. We’re going to have a civil war,” declared Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa.
“There will be blood,” warned a state lawmaker before the House voted to approve the legislation.
And all for what? A law that allows workers the freedom to choose whether they want to join unions or to pay dues to support those unions. Because Michigan and its auto industry are considered a cradle of organized labor, unions have turned the state into ground-zero for making a stand against such legislation.
But they have failed thus far because the right to work just seems so ... reasonable ... even if it undermines the financial firepower to which unions have obviously become highly accustomed.
Right-to-work opponents like to say that workers who don’t pay dues in union shops are getting a free ride as they enjoy the same benefits that unions deliver through collective bargaining. But consider that the Michigan Education Association reports that just 11 percent of its expenditures are for collective bargaining, while most of the balance of revenues are spent on “general overhead.”
It is unjust to compel workers to financially support unions and progressive causes against their will.
Imagine being a teacher who votes for Republicans and supports conservative causes, but is compelled to pay dues to a union that exclusively supports Democrats and liberal causes. Now imagine the exact opposite — a Democrat being forced to financially support candidates and causes they entirely oppose. It should be intolerable, either way.
How can people feel justified in threatening or engaging in violence, or even throwing public tantrums in support of such a system?
But that’s what they are doing, often making the questionable claim that they oppose the “right to work for less.” The lower wage claim is refuted by a variety of studies. According to Michigan’s Mackinac Center, inflation-adjusted employee compensation in right-to-work states increased by 12 percent between 2001 and 2011 compared with just 3 percent in states that require workers to financially support unions.
On a variety of other economic measures, right-to-work states come out on top as well. For instance, right-to-work states have seen employment growth of 2.4 percent over the same decade, compared to a 3.4 decline in employment in states without the law. Right-to-work states have also expanded their populations by 15.3 percent from 2000 to 2010, compared to 5.9 percent for non right-to-work states. That sounds like workers voting with their feet.
The reason this is all relevant to Montana is that the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature is likely to propose and probably pass right-to-work legislation early next year. But judging from comments made by Gov.-elect Steve Bullock, a Democrat, he is not likely to support any such legislation.
In any case, if and when this battle comes to the steps of the Capitol in Helena, we hope it comes without the rancor and violence that has emerged in Michigan, Wisconsin and elsewhere in the country.