Right to work: Michigan's epiphany
The most shocking thing about Michigan's right-to-work law isn't the law itself but the outright lies the Obama administration, led by the president himself, has been telling about it.
The new law ends the days when organized labor can force you to join a union as a condition of employment, shake you down for the “privilege” — unions call this “paying dues” — then essentially grease the palms of their favorite pols in self-dealing tributes to power preservation. So much for freedom of association. The Great Lakes State is the 24th to avail itself of this provision of 1947's Taft-Hartley Act.
But President Obama, ever the demagogue of dishonesty, took to the stump Monday in Redford, Mich., claiming the measure takes “away your right to bargain for better wages and working conditions.” That's a shameful lie from a shameless president who regularly affirms his shamelessness with such deceit.
And despite the blinders worn by so many, the evidence is clear that right-to-work laws benefit companies, their employees and their states' coffers.
The Wall Street Journal, citing a variety of sources, says that of 10 states with the highest rate of personal income growth, eight have right-to-work laws. Additionally, right-to-work states “are driving a net migration from forced-union states,” The Journal says. Which is good for the respective states' tax swags.
And the proof is in Michigan's rancid pudding — its compulsory unionism has preserved a long-running economic mess featuring an abysmal unemployment rate and lousy income growth.
So, here's to No. 24. And here's to No. 25 not being far behind.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.