With the increased polarization of political parties the
corresponding increase in the level of partisanship in labor unions in general,
this may seem like a good idea. Dues paid to unions sometimes go to support
certain political agendas, parties, candidates, or ideas in addition to the
other purposes that the monies have. Union members being able to opt out of paying
dues, especially if their own constituencies do not coincide with those of the
union as a whole, may be more socially liberal than the alternative. One would
be able to express their personal individualism by choosing whether or not to
contribute.
On the other hand, if the requirement of dues is outlawed,
unions are bound to lose a steady flow of income from their members. This would
definitely reduce their political power and decrease their ability to bargain
with the major industries that employ them. Opponents of the bill widely
believe that this legislation will eventually drive down wages, while
proponents cite that these measures are more fair and would help make Michigan
a more business friendly state.
What is interesting about this legislation is its swiftness.
According to the New York Times, Governor Snyder had not considered the bill to
be on his agenda and usually projected some air of neutrality where labor
unions were concerned. On December 6th, during the last days of the
Legislature’s meetings, Snyder announced his support of the measures, which he
signed into law 6 days later.
Though thousands protested in front of the state house, this
very sudden course of action may not have given potential opponents enough time
to mobilize to try to maintain the labor union’s status-quo within the state.
Also, the abrupt manner in which the RTW legislation was introduced and passed is
alleged to have a lot to do with the influence of powerful, wealthy interest
groups and donors.
So what is this really about? There seems to have been some
internal lobbying that affected this outcome, perhaps dramatically. With the
FTW measure, the bargaining power of labor unions may decrease. Capacity to
negotiate contracts and benefits could be undermined, and to what avail? Are
the financial security of unions and the business environment of the state a
zero-sum issue? That is, an issue where one cannot prevail without the
sacrifice of the other. What is this really about? It may have taken some non-arbitrary
under-the-scenes lobbying or compromising to have had this measure introduced
and enacted so quickly. This is probably more about politics than it is about
the workers. As I have pointed out, unions are more aligned with the Democratic
Party. Labor unions may have become a
throwing stone for political parties to use as they please. This would be at
the risk of the union workers themselves.
{[['
']]}
']]}