With the protests breaking out in Michigan over right to work legislation, I thought a little history was in order, because right to work is about protecting workers. And somehow I bet “We have the right to take your money” isn’t on any of the pro-union protest signs…
Take a listen: I Spy Minute for Tues Dec 11 2012
Or read the transcript, below.
Follow Mark on Twitter @ispyradioshow
# # #
Today, there are union protests in the State of Michigan over a bill that would turn Michigan into a right-to-work state.
The term “right to work” means a worker has the right to get or keep a job, regardless of whether they belong to a union. These laws are allowed under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.
A law that was passed, incidentally, over the veto of Harry Truman. But that was back when Republicans held both houses and still had a spine to do something constructive—and not just outspend the democrats.
If it weren’t for Taft-Hartley, the unions and employers could agree to a “closed shop,” which meant the union decided who worked there or not.
Didn’t pay your union dues? Or maybe the union bosses didn’t like the fact that you voted Republican? They could expel you from the union, which meant your employer also had to fire you—even if you were a good worker.
The law does not outlaw collective bargaining as Obama tried to claim on Sunday. It merely means Michigan workers will now have a choice.
And isn’t it the Democrat party that’s all about choice?