BORM*: I didn't hit her. Bitch put her face in front of my moving fist

On our end

On our end of things, shouldn't there have been a unified announcement immediately after the vote that we were going to pursue and intiative?  Seems like knowing we'd lose the vote, the least we could have done was staged a media coup where we attracted the media to the Lansing Center for an announcement, or something.  The time to start organizing for this is immediately.  

It sucks that this has happened during the holidays and during such a cold time of the year, but plans have to be announced right away.

As for Rick, you thought your first two years were hard, just you wait and see what's on the back end, now.  Your pettiness will be answered in kind, One Term Nerd.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:27:37 AM UTC

New law repeal old laws?

I've just read the law doesn't take effect for 90 days from the end of the session, and cannot apply to existing contracts (many of which have years left to run). So, there's some time to figure out a legal strategy.

But existing law apparently also requires unions to pay for legal representation, etc. for non-union members. That was some reasoning for an agency/representation fee.

Does the new law repeal those requirements?

Can the new law be ruled unconstitutional because it "takes" money from the unions to pay for non-union members? Equal protection issue?

OTOH, can the union say to non-members, "Sorry, you aren't covered by our contract. Please feel free to re-apply for your old job, and negotiate your own contract at entry level wages? Seniority only applies to existing paid-up union members. Pensions only apply to existing paid-up union members. Overtime only applies to existing paid-up union members."

---

by: William Allen Simpson @ Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 15:46:17 PM UTC

My understanding

My understanding (and I could be wrong about this - is there an actual labor lawyer here who can opine on this?) is that the federal Taft-Hartley Act, that allows states to enact RTW laws in the first place, makes it illegal for unions not to represent workers who don't pay dues in RTW states, and makes it illegal for employers to discriminate for or against non-payers. That's why RTW is called right-to-freeload, because a worker can get all of the benefits of union representation without paying any of the costs.

---

by: Don K @ Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 19:00:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep

That's how I've heard it.  Taft-Hartley set this up, a timebomb of sorts.  They knew they could do a national RTW, so you just set the timer ticking tolet the states do it.  Unions have to cover all employees in a shop, members or not.  Taft-Hartley incentivizes RTW.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:26:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

New Title

In light of this, I propose that Rick Michigan's title be changed from Benevolent Overlord to Malevolent Dictator.

---

by: MJPollard @ Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 20:17:43 PM UTC