The Unions of Detroit: Wisdom from Mark Etterling

I was listening to the news today as they discussed the Right to Work legislation currently pending before the Michigan State House. As is usually the case there was the obligatory union boss pontificating about how passage of such legislation would automatically doom any and all future labor to an abyss of virtual corporate slavery. As is also the usual, the person holding the microphone never even bothered to ask the most basic of follow-up questions like “Can you elaborate on that statement?”. Since the modern-day media is obviously nothing more than a sorry bunch of ideological hacks I thought I would do their job for them by asking the question myself.

Hey Union Boss! Explain in to me. You make such asinine statements, but the facts don’t agree. There are currently 23 states that have already passed RTW laws and from an overall economic standpoint those states are doing just fine without the need to force employees to accept union membership as a condition of employment. To the contrary, union laden cities like Detroit, Flint,Toledo, and Cleveland are collapsing in on themselves as the former jobs of those cities are being migrated to the more friendly confines of the southern RTW states. After having passed RTW last year Indiana picked up over 13,000 new manufacturing jobs. In that same time span Michigan has lost over 8,000 with their current “closed shop” attitude.

If you listen to the union battle cry they will chant sophomoric rhyming slogans about how it’s all about workers rights. Okay, great, now explain that as well. Exactly how is it an invasion of someone’s rights to simply give them the freedom of choice about joining a union versus being forced to do so? There is nothing in the pending Michigan legislation (or RTW in general) that prevents union membership. In fact, Taft-Hartley guarantees the right of employees to unionize. Therefore, no one’s rights are being threatened in the least by RTW legislation. So explain your statement, because quite frankly it doesn’t pass the smell test.

If you ask a hardened union member they will tout all of the good things that unions do for their members. Great! If that’s really true than the unions shouldn’t feel the least bit threatened simply by giving people the option. It’s like taking vitamins. If I see a real benefit from taking them I’ll gladly pay for them. I’ll use them freely where I don’t need someone to force me to do so. However, if I don’t see a real benefit than why bother? We shouldn’t be forcing people to join unions any more than we should be forcing them to take vitamins. If unions are as great as advertised than keeping up membership up without force should be a piece of cake. However, as Wisconsin and many other states have recently proven, that’s not the case.

So what’s this really all about? Well, as is usually the case, it’s not rocket science. As I mentioned above, in the first year after Wisconsin passed RTW the public employee union membership dropped by 56% as all those employees with a new-found freedom exercised that freedom. 56% fewer members translate into 56% less dues. So in reality this is all about union membership dues and the political power that those dues represent and has nothing to do with anyone’s “rights”. When fully 95% of union political contributions go to a single party it’s pretty obvious that party can’t live without the unions anymore than the unions can live without that party. It’s a marriage of convenience to say the least.

The Democrats tried unsuccessfully to get card check passed in order to enhance union membership by forcing open ballot voting. It didn’t work simply because the Democrats couldn’t come up with a single legitimate argument as to why it was necessary to permit such a coercive act without any justification. When it comes to losing all these states to RTW they keep losing that debate as well for the very same reason. The unions can hold all the statehouse rallies their little hearts desire, but what they can’t do is justify their own actions. In the mean time they have become a caricature of what a democracy is supposed to look like simply because the exercising of the freedoms democracy offers should at least have a purpose, and this debate has none.

Mark Etterling