You Can Bank On It

Les Leopold, Director, The Labor Institute

North Dakota is the very definition of a red state. It voted 58 percent to 39 percent for Romney over Obama, and its statehouse and senate have a total of 104 Republicans and only 47 Democrats. The Republican super-majority is so conservative it recently passed the nation’s most severe anti-abortion law – a measure that declares a fertilized human egg has the same right to life as a fully formed person.

But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America. Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota? Why haven’t the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?

Because it works.

In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence. The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York. More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state’s community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates. It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners — the 700,000 residents of North Dakota. In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state’s coffers. Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you’re looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure.

One of America’s Best Kept Secrets

Each time we pay our state and local taxes — and all manner of fees — the state deposits those revenues in a bank. If you’re in any state but North Dakota, nearly all of these deposits end up in Wall Street’s too-big to-fail banks, because those banks are the only entities large enough to handle the load. The vast majority of the nation’s 7,000 community banks are too small to provide the array of cash management services that state and local governments require. We’re talking big bucks; at least $1 trillion of our local tax dollars find their way to Wall Street banks, according to Marc Armstrong, executive director of the Public Banking Institute.

So, not only are we, as taxpayers, on the hook for too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks, but we also end up giving our tax dollars to these same banks each and every time we pay a sales tax or property tax or buy a fishing license. In North Dakota, however, all that public revenue runs through its public state bank, which in turn reinvests in the state’s small businesses and public infrastructure via partnerships with 80 small community banks.

How the State Bank Creates Jobs

Banks are supposed to serve as intermediaries that turn our savings and checking deposits into productive loans to businesses and consumers. That’s how jobs are supported and created. But the BND, a state agency, goes one step further. Through its Partnership in Assisting Community Expansion, for example, it provides loans at below-market interest rates to businesses if and only if those businesses create at least one job for every $100,000 loaned. If the $1 trillion that now flows to Wall Street instead were deposited in public state banks in all 50 states using this same approach, up to 10 million new jobs could be created. That would effectively end our destructive unemployment crisis.

No Bailouts for the BND

Banking doesn’t have to be a casino. It doesn’t have to be designed to create gambling opportunities so bank traders and executives can make seven- and eight-figure salaries. As BND president Eric Hardmeyer said in a 2009 Mother Jones interview:

We’re a fairly conservative lot up here in the upper Midwest and we didn’t do any subprime lending and we have the ability to get into the derivatives markets and put on swaps and callers and caps and credit default swaps and just chose not to do it, really chose a Warren Buffett mentality—if we don’t understand it, we’re not going to jump into it. And so we’ve avoided all those pitfalls.

As state government employees, BND executives have no incentive to gamble their way toward enormous pay packages. As you can see, the top six BND officers earn a good living, but on Wall Street, cooks and chauffeurs earn more.

• Eric Hardmeyer, President and CEO: $232,500
• Bob Humann, Chief Lending Officer: $135,133
• Tim Porter, Chief Administrative Officer: $122,533
• Joe Herslip, Chief Business Officer: $105,000
• Lori Leingang, Chief Administrative Officer: $105,000
• Wally Erhardt, Director of Student Loans of North Dakota: $91,725

The very existence of a successful BND undermines Wall Street’s claim that in order to attract the best talent big banks need to offer enormous pay packages. Yet somehow, North Dakota is able to find the talent to run one of the soundest banks in the country? The BND is living proof that Wall Street’s rationale for sky-high executive pay is a self-serving fabrication.

Wall Street Is Gunning for Bank of North Dakota

As you can well imagine, our financial elites would love to see this successful (socialist!) bank disappear. Its salary structure and local investments makes a mockery of Wall Street’s casino banking system. But the bigger threat comes from the possible spread of this public banking concept to other states. Already, there are 20 or so state legislatures that are exploring state banks. Collectively, more public banks would pose an enormous threat to the $1 trillion in state and local bank deposits that now run through Wall Street.

But elite financiers also stand to lose much more. In the 49 states without a public bank, there’s no safe place to turn for loans to rebuild schools and finance other public infrastructure projects. That creates an enormous opportunity for Wall Street firms to hook localities on expensive bond programs — like capital appreciation bonds, which can lead to repayments equaling 10 times the original loan. Investment bankers and advisers also make enormous fees by selling expensive, high-risk financial schemes to state and local governments . But such schemes are useless in North Dakota where the state bank provides the capital the state needs for a fraction of the long-term costs.

Trade Agreements: Wall Street’s Weapon of Mass Destruction

Clearly, from Wall Street’s perspective, the North Dakota bank must go, and all other state efforts to replicate it must be thwarted. Wall Street’s stealth weapon may be lodged within the latest corporate trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which currently is being negotiated in secret. We already know that Wall Street is seeking to remove all tariff restrictions that prevent the U.S. financial services industry from doing business in countries like Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The biggest banks also want the treaty to eliminate “non-tariff” barriers including regulations that create “unfair” competition with state-owned financial enterprises.

Depending on the final language, it is possible that the activities of the Bank of North Dakota could be ruled illegal because “foreign bankers could claim the BND stops them from lending to commercial banks throughout the state,” according to an analysis by Sam Knight in Truthout. How perfect for Wall Street: a foreign bank can be used as a shill to knock out the BND.

The Public Bank Movement

A small but highly dedicated group of financial writers, public finance experts and former bankers have formed the Public Bank Institute to spread the word. Working on a shoestring budget, its president Ellen Brown (author of Web of Debt ), and its executive director Marc Armstrong have become the Johnny Appleseeds of public banking, hopping from state to state to encourage legislatures to explore state-owned banks.

The movement is gathering steam as it holds a major conference on June 2-4 at Dominican University in San Rafael, CA featuring such anti-Wall Street hell raisers as Matt Taibbi and Gar Alperowitz, along with Brigitte Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament, and Ellen Brown.

Is America Up For This Fight?

Since the crash, the financial community has largely managed to wriggle off the hook. In fact, fatalism may be replacing activism as we sense that maybe Wall Street is simply too big and too powerful to change. After all, the big banks seem to own Washington, as too-big-to-fail banks are permitted to grow even larger and more invulnerable to prosecution and control.

But this new public banking movement could have legs, especially if it teams up with those fighting for a financial transaction tax.  Most Americans remain furious about how financial elites profited from the crisis — before, during and after — while the rest of us pick up the tab. Americans know deep down that Wall Street is the predator and we are the prey.

The state-owned and operated Bank of North Dakota proves that it doesn’t have to be that way. This is the time to fight for public state banking in a big way.

You game?

SOURCE: AlterNet (March 26, 2013)

Audette Fulbright, Hero — Hans Hunt, Zero

Audette Fulbright thought she was fulfilling her civic obligation by sending letters to her State Legislature on issues of public policy. Two bills had been introduced in the Wyoming Legislature which prompted her concern, one would expand fracking in the State and the other would post armed guards in public schools. Audette wasn’t thrilled with either of these options so she wrote very polite letters explaining as to why she disagreed.

Audette was new to the State having just accepted the pulpit as minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Cheyenne, Wyoming. She wrote,

“My husband and I moved to Wyoming not too long ago. We believed it was a good place to raise children. With the recent and reactive expansion of gun laws and the profoundly serious dangers of fracking, we find we are seriously reconsidering our decision, which is wrenching to all of us. However, the safety of our family must come first. We are waiting to see what the legislature does this session. I know of other new-to-Wyoming families in similar contemplation. Your choices matter. It would be sad to see an exodus of educated, childrearing age adults from Wyoming as a result of poor lawmaking.”

Representative Hans Hunt didn’t like the newcomer’s uppity attitude. Who was this woman, this outsider, this “Unitarian”, this L-I-B-E-R-A-L to be telling the men-folk of the Sovereign State of Wyoming what their bizness is or ought to be! So Hans told her off, he didn’t agree to disagree, he didn’t assemble the facts on his side of the debate, he told her to get out of the State! When the local newspaper chastised him, the political yokel held firm, there wasn’t any room in HIS State for dissenters.

Fact is, Audette Fulbright is what every community needs, what every State needs and what Wyoming is blessed to have received, a woman, a person who cares enough to give a damn. It isn’t easy taking a stand and is even more difficult to take one in opposition to prevailing powers. Maybe Hans should take it on the lamm, his attitude isn’t American, it is alien to our customs and traditions. We are the land of free thinking folks who share ideas and arguments in order to make a better life and society.

Power Elite in Chicago Dump the Kids

CHICAGO CLOSING 129 PUBLIC SCHOOLS

From BLACK AGENDA www.blackagendareport.com —

Bruce Dixon

If you don’t live in Chicago you might not know that the CEO and the dozens of other six figure a year mayoral cronies who run the Chicago Public Schools want to close 129 public schools this year, more than a third of the city’s total. It’s not national news for the same reason that CLOSING 40 PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN PHILADELPHIA last year wasn’t national news, and massive school closings in the poorer neighborhoods of cities across the country is not news either.

It’s not news because school closings and school privatization, the end game of the bipartisan policies the Obama administration, Wall Street, the US Chamber of Commerce, a host of right wing foundations and deep pockets and hordes of politicians in both parties from the president down are pushing down the throats of communities across the country, are deeply unpopular. The American people, and especially the parents, teachers, grandparents, and other residents of poorer neighborhoods where closings and privatization are happening emphatically don’t want these things.

Even the word describing their policy, “privatization” is so vastly unpopular that they’ve taken it out of circulation altogether. The best way, our leaders imagine, to contain and curtail resistance to their deeply unpopular policies is to avoid naming them for what they are, to keep them on the down low, to not report on their implementation, and certainly to not cover any civic resistance to them.

Local elites in each city and school district concoct real or imaginary “crises” to which the solution is always firing more experienced teachers, hiring more temps in their place, instituting more high-stakes testing, closing more public schools and substituting more unaccountable (and often profitable) charter schools, frequently in the same buildings that once housed public schools. In Chicago the “crisis” is precipitated every year when the CPS (that’s Chicago Public Schools – Chicago’s never had an elected school board, they’re all mayoral appointees) honchos announce the schools are in a billion dollar hole. The Chicago Teachers Union of course, took a look over the same books and revealed that despite the host of top $100,000 a year officials whose jobs never seem to be cut, the system was nine figures in the black, not ten in the red. Naturally, local and national media didn’t report that either.

Rahm Emanuel, formerly Obama’s controller, as Mayor of Chicago has pursued an aggressive strategy of privatization of public resources. Chicago handed over the city-installed parking meters and their revenue stream to a private for-profit company and is hell-bent on converting the foundation of American democracy, public schools, into another profit center for banksters and corporateers

Today, Michigan, Tomorrow the Nation

RICK SNYDER, Gauleiter * for Michigan, has abolished democratic government in that state’s largest city, Detroit, as he has done for Royal Oak Township, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Flint, the Village of Three Oaks, Allen Park, Pontiac, Ecorse, and Benton Harbor, as well as Detroit Public Schools, Highland Park Schools, and Muskegon Heights Schools. The State Gauleiter has appointed local dictators ** who under Michigan’s emergency law have the power to abolish departments of government, breach public contracts, fire workers, sell public assets, repeal laws and promulgate new laws by decree.

It is probably not too surprising to note that the local governments taken over have not been those in predominantly White communities but rather in cities and public schools comprised of African-Americans. The Republican Party is working to purge voting rolls of Black voters and, as we learned earlier this week, have their Judicial stooges gunning to overturn the cornerstone of the nation’s Civil Rights laws, the Voting Rights Act.

It is surprising that the mainstream media has given very little attention to the dismantling of democratic government in Michigan. If this had happened in Russia, Iran or China,  the Media would be giving it non-stop coverage and the Obama Administration would be seeking a United Nations resolution in condemnation. But it is happening in the United States. The very foundation of American democracy is local self-government and the fact that it has been so easily discarded portends ill for the nation at large.

______________________________________________________

* “Gauleiter” is the term Nazi Germany gave to provincial governors. It seems to be the appropriate title for Governor Snyder as well.

** “Dictator” is accurate and is not hyperbole. A public official who has absolute power and is subject to no legal constraint as are the “Emergency Financial Managers” appointed under this Law are dictators.

Scott Walker Naked in Wisconsin

The holiday for MARTIN LUTHER KING was long fought by the Republican wingnuts but now that it is well-established even wingnut politicos go through the motions. Everyone knows that it is hypocrisy and not idealism that fuels such escapades.

Case in point: Governor Scott “Union-Killer” Walker of Wisconsin did his bob and weave on the dais of the State’s King Day observance but was given his come-uppance by its guest of honor. Margaret Rozga, widow of civil rights activist James Groppi, accepted the King Day Heritage Award on behalf of her husband and used the opportunity to rebuke Governor Walker.

“As a person who remembers that Martin Luther King was killed while he was working to organize sanitation workers, I know that anyone who works to curtail union rights is not in the tradition of Martin Luther King,” Rozga said.

Walker, who having busted public employee unions in his State, went on to curtail voters’ rights, must have shrunk a bit when Rozga added, “As a person who got her start in the Civil Rights Movement by volunteering to work on Southern Christian Leadership voter registration campaigns in Alabama, I know that those who [propose] any curtailment of voting rights are not in the tradition of Martin Luther King”.

We wish we would have been there, it had to have been as much fun listening to Margaret Rozga as it would have been listening to the children who exclaimed, “The Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes”.

Crushing the Rebels

The Republican caucus is based in the Southern and Western states. The states that hang around Washington hat in hand taking every contract, subsidy, tax bennie and drop of a dole possible. The Democrats are based in the Northeast, the Midwest and the Pacific coast. Democratic states are comprised of taxpayers who contribute more to the Federal Government than their states ever get back.

The Federal Government dispensed services, goods and cash when Hurricane Katrina hit the lower South and did the same when 100 twisters ripped through the upper South. The “libertarian” West got Federal aid to help with communities destroyed by droughts and megafires. Now the Northeast is suffering from Hurricane Sandy and the dip—-s of the Southern Rights Party don’t want to extend Federal assistance claiming the usual pride of “rugged individualism”, the virtue of “self-reliance” and the mournful plea, “we’re broke”.

It is disgusting. It is repulsive. It has prompted some talking heads to point out that not many Repugs come from the Northeast. One should ask instead why should the Northeast send any Repugs to Washington.

The Repugs with their Tea-bagging allies have declared a civil war not merely on Liberals but on all the people of the North. It echoes an earlier rebel yell when Texans distributed a bumpersticker reading “Step On It and Freeze a Yankee”. As resident of a State with more freshwater than the rest of the country, I’ve wondered during the Texan drought whether we’d be justified in proclaiming, “Turn Up the Sprinklers & Watch a Rebel Wither”.

But we don’t do that. We may get mad but we never get even. Maybe things should change. It may be time to let the South sweat. Instead of free grazing lands for Republican ranchers, have them pay for it. Instead of free water for Republican farmers, make them pay for it. Instead of depletion allowances and bargain-rate royalty agreements for Republican mining and drilling interests let’s have them pay the market-rate. Next time a Republican community catches fire, let it burn. No more freebies. Live by the FREE Market, or Die!

Free the Shareholders!

The State of Michigan subject to a Republican stranglehold on the state government recently enacted a law which prevents a Union from requiring that workers benefiting from a Union contract contribute dues to support that Union. This is defended as a “freedom”, workers will be free from being forced to support Unions. In particular, the argument holds that this frees workers from having to support candidates for public office with whom they may disagree.

Supposedly the act of the Michigan Legislature and Governor are in advancement of freedom.

I own stock. The corporations in which I hold stock can by decision of the Supreme Court contribute to political candidates without my consent. The money being contributed to candidates chosen by the CEO or Board is money that could have been distributed to shareholders as profits. I want my money. Based on what the Republicans say they want me to be free, will they now adopt legislation prohibiting Corporations from using Shareholder money? Or allowing shareholders to opt out?

No, they won’t because this is not about Freedom. It is about power. The Republicans adopted this law to reduce the money available to pro-labor political candidates. Corporations give money to Republican candidates, even the money that should be distributed to shareholding Democrats is given to Corporate-designated Republicans.

I called my State Legislator, a Republican, and asked her to protect Shareholder freedom and stop Corporations from using shareholder profits for activities which shareholders disapprove. She said that if I had a problem with the Corporations in which I invest, I should take it up at a Shareholders Meeting, that it isn’t the State’s business to get involved in the private affairs of Corporations. Then why can the State get involved in the private affairs of Unions?

States should extend the same “freedoms” they have given workers to shareholders or they should refrain from intervention. One or the other is fair, one and not the other is simply a power grab.

The Real Meaning of a So-called “Right to Work” Law

The Republican-dominated Michigan Legislature is considering imposing a “Right to Work” law on Michigan workers. The modern Union was born in Michigan and the Repugnanticans are seeking to kill it there. This is all done under the guise of “freedom” with its advocates contending that they are defending the freedom of workers to not pay union dues. Would they also allow shareholders of Corporations to opt out of paying for the massive political contributions bestowed on favored candidates? Why should a shareholder be forced to forego profits that are then distributed to political stooges? It appears that the Repugs are only concerned for the “freedom” of workers and not the freedom of shareholders.

What’s Goin On In Michigan

They Say “Right to Work”; They Mean “Kill the Union”

There is an effort afoot to make Michigan a “right to
work” state. Unfortunately, most citizens are unaware
of what “right to work” means or the implications if
such a law is passed. Our purpose here is to explain
the law, map the arguments for and against, and
describe potential effects for Michigan should such a
proposal become law.

To begin, the term “right to work” (hereafter RTW) is a
misnomer. RTW has nothing to do with the right of a
person to seek and accept gainful employment. Rather,
RTW laws prohibit a labor union and employer from
negotiating union security clauses. What are union
security clauses? Union security clauses are contract
provisions that regulate the collection of union dues.
In non-RTW states, such as Michigan, the parties are
free to negotiate a range of union security options.
Unions typically prefer “union shop” terms that require
every person benefiting from union representation to
pay union dues. In RTW states, the parties are barred
from negotiating union security clauses, making the
default the “open shop,” where the payment of dues is
optional for workers represented by the union. Between
these two policy poles are arrangements that require
represented persons to pay a proportion of full dues,
and even to allow objectors to unionization to
contribute dues to charity. Such arrangements are,
however, also proscribed under the RTW proposal before
Michigan.

Labor unions are nearly universal in their opposition
to RTW laws, and their argument is straightforward:
each person that benefits directly from union
representation should pay their fair share of the cost
of that representation. In the very least, represented
persons should pay a dues amount to cover the expense
of negotiating and administering the labor agreement
(what are referred to as collective bargaining
activities). For unions, this is just since, by law,
they are required to represent all persons within a
bargaining unit. It is critical to appreciate that
although unions have some input into the composition of
the bargaining unit, they cannot exclude persons that
simply do not want unionization.

It is the National Labor Relations Board, or similar
agency at the state level, that holds final judgment
over bargaining unit membership. Determination is based
on “community of interest” criteria (e.g. similar
skills, proximity, and so forth). Any job meeting those
criteria is included, regardless of how a particular
individual holding a job feels about unionization.
Then, if a majority of workers in the bargaining unit
elect to unionize, union leaders must represent all
unit members fairly and without prejudice.

Supporters of RTW laws advance two major arguments.
First is that RTW laws make a state more attractive to
investment, and that passage of RTW law will lead to
job growth. While such statements may sound attractive
to a state that is facing economic hardship, the
evidence here is in dispute. Like Michigan, nearly
every state in the union has lost manufacturing jobs
over the last six to eight years, but it is unclear
whether the rates of job loss are related to RTW laws.
Our economic problems in Michigan are due primarily to
the woes in the auto industry, which RTW would not fix.
When making location decisions businesses rate factors
such as the quality of the regional workforce, the
regulatory environment, and tax incentives before ever
considering RTW laws.

The second and main argument for RTW is rooted in
libertarian ideology: individuals should not be
required to financially support any collective, unions
in this case, against their will. This “free
association” position focuses on the inherently
coercive practice of demanding a sacrifice from all
that benefit from a collective endeavor. Coercion
exists when an individual objects to the purpose or
activities of the collective, yet is unable to withhold
their support. In the U.S., a workplace becomes
unionized when a majority of the employees in a
bargaining unit petition for union representation. This
“50 percent plus 1” method of determination almost
guarantees the presence of a minority group that did
not want a union. Further, in many instances a person
gains union coverage by accepting employment at a
worksite that is already unionized, without ever having
the opportunity to vote for or against unionization. In
a non-RTW state, a labor union and employer can agree
to a union security clause that requires all covered
persons to pay dues to finance collective bargaining
activities. In such situations, someone seeking to
avoid paying dues to the union has three options: exit
their job, convince union leadership to negotiate an
open shop, or persuade fellow workers to decertify the
union. Given that the last two outcomes are hard to
achieve, the most viable option for dissenters is to
work elsewhere. Thus, the term “right to work” means,
in its elongated form, the right to work in a unionized
setting, and reap the benefits of collective
representation, without having to contribute toward the
cost of obtaining those benefits.

And the benefits are indisputable. Depending on the
occupation, unionized workers earn wages that are ten
to forty percent higher than their nonunion
counterparts. The positive differential for other forms
of compensation, such as health care insurance and
pensions, is even greater. Perhaps more important than
economics, however, are matters involving justice.
Nearly all union contracts feature an informal form of
due process: a grievance procedure that ends in final
and binding arbitration through which unions resolve
disputes over the contract and employer discipline. As
such, in most union settings an employer must show
proof that a worker committed a wrongdoing in order to
discharge them. By contrast, in a non-union setting
workers are “at will” and can be discharged for any
reason (or none at all) that is not proscribed by
federal law.

It is important to note these benefits, because while
promoting free association and individual liberty sound
noble, the use of such concepts to advance RTW
legislation belie a less lofty motive: to undermine the
economic and political power of wage-earners.

As the financiers of the RTW program are well-aware,
when workers act collectively they gain power at work
and in society. In states that have passed RTW
legislation, the wages and benefits of all workers,
union and non-union, are lower than national averages.

One reason is that the gains by unionized workers spill
into the non-union sectors through the so-called
“threat effect”: in the presence of a strong regional
union movement, employers with a non-union workforce
will raise wages and benefits to discourage employees
from unionizing. Remove the threat and non-union
employers have greater latitude to lower compensation,
to require workers to perform dangerous tasks or work
in unhealthy environs, or to treat workers without
dignity. This is the hidden agenda behind the RTW
effort: strengthen the hand of employers by passing a
law that weakens the vanguard institutions promoting
economic and social equity for wage-earners. In this
sense, RTW is both a bald attack on organized labor as
well as a veiled assault on wageearners.

To understand how RTW laws weaken organized labor it
useful to couch this discussion in theory. Social
scientists that study collective behavior often refer
to the “collective action problem” for movement
development. It begins with the premise that any
collective endeavor needs resources such as volunteer
effort, money, or other assets to succeed.
Unfortunately, individuals that stand to enjoy the
fruits of the collective also have an incentive to
avoid making any contribution, especially if they
believe the collective will succeed without their
support. With too many “free riders,” of course, the
collective becomes resource-starved, causing it to
under-perform or fail. To minimize this problem, rules
are necessary that limit the ability of an individual
to shirk their obligation to the collective. There are
many examples of this phenomenon in society, but the
most obvious is taxation for funding public services.
Politicians may debate the level of tax, how taxes are
collected, or how taxes are spent, but there is no
question that it would be a disaster to allow the
payment of taxes to be optional. Compulsory taxation is
necessary to ensure the adequate financing of public
services.

Similarly, for organized labor, union security
provisions are the rules that resolve the collective
action problem. A union shop simply mandates that
everyone pays their fair share. Open shop arrangements,
on the other hand, are problematic because they present
incentives for employees to refrain from contributing
to the union, and “free ride” on the sacrifices of
dues-paying members. Ultimately the financial support
necessary to operate a union is undermined.

So what are the predictable consequences if Michigan
becomes a RTW state? To answer that question, we need
to first map how unions affect our society. The most
mentioned role that unions play is in the economic
system, as a bargaining agent for workers. As described
above, unions use their collective power to gain a more
equitable share from production, and also to negotiate
rules that improve the level of justice at work. Under
RTW laws, existing unions would direct resources toward
internal member mobilizing in an effort to retain this
role. This redirection of resources, however, would
mean fewer funds for new member organizing, and
Michigan would likely experience a diminished threat
effect. A second recognized role for labor is in the
political system. Labor unions have a long history of
pursuing legislation that benefits all wage-earners:
higher minimum wage laws, universal health care, health
and safety protections, to name a few. Union’s leverage
to achieve gains in these areas is directly related to
their ability to mobilize support during the political
cycle. As such, unions operate telephone banks, engage
in member education, and canvass communities to inform
their members and the public to get out the vote. Under
RTW laws we can expect resources for these activities
to diminish, resulting in lower voter turnout among the
working class and a political system that is less
responsive to Michigan’s non-rich. Finally, labor
unions are active in civic affairs. As human
institutions embedded in our communities, unions
frequently organize collections on behalf of the less
fortunate, they are among the largest givers to
charitable organizations, such as the United Way, and
they even occasionally fund popular community
activities, such as little league teams. Under RTW, we
should expect this role to decline.

Unions are certainly not flawless. They are
organizations that breathe a measure of democratic life
into an otherwise autocratic corporate culture. And as
democracies, unions can embrace the best and the worst
of human intentions. On balance though, labor unions
have an admirable history. In every capitalist economy,
the standards for economic, political and social equity
are owed in part to a vibrant, independent union
movement. Consider this final thought, fellow citizens,
as you contemplate whether Michigan is to become a RTW
state.

— By Roland Zullo, Research Scientist

Institute for Labor and Industrial Relations
University of Michigan
http://irlee.umich.edu/Publications/Docs/RightToWorkInMichigan.pdf

Koch-heads Crush Unions in Michigan

Excerpt from COMMON DREAMS (see link) —

Michigan’s Republican-dominated legislature on Thursday passed conservative, anti-worker, anti-women measures–controversial right-to-work legislation and a conscience clause that allows health care providers to deny services–sparking outrage and protests from Democrats and union members and leading police to use “chemical munitions” on protesters.

The Michigan State Capitol.  Protesters packed the Capitol building, news agencies report, as right-wing Gov. Rick Snyder and Republicans announced the right-to-work legislation.  Some of the protesters who were inside the building attempted to get to the chamber floor and were met with a chemical assault. The Detroit Free Press reports:

“When several of the individuals rushed the troopers, they used chemical munitions to disperse the crowd,” [Michigan State Police Inspector Gene Adamczyk] said. “It would be a lot worse if someone gets hurt and I failed to act.”

The House passed the first of three right-to-work bills in a 58-52 vote.

Right-to-work laws mean dues cannot be required from non-union employees.  Touted as “workplace freedom” by supporters, unions see them as an assault on their bargaining power and an attempt at further weakening the power of organized labor.

The Lansing State Journal reports that the right-to-work legislation was passed “after House Democrats walked off the chamber floor to protest the Capitol not being opened to the public.”

Americans for Prosperity, which the Detroit Free Press describes as “the conservative non-profit organization that funded Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s efforts to strip that state’s public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights,” and was founded by the notorious Koch brothers, supported the legislation.