Readers Weigh in on Michigan "Right to Work" Legislation, What Do You Think?

Our readers have spoken.

A lot.

Our "right-to-work" article about Michigan's new legislation banning mandatory union membership triggered plenty of responses, many of them heated.

Now Republican governor Rick Snyder has signed those bills into law, making them official.

Let's take a look at how you feel about the controversy.

The first comment started off forcefully.

"What a ditz," said Terry Conklin. "Obama calls it a right to make less money but what if there were a law that forced mandatory Catholic tithes for anyone taking a job in Massachusetts? He'd be singing another song. Union or no union, I have a right to take a job and make my own choice on joining (or not joining) a union."

We'll ignore the most of the name-calling that followed. Athirson replied to Conklin, "Enjoy your right to slave."

Riffing off President Obama's quote calling the legislation a "right to make less money," Sandy Beach said, "Obama is the "Right to be screwed" President.  The Unions are nothing more than corporations collecting protection money from employees. Sound familiar? MAFIA! Good Bye Unions! Go Away!"

Joe, who responded to Sandy, was a bit more eloquent. "A union is the only protection an employee has against corporate greed, which has run amok the past 30 years as the GOP has systematically weakened collective bargaining.  If you don't want to work in a union shop then get a job somewhere else.  The majority of employees in that union shop have voted to have collective bargaining and a weapon against their corporate masters."

Then Joe and schvieguy got into it. "if the union provides a useful service to its members, it will continue to operate and be successful (I'd argue *more* successful because now it actually has to get with the times)," said schveiguy.

"There is nothing in Right to Work that bans unions or makes them not able to collectively bargain or anything like that. It just makes membership truly optional, whereas now it is forced in trade for employment," continued schveiguy.

Joe responded, "Wait until there are no unions. Without fear of orgainization, a company has no incentive to treat their employees decently.  Labor laws will drop off the books one by one until we are like Upton Sinclair's the Jungle or worse, a China sweatshop with the wages to match. You say right to work laws don't affect unions?

But schveiguy got the last word: "I'll stand right beside you the minute our right to collectively bargain is threatened. Just because I don't *want* to collectively bargain doesn't mean I don't want *anyone* to collectively bargain. It doesn't affect me whether you are in a union or not, unless of course, I'm forced to pay for it."

Martin D. Hash invoked human rights: "I'm a liberal Democrat and a pro-private (not public) union supporter but "Right to Work" is exactly that.  We have a Right of Association which should allow workers to eschew unions - and it's not just me (an attorney) talking - Article 20(2) of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" expressly provides that no one may be compelled to belong to unions, and Article 11 of the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)" does says the same thing.  Only the supposedly "free" U.S. forces workers to join unions!"

Most of the comments (the grammatically correct ones, at least) were in favor of the new legislation. What do you think?