You are probably aware that Michigan’s lame duck legislature passed “Right to Work” legislation and that their Governor signed it into law. What is the big problem? Isn’t it a good thing to have ‘right to work?” Here is where the power of language contorts the meaning of many things.
In our district a teacher who does not want to be a member of the union still pays dues. Most often the reasons are ideological, religious, or political. The teacher gets rebated a portion of the dues that we determine is spent for political activities. These “fair share” payers are still represented by our union if they are called in for disciplinary purposes, need help with medical bills, want information on licensure, can take ER&D classes or whatever services we provide our members. Fair share payers are not covered by our $1 million professional/occupational liability insurance through the AFT. In fact, out of over 630 teachers and monitors we have only two fair share payers.
“Right to Work” means that people would still have the benefit of all the services of a “Fair Share” payer, but would not pay anything – the more correct term is “Freeloader.” The Union would have to represent, spend time, work side by side with people who believe that they should get represented in contract talks, grievances, reprimands, among the myriad of things we do, but not have to pay for it. This is consistent with a certain mindset – some people prefer not to pull their own weight and it drains time, money and other resources away from unions, deflating their ability to be effective and political. So is it “Right to Work” legislation or “Freeloader” legislation? What possible good does something like this bring except to strip workers of the best representation possible? I am sure if you read any of the facts on states that have adopted “right to work” laws that you will see that workers make less, have fewer benefits, and less job security. I am sure that the biggest reason for this is the weakened position the union has at the bargaining table. “Our members, 30% of your workers, reject your proposal” does not have the same ring to it as “we took a 97% vote to reject your proposal.”
In Michigan, the legislature waited until the lame duck session to try to hammer this bad law through. They succeeded. The governor, who said he would not sign such a divisive piece of legislation, reneged. When unions are weakened, all workers suffer. When unions are strong, all boats are lifted. What is going on in Michigan can happen here. If there is a move toward “freeloading” legislation then we will need to band together even stronger than we did with SB5. Will you be ready?