LANSING, Mich. – A divided Michigan appeals court ruled Thursday that the state's right-to-work law applies to 35,000 state employees.
In the first major legal decision on the much-debated, Republican-backed law eight months after its passage, judges voted 2-1 to reject a lawsuit filed by labor unions. The passage of the measure drew thousands of protesters to the state Capitol late last year.
The law prohibits forcing public and private workers in Michigan to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and applies to labor contracts extended or renewed after late March. It went to court after questions were raised whether it applies to state workers, since the Michigan Civil Service Commission, which sets compensation for state employees, has separate powers under the state constitution.
The majority said lawmakers have the authority to pass laws dealing with union fees.
"In light of the First Amendment rights at stake, the Michigan Legislature has made the policy decision to settle the matter by giving all employees the right to choose," Judges Henry Saad and Pat Donofrio wrote.
The dissent said the court's decision strips the civil service panel of its "regulatory supremacy."
Multiple lawsuits have been filed to strike down the law in a mainstay of organized labor. Legal challenges in neighboring Indiana, which passed a right-to-work law just before Michigan did, have been unsuccessful.
Brackite wrote:All States within the Unites States should be Right to Work.
Doing so would help make American workers more competitive with those in China without all those ridiculous American wages and benefits. American children have had it easy for too long and once they resume their place in our factories then happy days will be here again.
Brackite wrote:All States within the Unites States should be Right to Work.
Doing so would help make American workers more competitive with those in China without all those ridiculous American wages and benefits. American children have had it easy for too long and once they resume their place in our factories then happy days will be here again.
Yes, "Right-to-Work" = "Child Labor"
Right-to-Work laws allow employees to not be forced to join a union.
Granted, there may be a good argument that new employees are benefiting from the union's previous efforts on their behalf, and therefore they should be forced to pay the union for that benefit, but maybe unions should be required to make this argument on their own behalf and convince employees that there is a benefit worth paying for.
American children have had it easy for too long and once they resume their place in our factories then happy days will be here again.
If it's illegal for children to work, why are children eligible to collect disability benefits?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote: If it's illegal for children to work, why are children eligible to collect disability benefits?
Excellent point. This probably is another artifact of the so called "Liberal Marxist Do-Gooder State" trying to infringe on the sovereign right to not give a damn.
ajax18 wrote: If it's illegal for children to work, why are children eligible to collect disability benefits?
Excellent point. This probably is another artifact of the so called "Liberal Marxist Do-Gooder State" trying to infringe on the sovereign right to not give a damn.
How much personal debt have you dug yourself into giving to every beggar you meet on the street? I was in California last week and I saw plenty of beggars. Why haven't Quasimodo and Moksha taken care of them? Could it be that there is a limit to what can be done?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
moksha wrote: Excellent point. This probably is another artifact of the so called "Liberal Marxist Do-Gooder State" trying to infringe on the sovereign right to not give a damn.
How much personal debt have you dug yourself into giving to every beggar you meet on the street? I was in California last week and I saw plenty of beggars. Why haven't Quasimodo and Moksha taken care of them? Could it be that there is a limit to what can be done?
The Liberal Democrats completely control California, yet California is the most poverty-stricken State in the Unites States.
SACRAMENTO, CA - California is the most poverty-stricken state in the country, according to a new way the government measures poverty levels.
The old way of measuring poverty failed to take into account things like housing costs that hit California's poor particularly hard. When you consider other factors, the new numbers show nearly one in four people are at the poverty level in California.
When Californians think of the things that set them apart from the rest of the country, poverty is one thing they don't want to hear.
"That breaks my heart," said Cynthia Ryan while waiting in line for food from the Sacramento Food Bank, "I'm a fourth generation California native and I'm sorry to hear that we're number one in this particular level."
Ryan doesn't want to believe it, but when she looks around the line at the food bank, it isn't that hard to believe.
"I come here the second Tuesday of every month. This is what I eat for the month because I can't afford to go to the grocery stores," Ryan said. "If it wasn't for food banks like this, I would be much worse off than I am."
On Tuesday, lawmakers at the Capitol met with experts, including representatives from the U.S. Census Bureau who are using a new system to measure poverty, one that highlights the problems in California.
"California has the highest poverty rate in the country, worse than the Deep South, worse than New York, and the reason for this may surprise many of you, is that for decades researchers have been talking about the problems with the way in which we calculate poverty," Sen. Leland Yee said at the hearing.
Yee said when you take into consideration California's high cost of living and medical expenses, California looks much worse than it did under the traditional way of looking at poverty levels. He hopes the new findings will lead to a better understanding of how to help people out of poverty.
"More assistance programs put out, more care for the homeless, more care for the mentally ill and the disabled," Ryan suggested. "Because we are the population of poverty-stricken people that are in need and need more assistance if we can possibly get it to improve the quality of our lives."
By comparison, under the traditional measure of poverty, California ranks 20th among the 50 states.
It's not until the government considers things like work-related transportation costs, child care, health care and other expenses, that California's poverty rate becomes the highest.
Why does California has such a high rate of poverty? This might explain the main reason why California has such a high rate of poverty.
• In good times, when revenues were rolling into Sacramento from 2003-2007, the main beneficiaries were unionized teachers and prison guards. During that period, state spending on welfare and safety-net programs grew by barely the rate of inflation, while spending on schools and prisons went up by at least four times inflation.
• In bad times, when revenue went down, the main “stakeholders” being insulated from the fallout were state employees. Instead of the absolute pay freeze with layoffs that would be the difficult norm in any large organization struggling to make ends meet, state workers were required to take some unpaid days off – and even that was bitterly fought in court. Who suffered the most from budget cuts? The infirm elderly and those who rely on safety-net programs.
How much personal debt have you dug yourself into giving to every beggar you meet on the street? I was in California last week and I saw plenty of beggars. Why haven't Quasimodo and Moksha taken care of them? Could it be that there is a limit to what can be done?
They watched the movie Elysium and didn't understand that a dystopian world like that comes only from Democratic polices and they believe that healthcare costs nothing.
