Michigan Right to Work

Introduction: The Michigan Right to Work law went into effect on March 27, 2013. This law has two parts to it; one is for the public sector workers and the other is for the private sector workers. This law was pushed through the senate and the house within five days. Should Michigan have become a Right to Work state? What does the Right to Work law entail and how is Michigan’s Right to Work law different for the United Nations understanding of a right to work as a human right? The purpose of this paper is to examine the research currently available to decide whether Michigan should have become a Right to Work law. To make this decision, this paper primarily focuses on how Right to Work laws affect a state’s people: their wages, the growth of employment rate, the growth in population and their morality. In examining the moral issues associated with Right to Work laws, this paper looks at “forced union dues” and the “free rider” issue. This paper will also examine how the Michigan Right to Work law differs or is the same as The United Nations understanding of right to work as a human right.
After weighing the pros and cons of Michigan Right to Work laws this paper concludes that the law should be a net benefit to Michigan because the benefits to a state’s people outweigh the costs: Right to Work laws create jobs and spur economic activity.

History of Right to Work: All but six of the states that have Right to Work laws adopted them in the 1940’s and
1950’s after the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. The Taft-Hartley Act, which allows states to make Right to Work laws, was enacted in response to the belief that the pro-union
Wagner Act of 1935 gave unions too much power (Taft-Hartley Act). The Wagner Act gave and still gives unions the power of exclusive representation, which allows them to act as the voice of all of a company’s employees if the union can get more than fifty percent of the employees to vote for a union: “Thus, if 100