Michigan republicans pull out all stops to pass right to work laws.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
United States
December 6, 2012 9:42pm CST
Today, Michigan republicans in a lame duct session had to call in police, and violated the Michigan constitution in a succesful attempt to pass a right to work law. When word came that republicans were going to try to bully this bill into law citizens of the state went to the state capital to let their representatives know how they feel. They were met by state police who were called by the governor to protect them from the people of the state. If the governor was going the work of the people of the state, why would he fear the people? Then the governor voilated the state constitution by closing the doors banning citizens for seeing what their elected officials were doing. It took an order from a judge to force the governor to open the doors back up, but not before the legislature bully the right to work law through. The reason they did now is because the legislature was losing their large majority, an knew it wouldn't happen with the new legislature. Do you think the governor and the house leadership should be investigated for the actions in this case? And, do you think that any law that require violating the state constitution to be accepted should be considered a law?
1 person likes this
7 responses
@Fatcat44 (1141)
• United States
7 Dec 12
So why would a person have to join a union to be able to get a job? This makes no sense to me. Any body should have the right to work.
I want you to explain why you consider it "bullied" and unconstitutional. I don't see it. Even the Huffington Post write up did not even go close to what you are saying. Were you there? Did you witness it all?
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Dec 12
Fat, why should workers who don't want to be part of a union get the benefits of union negotiations? That is what happens when you have a union shop in a right to work state. Shouldn't you have to pay for someone to help you get better pay, or better work conditions?
I consider this bullied, because the state put this same bill up for vote in November, and LOST. After a huge lost where one presidential candidate was born in that state lost by a lot, and the party lost 5 seats in the house. The people have spoken, and republicans don't care!!!! Republicans forced a bill through without committee hearings, or public debate. They then closed off the capital which violates the state constitution, and barred people from witnessing the vote, which again violates the state constitution. This is what happens in DICTATORSHIPS, not democracies. Four of the republicans voted against this, which means that this bill would NOT have pasted when the new legislature comes in. Finally, they did something that even YOU should be upset about: They made it ineligible for the people of Michigan to repeal it on a ballot in an election. That is right, they made it so the people of Michigan can't repeal this through a vote of the people. Communist leaders, and dictators around the world would applaud this move.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/06/michigan-governor-right-to-work/1751081/
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Dec 12
Fat, it isn't my side that lost, it is the people of Michigan, and this country that lost. The people of Michigan VOTED against this same bill in November, but the republicans were DELUSIONAL, and decided to push this through against the will of the people. When the will of the people is ignored it is the people as a whole that lose, not one side or the other (as I have tried to point out on here many times). If they were so worried about protection then why didn't they remove the representatives? I looks like the government used it force to remove the people who objected to their power, much like what happens in DICTATORSHIPS!!!
It was illegal because the constitution of the state of Michigan says that the legislature can not hold session without the people being allowed to view the proceedings. This OBVIOUSLY was not the case in this vote. The people voted AGAINST this bill in November, and the bill would not have passed with the new legislature in place.
This bill is only reversible if democrats take back the government. If the PEOPLE of your state REALLY want something, why would you make so they COULDN'T vote to repeal it? This goes against EVERYTHING this country stands for. The will of the people was trampled on yesterday, and FOX News and other right winger news organizations treated this like a victory. It was a victory for DICTATORS around the world!!!
1 person likes this
@Fatcat44 (1141)
• United States
7 Dec 12
When they had to arrest many, it sounds like for protection they needed to close off the streets. Unions thugs have the reputation of being violent, and they just proved it again.
So if the people want unions so bad, then the people will still join unions. Now it is a choice, not forced.
And as it sounds, this has been on the table for months and possibly years, and had plenty of time in committee before. It had the votes to pass, and you call it illegal? How? The people did not vote all of these guys out of office in November. They still represented the people in the way they were elected.
Election in 2012 may be a little different, so let the Michigan congress change the bill in 2013 if it is so different.
And as for being non-reversible, that cannot be. All it takes is a bill being passed to change it.
You just need to stop crying because your side lost, as you told us when Romney lost.
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
7 Dec 12
From what I read, the number of protestors plus the additional Government personal exceeded the maximum capacity of the building which would have violated fire safety laws.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Dec 12
Then why didn't they remove the representatives? If it was such a fire hazard then why would they leave the elected officials in there?
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Dec 12
Really? Remove the Reprentative who were there to do their jobs so that the 'people' could view them doing that job? How in the world do you do that?
I'm confused. 
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
8 Dec 12
With all due respect, debater--
as I understand it, the legislature was there to do their job--and the doors were supposed to be open while they did so, so people could watch (I assume, though from watching C-Span I find watching legislative sessions boring, at times). Now, I haven't had a chance to read the whole story yet, but from what I have read, the crowd, mob, citizens were behaving in a less than peaceable manner.
If the people were being unruly, or acting in a threatening manner, and your constitution doesn't allow your government to close those doors for protection while they are working, then your constitution has a problem. If the people were NOT: shouting, being threatening, being unruly, our trying to disrupt the legislative process, then yes, there should be an investigation. But all 3 states I have lived in have provisions that the legislative chambers are like court rooms, when a trial is in progress--if you start yelling, shoving, interrupting, trying to disrupt the proceedings, you get ejected--or not allowed to enter in the first place.
All 3 states I have lived in also have public hearing processes where citizens can politely and peaceably make their views known. Don't know whether they are just laws or constitutional, because I don't remember--but that's the way it is in WA, AZ and MA. I have participated in such events in all 3 states, and all three times as soon as someone raised their voice, got rude, or tried to cause a problem--out they went, and the government did their job--which I think is reasonable.
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
11 Dec 12
I have since read the entire article--and yes, the people made clear they didn't want it. So your legislature shouldn't have been messing with it. But as to clearing out the house, or suspending business--when I still had a business, and we had unruly customers--we had the unruly customers removed, we didn't close the business. Allowing unruly people to disrupt business, of any kind, isn't a good idea. It sets a bad precedent.
Yes, it is what you would see elsewhere in the world--and it happens here, frequently. I'm sure when I have the time to go out and start digging, I'll find laws of all kinds that were passed either without the people's input at all, or against the will of the people, at all levels of government--I know there are some in both Massachusetts and Arizona (though in the case of Massachusetts, it's usually the state supreme court that oversteps their authority). It isn't right, and it shouldn't happen, but it does. And while your people can't overturn that law, I'm sure you have a process whereby it can be repealed or superseded, by the next legislature. I am sure you have noticed that quite a few world governments that praise our current administration are people that espouse ideas that are not in line with the principals on which this nation was founded--our federal government is no better than most state governments, and in many cases, worse.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
11 Dec 12
Chrystalia, I understand that you couldn't let unruly people disrupt your business. But, your business was a private business, and you COULD throw someone out, but you COULDN'T lock the doors so your own employees couldn't get out because of your cities fire code. The state constitution was set up so that the people could see what their elected officials were doing, and the legislature couldn't pass bills that the people didn't know about. This is exactly what the governor, and the republicans in the state did. They knew what they were doing, and they didn't care if they violated the state constitution, the only thing that matter was getting what they wanted. The minute they closed those doors, and continued the states business, they elected to violate the state constitution. That is on the speaker, and the governor, and they should be arrested (because there is no doubt they did this), investigated (to see if any other laws were broken), and punished (republicans have called for Obama's to be impeached for acts with less proof than this) for their excessive abuse of power.
You are correct that this stuff happens in this country all the time, and those that do it should be punished for their actions. Abusing the system should have consequences.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
11 Dec 12
Chrystalia, If the governor was so afraid of this "angry mob" then why didn't he evacuate the house, or just stop the state business being done? King Snyder knew exactly what he was doing, he wouldn't postpone the vote because he lost seats in the last election and knew that he couldn't get it passed with the new legislature.
Because you didn't read the article, you might not know that the people of the state of Michigan voted NO on a right to work bill. A bill that the legislature forced down the throat of the people of Michigan because they have a majority now, but lost seats in the last election, and couldn't get it passed in the new legislature. They also made it so that this bill couldn't be overturned by the people of the state in a vote (like what happened last time). Why would you pass a bill that the people of your state already voted down, and then make it so they couldn't vote on it again? Doesn't this sound like something you would see in China, Russia, Cuba, or Iran?
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
8 Dec 12
Considering how union members behave, I can't say I blame the Governor for closing the door on them. They're not exactly know for their diplomacy.
You said that it isn't fair for a non union employee to receive the benefits fought for by the unions without paying for it. Is it right for someone in a union state to be forced to pay dues to a union he doesn't want to belong to or to see his union dues going to a political candidate he doesn't agree with?
A right to work state doesn't mean you can't have unions. It only means you get to choose whether or not you join a union.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
11 Dec 12
Best, if you are in fear of a group of people, and you know the constitution, then why wouldn't you evacuate the house, knowing that the state constitution would force the doors open because republicans were still doing business. When the doors were open again how many people where arrested? How many lawmakers were hurt? If the governor knew the constitution, he would have known that this "angry mob" would be allowed to come in if state business was still be heard. If he was so fearful of the "angry mob" than he should have stop state business, and the "angry mob" would not be allowed back in.
The person in that union state can elect politicians that don't support the unions. That is the democratic way of dealing with politicians you don't like.
Best, if the people of Michigan voted for this, and wanted this I would be fine with it. But, they didn't. This is how dictators run governments, not democracy. The will of the people should be enforced, not the cowardliness of LOSERS who can't take their defeat with honor!!!!!
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
11 Dec 12
Best, these lawmakers said they WOULDN'T change the law unless the voters approved of it, and they didn't. But, then the elected officials knew they couldn't win with a new legislature so they bullied it through the current legislature. If these lawmakers were in the right here, then why did they put the provision in that didn't allow the people to vote on it in the future?
Best, the lawmakers that the people didn't approve of WERE kicked out of office. The problem is that they still have a few more days to work on getting another job, and they are not helping people who will hire them in January.
How honorable is it to take away the right of the people to vote? That is what republicans did here. Please, explain to me in a DEMOCRACY, why you would limit the voice of the people?
You seem to confused as to what country you live in. I live in the United States of America where the people have the RIGHT to vote for what they want. And, when that RIGHT is taken away, they attack those who violate their constitution. Isn't that what our founding fathers would do?
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
11 Dec 12
Who voted for the members of the Michigan state legislature? Who voted for the Governor? Wasn't it the people of Michigan? The will of the people was enforced by putting into office the people they elected, republicans. The LOSERS in this case are the unions who are trying to bully the duly elected members of the Michigan legislature into giving them what they want. What about those who oppose the unions? What about those who believe more businesses will come to Michigan if it is a right to work state? We vote for our representatives and then let them speak for us. If we don't like the job they do, we don't vote for them the next election; but until then, they are our elected representatives. Since Michigan has a governor, a senate, and a house I must conclude it is a republic just like the United States and not a democracy. That means it does not have mob rule. The only ones not being honorable in this situation are the unions.
You seem to be under some kind of illusion that because Obama won the Presidency, the democrats won it all. Each state has its own legislature, and that's what we're talking about here.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
7 Dec 12
Yeah. But let's everyone just calm down a minute.
We have to pass this bill to see what's in it.
Don'tcha know government knows what's best for what people can and can't observe or read or know.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Dec 12
Mater, I agree that was a not the way to deal with Obamacare. But, can you show me where the people of this country voted down Obama care? The people of Michigan voted this down in November, than the legislature decided that the will of the people didn't matter anymore. Isn't that called a DICTATORSHIP?
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
7 Dec 12
And that's why I disapprove of our government.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Dec 12
Perhaps it wasn't 'the people' but rather the (very prone to violence) UNIONS that the governor wanted to protect lawmakers from?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/06/michigan-governor-right-to-work/1751081/
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Dec 12
Deb, the union members are citizens of the state of Michigan as well. I really enjoy how you right wingers want to support republicans when they violate a constitution (when Bush did, or on the state level here), but when Obama does, you are calling for him to be impeached.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Dec 12
The Unions are citizens, and any citizen that stormed the doors of the State Capital would be dealt with the same as they were.
Obama got the Democrats to pass the ACA when most of Congress was on Christmas break...but you say NOTHING about that in any of your discussions. It is the PASS you give him and then the exageration of anything Republicans do that I see in your discussions.
