ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

What You Need To Know About The Michigan GOP’s ‘Right-To-Work’ Assault On Workers

Michigan workers protest outside the state capitol Thursday

On Thursday, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) backtracked on his commitment to avoid so-called “right-to-work” legislation and by the end of the day, both the Michigan House of Representatives and the Michigan state Senate had introduced and passed separate bills aimed at the state’s union workforce.

Michigan Republicans claim the state needs the measure to stay competitive with Indiana, where lawmakers passed “right-to-work” last year. In reality, though, such laws have negative effects on workers and little effect on economic growth. Here is what you need to know about the state GOP’s campaign:

THE LEGISLATION: Both the state House and state Senate passed legislation on Thursday that prohibits private sector unions from requiring members to pay dues. The Senate followed suit and passed a different but similar measure that extends the same prohibition for public sector unions, though firefighters and police officers are exempt. The state House included a budget appropriations provision that is intended to prevent the state’s voters from being able to legally challenge the law through a ballot referendum. Due to state law, both houses are prevented from voting on legislation passed by the other for five days, so neither will be able to fully pass the legislation until Tuesday at the earliest.

THE PROCESS: Union leaders and Democrats claim that Republicans are pushing the legislation through in the lame-duck session to hide the intent of the measures from citizens, and because the legislation would face more trouble after the new House convenes in January. Michigan Republicans hold a 63-47 advantage in the state House, but Democrats narrowed the GOP majority to just eight seats in November. Six Republicans opposed the House measure; five of them won re-election in 2012 (the sixth retired). And Michigan Republicans have good reason to pursue the laws without public debate. Though the state’s voters are evenly split on whether it should become a right-to-work state, 78 percent of voters said the legislature “should focus on issues like creating jobs and improving education, and not changing state laws or rules that would impact unions or make further changes in collective bargaining.”

THE CONSEQUENCES: While Snyder and Republicans pitched “right-to-work” as a pro-worker move aimed at improving the economy, studies show such legislation can cost workers money. The Economic Policy Institute found that right-to-work laws cost all workers, union and otherwise, $1,500 a year in wages and that they make it harder for workers to obtain pensions and health coverage. “If benefits coverage in non-right-to-work states were lowered to the levels of states with these laws, 2 million fewer workers would receive health insurance and 3.8 million fewer workers would receive pensions nationwide,” David Madland and Karla Walter from the Center for American Progress wrote earlier this year. The decreases in union membership that result from right-to-work laws have a significant impact on the middle class and research “shows that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth,” EPI wrote in a recent report about Michigan. “Right-to-work” laws also decrease worker safety and can hurt small businesses.

Union leaders are, of course, aghast at Snyder and the GOP’s right-to-work push. “In a state that gave birth to the modern U.S. labor movement, it is unconscionable that Michigan legislators would seek to drive down living standards for Michigan workers and families with a law that will do nothing to improve either the state’s economic climate or the quality of life for Michigan residents,” RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United, said in a statement.

Alyssa

What Sen. Joe Manchin’s Complaints About MTV’s ‘Buckwild’ Tell Us About Agency And Reality Television

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is displeased that, in the wake of the end of Jersey Shore, in part because some of that show’s stars started doing things like having babies and acquiring responsibilities other than partying, MTV is coming to his state with a show that will start airing next year called Buckwild. The program will follow the antics of a group of twenty-somethings who live in a 4,000-person town. The Washington Post reports on his letter to MTV:

“As a U.S. Senator, I am repulsed at this business venture, where some Americans are making money off of the poor decisions of our youth,” Manchin wrote. “I cannot imagine that anyone who loves this country would feel proud profiting off of ‘Buckwild.’”

“Instead of showcasing the beauty of our people and our state, you preyed on young people, coaxed them into displaying shameful behavior — and now you are profiting from it. That is just wrong.”
In an interview Thursday before sending the letter, Manchin repeatedly called MTV’s decision “just awful.”

“I have no problem with people in this country trying to earn a profit, but I would ask them: Would they do this to their own children, in their own neighborhood, in their own home state?” Manchin said.

It would be nice of Manchin, in the course of defending the innocent young people of his state, would recognize that his own constituents are among the people who “are making money off of the poor decisions of our youth.” There are definitely reality television programs that can be exploitative. Scenes can be cut to be misleading. Producers can be less than honest with participants about their intentions for a project. And no matter how much anyone does to prepare the subjects of a reality show for the limelight, there’s no way to predict what the reaction to a program will be until it airs, or how people who haven’t previously broadcast their lives will react to being characters, as opposed to actual humans.

But we’re also at a point in the development of reality television where many, many people who agree to participate in it are aware of the genre’s conventions, and go into the process with open eyes and a clear sense of how they can leverage the process to their own advantage. The subjects of Breaking Amish appear to have given the producers what they wanted, no matter the facts of their actual lives. I have qualms about making very young children the main characters of reality shows, but the adults who are participating in a program like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo seem self-aware and happy, and rather than becoming objects of pure ridicule, there are a lot of people who have found them rather likable. Jersey Shore‘s stars showed a determined willingness to make fools of themselves, but in a way that was mostly calculated, rather than desperate.

If I were Manchin, I might have a little more respect for my constituents. The only real argument I can see making is that rather than setting the show in Sissonville, which is in Kanawha County in West Virginia, which has 6.1 percent unemployment, down from 6.7 percent last year, MTV might have considered going to Clay County, where the unemployment rate is 13.5 percent, up from 10.6 percent last year.

Alyssa

NFL Players Union Opposes Michigan’s ‘Right-To-Work’ Push: ‘We Don’t Think Workers Deserve This’

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s (R) attempt to push a union-busting “right-to-work” law through the state legislature this week was met with considerable opposition from labor groups, who have protested en masse both outside and inside the state capitol in Lansing since Snyder announced his support for the law on Thursday.

Today, the legislation has a new foe: the National Football League Players Association, which represents players on Michigan’s NFL franchise, the Detroit Lions, and has come out against “right-to-work” before.

“We stood up against this in the past, and we stand against it in its current form in Michigan,” George Atallah, the association’s assistant executive director for external affairs, told ThinkProgress in a phone interview. “Our leadership and players are always proud to stand with workers in Michigan and everywhere else. We don’t think voters chose this, and we don’t think workers deserve this.”

The NFLPA is no stranger to labor disputes. NFL owners locked out players before the start of the 2011 season, and the players association was vocal in its support of the NFL Referees Association when the league locked out its officials at the beginning of this season.

Last year, the NFLPA opposed Indiana’s push for “right-to-work” just weeks before Indianapolis hosted Super Bowl XLVI. “We share all the same issues that the American people share,” NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith told The Nation at the time. “We want decent wages. We want a fair pension. We want to be taken care of when we get hurt. We want a decent and safe working environment. So when you look at proposed legislation in a place like Indiana that wants to call it something like ‘Right to Work,’ I mean, let’s just put the hammer on the nail. It’s untrue.”

Players, including Chicago Bears quarterback and Indiana native Jay Cutler, also spoke out against the Indiana law. While in Indianapolis, Smith marched with the UNITE-HERE union when its hotel workers were protesting low wages, missed overtime pay, and the firing of contract workers at local Hyatt hotels.

With such a short time table between introduction of the Michigan legislation and expected passage, Atallah said the players association had no plans for public actions against the right-to-work proceedings, but he iterated that the union stands with workers in Michigan. “We disagree with it and we’ll continue to stand with Michigan’s workers,” Atallah said.

Update

In an email to ThinkProgress, Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director Michael Weiner said his union also opposes the “right-to-work” push.

“Major League Baseball Players Association has always stood by the principle that all who reap the many benefits of union representation should contribute to their operation,” Weiner said. “All union members — either auto workers, teachers, firefighters, or the American League champion Detroit Tigers — oppose legislation designed to weaken unions. The economic health of our country cannot be revitalized by depriving workers of their voice in the workplace.”

Health

How The People Who Brought You Curves Are Actually Working Against Women’s Health

The latest filings from Karl Rove’s American Crossroads show a last minute contribution of $1 million received just days before the election (10/29/12) from Gary Heavin — the co-founder of Curves International Inc., which calls itself “the world’s leader in women’s fitness.”

Curves, a chain of women-only fitness center franchises, claims nearly 10,000 locations in more than 85 countries. Heavin and his fellow co-founder, his wife Diane, sold Curves International to an private equity firm in October, but they remain prominently featured on the company’s website. The Heavins say they “share a passion for and commitment to women’s health and fitness.” But his massive donation to the right-wing super PAC is only the latest in a long pattern of their efforts
in support of policies that undermine women’s equality in the workplace and restrict women’s access to health care services.

American Crossroads spent $91 million to elect Mitt Romney over President Obama. Romney refused to endorse key pro-women legislation including the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the Paycheck Fairness Act, but backed reinstating the “global gag rule” on even discussing abortion as a family planning option and supported the infamous Blunt Amendment to allow employers to deny health benefits that go against their personal views. Crossroads also worked to help far-right extremists like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and George Allen. Much of the American Crossroads attack strategy focused on criticizing Obamacare and those who backed the effort to expand health insurance access to all Americans.

In addition to helping fund American Crossroads, the Heavins also combined to give $92,400 to the House and Senate Republican campaign arms, $2,500 to Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), $30,800 to the Republican National Committee, $7,300 to Romney’s campaign, and $2,500 to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in 2012.

And this past election isn’t the only time that Curves and the Heavins have worked against women’s reproductive rights. Gary Heavin pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars for controversial “pregnancy crisis centers” that try to talk women out of abortions and have been accused to providing false information. They also made large donations to abstinence-only education programs — programs which often misinform and make teens more likely to engage in risky behavior and become pregnant. Curves also pulled its funding for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation over its objection to the charity’s funding for Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screening services. In a 2004 editorial, Mr. Heavin attacked Planned Parenthood’s sex education literature, writing “I have a 10-year-old daughter. I would absolutely not allow her to be exposed to this material. I don’t want her being taught masturbation and told that homosexuality is normal.”

That anti-choice and anti-LGBT stance was further demonstrated when Curves partnered with the American Family Association — a group that has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group.” They joined for a 2009 healthy recipe contest and sold a Curves fitness CD on the AFA’s website. Gary Heavin has also been an outspoken enthusiast for televangelist Pat Robertson, who has blamed natural disasters on same-sex marriage equality and blamed 9/11 on abortion, the separation of church and state, and civil liberties groups.

Health

Health Advocates Pressure Obama To Ease Restrictions On Emergency Contraception

Friday marks exactly one year since the Health and Human Services Department overruled the FDA to restrict access to emergency contraception for women under the age of 17, disregarding the FDA’s recommendation that Plan B — which medical research shows is actually safer than aspirin — should be available to women of all ages. When HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rejected the FDA’s guidelines on emergency contraception last year, some Democratic lawmakers suggested that decision was politically motivated rather than scientifically based.

Now, with the presidential election behind them, women’s health advocates are renewing their pressure on the Obama administration to reverse that policy:

We are asking Secretary Sebelius to go back and take another look at the science, the medical evidence … and see if there’s a way to come to agreement to make this product more easily available to the women who need it,” says Kirsten Moore, president and CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. [...]

Moreover, Moore says, she thinks the election shows that there would be no political price to be paid by the administration for making what advocates say is the science-based decision.

“If there was concern that doing the right thing by emergency contraception was going to get people into trouble,” she says, “I think that question’s been asked and answered politically.”

Under the current federal guidelines, women younger than 17 years old must obtain a prescription from their doctor before being able to purchase Plan B. And the age restrictions have further complicated the stigma around emergency contraception, so even those over the age of 17 run into roadblocks when they attempt to legally purchase Plan B over the counter. Pharmacists often falsely tell women they may not purchase emergency contraception without a prescription, or incorrectly deny Plan B to men, or simply refuse to dispense emergency contraception for their own personal reasons.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has criticized the Obama administration’s age restrictions for posing a significant hurdle to the young women who need access to emergency contraception in a timely manner, especially since Plan B is the most effective when it’s taken within 24 hours of sexual contact. And the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently recommended that all forms of birth control should be easily accessible over the counter, since women more regularly take effective forms of birth control when they don’t face any roadblocks to accessing them.

Kirsten Moore also believes the voters who reelected President Obama sent a strong message to his administration about their position on these issues — and Obama now has an obligation to follow through for them. “The voters said very clearly this past November that when it comes to women’s health, they think that prevention is a good thing; providing contraception is a good thing; reducing barriers to access, whether it be cost, is a good thing,” she explained to NPR. “And they supported a candidate who clearly made that a part of his message.”

LGBT

Bill O’Reilly Blames Gays For The ‘War On Christmas’

Fox News really doesn’t seem to have anything better to do in December than continue to manufacture the silly “War on Christmas” and then take real umbrage to the fake campaign. Despite Jon Stewart’s epic dismantling earlier this week, Bill O’Reilly continues his reverse-crusade, and now he’s implicating women and LGBT people in the process. Last night, he and Bernard McGuirk, executive producer of Imus in the Morning, revealed that they actually believe there’s a war against Christianity that’s being led by champions of the right to choose and LGBT equality:

MCGUIRK: The war on Christmas is very, very real, and if you ask me, in addition to some grouchy misanthropic heathen atheists it has to do — at the root of it — with two things — abortion and the gay rights agenda, because Christianity is against those things. It’s subtle but that’s why it’s so pronounced in recent years.

O’REILLY: Hundred percent agree. I absolutely agree 100 percent that the diminishment of Christianity is the target and Christmas is the vehicle because the secularists know the opposition to their agenda (legalized drugs is in that as well) comes primarily from the Judeo-Christian traditionalist people.

Watch it (via Towleroad/Mediaite):

While the inclusion of these two important issues in this holiday charade is offensive enough, McGuirk’s pronouncement that all of Christianity opposes a woman’s right to an abortion or a gay couple’s right to raise a family ignores the fact that many women and gay people are Christian. In terms of the so-called “gay rights agenda,” many Christian denominations — including Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists and others — wholeheartedly support the LGBT community and are partners in advocating for marriage equality. If anything, it’s Fox News who’s waging a war on the millions of Christians who don’t agree with the network’s conservative positions.

Justice

Ohio Lawmaker Proposes Government Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients

An Ohio Senate subcommittee has agreed to hear the case for making drug tests mandatory for welfare recipients, reports the Columbus Dispatch. The bill was introduced over a year ago, but now contains revisions including $100,000 allotted to rehab and treatment programs. Another provision modifies the original requirement by only testing people who admit on the application that they have used illegal drugs. Applicants must pass the drug test before they can receive benefits.

Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-OH) sponsored the bill, claiming that he actually intends to help Ohioans with drug problems:

Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, said the legislation would help alleviate drug use among low-income Ohioans and ensure that public-assistance dollars are used to help families through hard times, not to support drug habits. “If they need help, they will get it,” Schaffer said.
[...]
“It is our hope this pilot program will break generational drug usage and end the death by drug abuse for too many of our citizens. They deserve more from us than a generic handout. They need our assistance in getting their lives on track for both them and their dependents,” Crawford County Commissioner Jenny Vermillion testified before the Senate Committee.

In fact, the welfare drug test has been a popular policy among Republican lawmakers who would like to undermine welfare programs and cut down on eligible recipients. Ohio Democrats responded to last year’s proposal for a welfare drug test with their own legislation that would require the state’s elected officials to also submit to a drug test.

Florida, another state that implemented the mandatory drug test, saved nothing on welfare benefits and failed to reduce the number of applications in the law’s brief four-month life span. Only 108 people tested positive for drugs out of 4,086 applicants. The Florida experiment only served to prove that welfare recipients are actually less likely to abuse drugs than the general public.

Despite the evidence, the welfare drug test has gained traction in several Republican-dominated state legislatures, including Kansas and Virginia. Virginia’s proposal failed last year when it was determined that the drug tests would cost the state $1.5 million to administer the tests and save only $229,000 in benefits stripped from recipients who tested positive. The costly requirement serves only to stigmatize welfare recipients and perpetuate the misguided stereotype that low-income Americans are irresponsible drug addicts. Ohio’s bill could also expose the state to expensive lawsuits, as mandatory drug testing has been struck down time and again in the courts.

Security

Watch Anderson Cooper Slam Republicans For Putting Politics Ahead Of The Rights Of The Disabled

On Thursday, CNN host Anderson Cooper shone the spotlight on Republicans who voted against a U.N. treaty protecting people with disabilities, highlighting lawmakers who backed away from supporting the measure in response to conservative misinformation and opposition.

Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) featured prominently in Cooper’s “Keeping Them Honest” segment. He reported that Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), formerly a co-sponsor of the motion to ratify the treaty, suddenly backed out even after meeting with former GOP Presidential candidate Bob Dole, a proponent of the measure.

The lawmakers declined an invitation to come onto the show to explain themselves, leaving Cooper to condemn their dishonesty:

COOPER: And keeping them honest, they used arguments that just frankly did not square with the facts. They weren’t true. [...] We can only guess their motivations, and frankly, some of this is just so baffling that we’d be taking wild guesses, and we just don’t want to do that.

Watch Cooper’s full segment here:

Prominent conservative groups, rallied by Rick Santorum, denounced the treaty on the false premise that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) would strip parents with disabled children of their rights. As a result of their efforts, though, the treaty failed by a mere five votes.

The Republicans who changed their votes have drawn widespread criticism from disabilities rights groups and Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to bring the treaty up for a vote in the next session of Congress.

Politics

Fox News Op-Ed Says Women’s Nature Is To Be Dominated By Men

Suzanne Venker

Fox News has published another sexist op-ed by Suzanne Venker, the author who became infamous for attacking a fictional “War on Men.” In the follow up piece, Venker argues that women are naturally men’s inferiors.

The author believes the crudest of crude gender stereotypes are built into male and female brains, arguing that women “like to gather and nest and take care of people” while men “are hunters: they like to build things and kill things.” As a consequence, she maintains a man’s place is in the office; “his” woman should simply “surrender” to his rule:

[W]omen shouldn’t let their success in the workplace become the biggest thing in their lives. If the ultimate goal is lasting love – and let’s face it: for most people it is – women are going to have to become comfortable with sacrifice and capitulation.

Surrendering to your femininity means many things. It means letting your man be the man despite the fact that you’ve proven you’re his equal. It means recognizing the fact that you may very well want to stay home with your babies – and that that’s normal. Surrendering to your femininity means if you do work outside the home, you don’t use your work to play tit for tat in your marriage. It means tapping into that part of yourself that’s genuinely vulnerable and really does need a man – even though the culture says you don’t.

In other words, put down your sword. It’s okay if your guy’s in charge. It’s okay if you don’t drive the car. In fact, it’s rather liberating.

These views are not supported by modern neuroscience, which finds that brain differences between men and women are hard to pinpoint and often a result of social pressures rather than biology. Moreover, the reason that many women are unhappy with their worklives is more about institutionalized sexism than some innate need to be cared for by a strong man.

Venker’s justification for unequal gender roles, “men and women are different,” literally harkens back a hundred years: one of the main arguments advanced against women’s suffrage was that it “wasn’t natural” for women to participate in public life outside of the home. And though Venker says with no sense of irony that she believes women are “equal, but different,” views like hers are strongly associated with excusing domestic violence and gender discrimination.

Fox News has a storied history of using its megaphone to broadcast sexism. Host Brian Kilmeade has said on-air that “Women are everywhere. We’re letting them play golf and tennis now. It’s out of control” and that the network hires female anchors by going “into the Victoria’s Secret catalogue and [saying], ‘Can any of these people talk?’”

Politics

National Rifle Association: More Guns Could Have Saved Javon Belcher’s Girlfriend

Javon Belcher and Kasandra Perkins

NBC sports anchor Bob Costas believes that Kasandra Perkins’ life could have been saved had her boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs Linebacker Javon Belcher, not had access to a firearm. The CEO of the National Rifle Association, on the other hand, thinks the situation might have resolved itself had both Belcher and Perkins had guns.

CEO Wayne LaPierre made the case on NRA News, arguing that Costas, “wouldn’t have said a thing [after the shooting] if this woman had saved her life by having a firearm available from Jovan Belcher. He wouldn’t have said anything about it.” He later followed up the argument in an interview with USA Today:

“The one thing missing in that equation is that woman owning a gun so she could have saved her life from that murderer,” LaPierre told USA TODAY Sports on Thursday [...]

“Owning guns is a mainstream part of American culture and it’s growing every day. My God, there’s nothing more mainstream in this country than 100 million Americans who own firearms.”

Whether or not Perkins owned a gun, the woman was obviously unprepared for the sudden attack that ended her life last Saturday. Had she been armed, it’s possible the event could have become a shootout — further endangering the two onlookers to Perkins’ murder: The couple’s infant daughter, and Belcher’s mother.

Having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of both murders and suicides. According to the Brady Campaign, “A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.”

Put simply, Perkins was a victim of domestic violence by a man who was able to purchase guns that, until the incident occurred, LaPierre would have said were for self-protection. The two guns Belcher used (on himself and Perkins) were both obtained legally.

  • Comment Icon

Older

Switch to Mobile