So do you think it's fair for a union to force a worker to give up part of his pay?
-No one is forced to give up part of his pay since no one is forced to seek employment at any particular place BTW,Union jobs pay more, about 15% more after dues have been paid, on average, than non-union jobs. So you would rather make $100.00 a day with no union dues than make $115.00 after union dues are paid?
Is it really gov't telling you how to run a business if they just say you can't force someone to do that?
Yes. How is it OK for the government to say that a business owner has to operate under this rule? There are some very good reasons why a business owner may want to demand union membership. So, basically you are saying that the government needs to step in and stop this; to force companies to operate their business by legislative dictate? Historically, BIG business like the auto companies and major chains like Walmart, etc. are the ones who oppose this. In fact, the smaller the company, the more likely the owners are to support unions. http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/executive_inbox/2010/06/surprise-entrepreneurs-have-a.php
I see it as looking out for workers rights. If I got a job where there is a union what right do they have to take my money if I don't want to join?
-No one is forced to join since no one is forced to seek employment at any particular place.
The real issue though is that the jobs are going to right to work states, there's no denying that, so we can watch them all leave and open up down south and out west, or we can try and get them to come here. It seems to me the hostile union environment of MI doesn't seem to be too good for new business growth.
-Actually, a number of studies have shown that RTW laws have little effect on job growth IF one controls for state's tax rates and cost of living. In fact, one study even finds that climate (weather) has a larger influence than either cost of living ot RTW laws. Michigan's problem is purely that it's Small Business Tax structure is terrible.