Michigan Senate Passes Resolution against Union Reform Law

The Michigan State Senate Passed A Resolution Against the Employee Free Choice Act

On Thursday, the Michigan Senate passed a resolution against the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act–which is currently pending before the US House of Representatives–would reform labor laws to make it easier for workers to form unions. The resolution was approved 20-16 along party lines.

The Michigan Senate resolution was sponsored by West Michigan Republican Mark Jansen. In a press release, Jansen said that the primary reason for sponsoring the resolution was to support the right to a secret ballot, which opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act have argued is eliminated under the Employee Free Choice Act.

However, advocates of the Employee Free Choice Act have pointed out that despite the “secret ballot” available under current labor law, the system is far from democratic. Moreover, they point out that under the Employee Free Choice Act workers can decide to either use elections or majority sign-up. Republicans and their business allies have argued that these changes would allow union organizers to intimidate or coerce workers into voting in support of a union, but they have largely ignored the fact that under current law employers routinely intimidate workers seeking to form unions.


Author: mediamouse

Grand Rapids independent media // mediamouse.org

4 thoughts on “Michigan Senate Passes Resolution against Union Reform Law”

  1. This is incredibly disappointing, although I wouldn’t expect anything else from Michigan’s Republicans. EFCA would strengthen the middle and lower class of this country considerably by increasing union membership, but the last thing Republicans want is corporate executives’ ability to dictate the terms under which workers work to be weakened.

    In These Times magazine’s cover story last month was on EFCA.


  2. I am a bit bothered by this. We are able to cast a secret ballot for any politician who decides to run for any elected office, yet the same politicians cannot grant this right to people who want a Union. Any employer who is truly dedicated to his or her employees should not have any fear about this. Any employer who is against this might be viewed as someone who wants cheap labor and no one to stand up for the rights of the employees. Any elected official who agrees with this cares more about the employers who support them financially and not the employees who vote for them.

    I can understand that right now anyone employed has thoughts first and foremost about having a job in today’s economy. They are fearful about losing their job which puts the employer in a position of power to do whatever he wants to intimidate people. I am retired (medical field and non-union)and old enough to worry that we might return to the old era of sweatshops and go backward in caring for our workers so that CEO’s can claim profits on the backs of employees.

    My Dad was a Union member who worked very hard so that I might attend college yet I have never forgotten my roots and remember how much his Union brothers cared about all members and their families and fought for respect and honor in what they did. To return to an era of no Unions would return us to an era of the past where ordinary citizens were used only for the promotion of their bosses and financial gain with no representation for the employees.

    Before anyone casts stones on Union members, I would like to ask anyone reading this how many of you are blessed with great jobs which have financial rewards and how many of you came from a father, mother or grandparents who were Union members who worked hard to see that you had this opportunity.

  3. I’m presuming it has no force whatsoever on law or code. But I imagine it’s useful or, at least, considered useful for political posturing and being a part of the historical record. In this case, I hope it’s about as useful as an old dusty tome o’ laws. ; )

Comments are closed.