Obama opposes proposed "right to work" measures in Michigan

Comments (44)

oh no!, say it aint so! you joking right?! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dec 10, 2012 3:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kkong164 wrote:

Obama demonstrates, once again, he has no clue about economics and his desire to pander to his fawning fans.

Dec 10, 2012 3:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

obama’s stance on this purely political and represents a MINORITY, of course, of the workers in this country. Simple, he is telling people they do NOT have a right to work. Bring on the cliff and let the charity generation starve.

Dec 10, 2012 3:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Right on!! This is the way to get votes by promising that voters don’t have to do anything but sit on their fat bumpers, to get goodies. I am surprised by Mr O’Bama though. He is not worried about votes now…so why pander to the lowest of the low ways to getting votes?

Dec 10, 2012 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whatsnew wrote:

Like any tyrant Obama’s moto is submit to my rule or starve. Obama views people as peasants needing to be controled (for their own good of course). Right to work in no way weakens a union. If being in a union is so good, unions shouldn’t have to FORCE people to join. Unions are using the same thuggery and coercive tactics companies used 100 years ago.
Obama supports taking away a persons right to Choose. Force you to join a union, force you to buy insurance, force you to…. Obama is not a president that belives in individual freedoms.

Dec 10, 2012 3:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
frediano wrote:

RightToWork = free association.

NoRightToWOrk = forced association.

Obama is entirely consistent in his embrace of forced association.

Dec 10, 2012 3:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The right to work without paying somebody or some organization is a Constitutional right in America. Anyone who opposes this is truly not a supporter of free enterprise and an individual’s right to earn a living without have to pay into corrupt organizations, like unions, for that privilege. Naturally, Obama opposes this as his support comes from Unions as a way to pay him back for taking taxpayers money to keep undeserving corporations solvent. What else would you expect from the worse presiden in history? Unions are corrupt…if you doubt this, try “googling” UNION LEADERS CONVICTIONS and see what comes up. If you want to support a union, then you certainly have the right to do so; however if you choose not to support them, you have the right to refuse without losing your hard earned money. No person should be forced to pay for a job. Those Tamminay Hall politics died a hundred years ago. The Mich Gov is correct in supporting the Constitutional rights of individuals. There can be no opposition to this from any Patriotic American.

Dec 10, 2012 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

There he goes again. American citizens do NOT have the right to work in an obama america unless you pay up to his union thugs first. Pay his unionists if you want a job and then pay his insurance corporation buddies by law or be criminalized. Only the dumbest can’t see what he’s doing here.

Dec 10, 2012 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jabberwolf wrote:

Someone compared a union like unwanted dues until something happens and then you are really glad you have them — and compared that to the same thing as health insurance. But as you can see, Obama is making sure that decision is being made for you as well.
“its for your own good” !!
I though we didnt have Kings in the USA?!?

Dec 10, 2012 3:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Zindelis wrote:

The reason why Obama opposes this is because Unions give large donations to the Deomocrats every year. The less people forced to join a union means the less money that will be donated to the Democrats.

A good example of why unions are bad is the recent case with Hostess. The Union rather shut down and run the company out of business rather than take a pay cut. Its members even after the shut down saying we’d rather be on welfare/unemployement than to take the new proposed 35k a year.

I am willing to bet not all or evn a majority of those workers would have rather been jobless. I am betting many of them would have taken a pay cut. Then if the markert supported better pay (and benefits) elsewhere for the same work then the workers would have moved for those jobs. Instead we have a former U.S owned company owned by another nation.

Dec 10, 2012 3:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
crittertron wrote:

LOL, you are all fools, don’t you get it? Labor unions fought for a CENTURY to get the laws & worker’s rights that we ALL enjoy, like 40 hour weeks, minimum pay, health care, vacation, worker’s comp etc. If these “right to work” laws are passed in an economy with a labor surplus you can kiss all of that goodbye. What on earth makes you think companies will maintain decent labor treatment voluntarily? We’ll all be scrapping 75 hours a week for poverty wages by the end of the decade if the Republicans have their way.

Dec 10, 2012 4:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

You righties/Obama haters done with your righteous indignation yet?

Obama is not a ‘tyrant’ and there is not a ‘charity generation’, do you all not even understand that by using these terms you are making it so reasonable will not listen to your overall point, no matter what the validity of it is?

Dec 10, 2012 4:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

crittertron you are the fool. no one should have to be forced to pay a portion of their blood sweat and tears into an organization if they don’t want to. it’s called freedom of choice. your attempt at scare tactics falls woefully short of reality. you want the best products, you hire the best folks. if you don’t too bad on you you won’t be in business long. this is how the capitalist cycle works no matter how much people like obama try to retard it.

Dec 10, 2012 4:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GeorgeBrown wrote:

“It is one of the characteristics of a free and democratic nation that it have free and independent labor unions.”


“Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours, and provided supplemental benefits. Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor.”


Dec 10, 2012 4:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

Sometimes reuters commments really help to further the discussion, providing facts and viewpoints, sometime via links, that are not discussed in the original article. Today, not so much.
Nice job Reuters giving no explanation whatsoever of what these right-to-work measures actually do.
Unions are not perfect but if you want to learn about corporate union busting, read about “The battle of the overpass”. Without unions, corporations get big tax consessions based on promises for good paying jobs, then make their profits by cutting workers pay whenever they can get away with it(see twinkies).
It’s not purely political payback, somebody has to stand up for workers rights, and it can’t all be left up to the charity of corporations. They don’t care about you.

Dec 10, 2012 5:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ballsy wrote:

And in 2016, when the economy is dead and the dollar is useless, he will still blame it all on Bush.

Dec 10, 2012 5:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@ballsy, the dollar is worth more now then it was when Obama took office.

Refer to my previous post, if you keep crying about EVERYTHING Obama does without basing your complaints in reality, no one will take you seriously when you actually might have a valid point.

Dec 10, 2012 5:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

It is laws like this “Right to Work,” law that will drive all in America into a slave nation. Look at every state that has so called “Right to Work” laws and you will see the majority of workers making minimum or sub-minimum wages. I know because I grew up in such states.

The Republican servants of Corporations would have you believe Unions are evel and that they need to be wiped out. People need to realize that because of Unions, we have worker safety laws, we have worker group health insurance programs, etc. Without Unions, the Republicans will next go after minimum wage laws (there are some who are already advocating abolishing minimum wages), we will lose social security, we will lose medicare. If we are lucky they will next bring back Debter Prisons.

Yet through all their brain washing programs, they are convincing people that Unions are Evel and must go. Well good luck. For once Unions are gone, you can forever forget making a living wage.

We do not always get the government we want, but through ignorance we will get the government we deserve.

Dec 10, 2012 5:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
altalks21 wrote:

The Unions are the Last Line of Defense for all working, union, middle class. They help keep businesses in check, so that they act in fairness with their employees. Unions should represent all non-union workers, to lift them up from slave wages.

Dec 10, 2012 6:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

Hey if you don’t want to work in a union shop or a portion of you dues going to support Democrats that might support union beliefs then DON’T APPLY FOR A JOB THERE.

Go work somewhere else where they are not unionized.

My gosh it’s like you get a job in a Flower Shop then complain that you don’t like the smell of flowers.

It’s not like they HIDE that fact when your apply or go for an interview that there is a union representing the employees of that company.

And calling laws like this Right to Work is just sick joke.

If I’m afraid of heights and wide open spaces do you think I’m going to apply for a maintenence job on the Mackinaw Bridge?

Dec 10, 2012 6:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

“They help keep businesses in check, so that they act in fairness with their employees.”

Isn’t that what the 18 million employment laws are for? So.. by saying Unions are needed, you are saying that government is ineffective all the same then.

Dec 10, 2012 6:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

“We’ll all be scrapping 75 hours a week for poverty wages by the end of the decade if the Republicans have their way.”

Again, what of government and their laws? You’d be getting 35 hours at time and half a week then, at at least minimum wage…

Funny how the same people who say ‘more government’ – also say how we NEED unions – because government laws won’t do the trick…

Unions are good, but it should never be required of a person to have a specific affiliation with an organization as a requirement to work, should it? What if a workplace said you had to be a member of a specific church to work? You hardcore lefties would be beside yourselves in rage!!!

Dec 10, 2012 6:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

“Go work somewhere else where they are not unionized.”

But it’s ok to ban smoking in places – and not just ‘ok to go work somewhere else…’ – wasn’t that the anti-smoking claim? About ‘worker safety and choice’?

Again – a dual standard.

Dec 10, 2012 6:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

Like smoking and a shop be unionized have anything do with each other.


Dec 10, 2012 6:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

You do realize JFK died 50 years ago. Also he and Bobby were quite the advisaries of Hoffa. The unions are not the same now by any measure. JFK and Bobby would shut them down…if they could. It is easy to tell they are unAmerican. obama supports them. JFK and Bobby, not to mention Dr. King would NOT support obama, no doubt in my mind.

Dec 10, 2012 7:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

Obama supports gay rights, women’s rights, voters rights, illegal alien rights (to become “citizens”), and I’m sure I left out a few. But he can’t seem to support the right of individuals to choose if they want to be a part of a union or not? No, instead, President Obama would gladly force workers to be a part of a union since the union bosses helped back his re-election and sway votes. Amazing! This president is an arrogant parasite.

Dec 10, 2012 7:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

As long as Big Corp employers can enjoy monopoly, and influence and buy Legislators and their preferential representation, the right of employees to collectively bargain should be protected. It a necessary balance.

Dec 10, 2012 7:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
r.u.crazy wrote:

Why would anyone, especially the president, oppose a person’s right to work? He’s only serious about bankrupting this nation with his economic policies. Thanks America, for re-electing the dumbest person on the planet back into office.

Dec 10, 2012 7:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hapibeli wrote:

The right wing corporate flunky “right to worker” on this site are so yesterday in their thought processes. The anti union sentiment always comes from ignorance or the greed of the merchant classes. “Here, let me pay you $5/hour with no benefits, 1/2 day off on Sunday, unless the “need of the company” demand 7 days a week. Then when you need time off because you or your family is dying, our company will just fire you because your obviously inefficient. Oh, and BTW, I as the company owner will take my weekends and vacations to the islands whenever I need a rest. Why? Because YOU have the “right to work”! Now aren’t you grateful to me of the merchant class?”

Dec 10, 2012 9:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GArnold wrote:

This is great, he’s back on the campaign trail whipping up the UAW; the group most responsible for Detroit and surrounding areas going into the toilet.
All the stimulus package did for the automakers was stabilize the UAW pension fund and didn’t do jack squat for the communities in MI, and OH. The rest of the country can’t get a break and BHO is back to pimping BS to the union which is little more than an exclusive boy’s and girl’s club.

Dec 10, 2012 9:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gigimoderate wrote:

How dare our President side with unions, a organization of WORKERS formed for the purpose of advancing its members interests in RESPECT TO WAGES, BENEFITS AND WORKING CONDITIONS! Yes otherwise the middle class like our firefighters, policeman, school teachers, auto workers, etc. and our beloved post office that the republicans are trying to bankrupt (making them pre fund their retirement of people they haven’t hired yet) plus the republicans hate our collection stamps because some are conservation stamps and humane society stamps and you know how the hate conservation and saving animals! NRA having fits….they hate the USPS

Dec 10, 2012 11:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@GArnold, The downfall of the American auto-industry was poor decisions by CEO’s in deciding to create and sell unreliable and unsafe vehicles. After turning out junk for decades, the spectacular Japanese cars took customers in mass. Japanese cars have been made in the US since the early 80′s.

Dec 10, 2012 11:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

The problem is the job creators have won. We will all be fighting for jobs that pay a lot less, have no pensions and little to no benefits. GLOBALIZATION means they can send almost any job to low cost labor. It isnt just mfg either. It includes the jobs that were supposed to replace all the mfg jobs that were lost. High tech and business professional positions are being shipped at an even faster rate. The next step they are taking is to make immigration into a H1B via issue. They will then bring low cost labor to our shores for the jobs that must be done here. After that, I guess it is welcome to wal-mart for the rest of us.

Dec 11, 2012 12:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

r.u.crazy wrote:
“Why would anyone, especially the president, oppose a person’s right to work?”

They are not.

Anybody who wants to work can work. They just have to comply with the attached terms and conditions. If they don’t like the attached terms and conditions, they can choose to work somewhere else. That too is their right.

Dec 11, 2012 6:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Overcast451 wrote:
“Isn’t that what the 18 million employment laws are for? ”

Laws can easily be changed.

I have to ask though. Why do you have such touching faith in the goodwill and altruism of government and employers?

Dec 11, 2012 6:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Right to work laws does not eliminate unions. It allows people to not have to join a union if they don’t want to. Unions don’t want workers to have that right.

Dec 11, 2012 12:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

Citizens have the right to choose if they believe a union advances their interests or not. President Obama is against worker choice, despite being pro-choice in every other issue. He is a hypocrite who is only after the advancement of himself and his party.

Dec 11, 2012 1:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

I’m not sure about these right to work laws. I can see giving people a choice on whether or not they join. It would be up to the unions to convince them it is worth it. But, how does this effectwho the companies decide to hire? Maybe this would open the door for companies to discriminate and only hire people who agree to NOT join the unions? Should we trust these ceo’s and board members to do what is right by their employees? That’s a huge stretch if you ask me. As far as public sector unions, I do see the conflict in interest there. The pensions and benefits that are offered for these jobs were originally done because the private sector paid more and offered a better economic future. That is obviously no longer the case via the effects of globalization and massive outsourcing. It truly has become a race to the bottom. It’s time for the public sector to switch to 401ks and bigger contributions to their insurance plans like the rest of us. We can’t afford them any longer.

Dec 11, 2012 2:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

The press doesn’t talk about this much, but the GOP has made huge gains in just about every state legislature and governor’s office. They now have nearly 30 governorships. Why? States have to balance their books and right now, most voters trust the local GOP to do that. Right to work laws and limiting public union power are the keys to the states balancing current and future budgets (heck, even big spending Democrats in states like RI and NY are starting to figure this out). Sure, national GOP leaders are borderline incompetent, but the local guys are getting things done. Hopefully we’ll get some of these fiscally responsible guys into Washington, DC someday and give Boehner, McConnell and others the boot.

Dec 11, 2012 4:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

fromthecenter wrote:
“I can see giving people a choice on whether or not they join.”

I agree with most of your points, but here you are getting distracted by the Republican red-herring.

It is not a question of whether people should have a choice of joining a union or not, but of whether people should have a choice of benefiting from the advantages of collective bargaining, without contributing to the collective.

As things stand at the moment, the ‘right to work’ is essentially the ‘right to be a freeloader’. It would only be a genuine choice if those who chose not to join the union also lost all the pay rates and benefits negotiated by the union, and instead had to start from scratch and negotiate their own.

Dec 12, 2012 5:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

Why can’t the company and the union agree to apply negotiated raises and benefits only to union members? I’m confident we are smart enough to put in practices to protect against “free-loading” without forced union membership. Restricting freedoms is almost always the easiest way to “solve” problems, but not necessary the best way.

Dec 12, 2012 9:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

Here in a right to work state, BMW came down and built a factory years ago (to be fair: right-to-work wasn’t the only reason they came). They wanted to attract good quality workers, so they offered better wages and benefits than the competition. Those jobs are highly sought after by blue collar workers down here. They have a low turnover. As a result, other companies now have to offer higher wages – if they don’t, then they have to deal with higher worker turnover. All this was done without a union.

Dec 12, 2012 9:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:


Wage equality laws, designed to protect women and coloured folk, make it complicated.

The USA is not noted as a great place for wage equality (ranks 68th), and as Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act in June this year it is unlikely to get any better, but at least in theory the non-union member could claim unfair discrimination if he/she were paid less for doing the same job.

Dec 12, 2012 10:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

Does the wage equality ranking take into account cost of living? As you know, the cost of living in many right-to-work states (especially in the southeast) is signicantly less than your typical unionized big city (Chicago, NY, etc)

Dec 13, 2012 4:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.