Michigan protests unlikely to stop "right-to-work" laws

Comments (4)
EdgePrice1978 wrote:

The President needs to allow states to make their own decisions not undermine them unless they go against federal law. Which this one does not. He is campaigning rather than doing the job he was re elected for, and let us look at the mistakes of Solyndra and the Battery plant were he touted them as away to bring back employment, instead Solyndra went bankrupt on our money and the Battery Plant technology was bought by the Chinese. Wasted money that could have gone to really helping the American People went into the pockets of his buddies at Solyndra who supported his election! The money made thru the bankruptcy goes first to the private investors. A prior restructuring deal allowed private investors to be repaid before taxpayers. We are in this project to the tune of $528 million.

Battery Plant in Michigan funded by President Obama who touted it in 2010 as evidence “manufacturing jobs are coming back to the United States,” but two years later, a Michigan hybrid battery plant built with $150 million in taxpayer funds is putting workers on furlough before a single battery has been produced.

American Battery A123 has been sold to Chinese
A123 vowed to create 3,000 jobs by the end of 2012, but has just 1,300 new jobs. It won $249.1 million in federal grants in 2009 to build plants in Romulus and Livonia, but has spent $132 million. It got more than $125 million in tax credits from the state.

He touts unions but can’t even spend our taxpayer money wisely. So much of our Stimulus money has gone to bankrupt people and companies. Great first 4 years Mr. President, wonder what the next 4 will bring with your track record as a country we will be bankrupt by 2016 even if you increase the taxes on the rich 10 fold!

Dec 10, 2012 8:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Laker12 wrote:

Detroit and Michigan has a choice, they can either approve the right to work or keep on the track they are on, which is the right to go bankrupt.

Dec 10, 2012 8:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ronMc wrote:

My perspective on unions was forever cast when I worked two summers for Chrysler in the mid-60s. UAW members constantly sabotaged car parts, bragging that this showed management that the UAW couldn’t be bullied. Even as a teenager back then, I realized that this would only lead to poor customer experiences and eventual bankruptcy on the part of US auto manufacturers. Sure enough, US consumers got tired of constant quality problems with cars made by UAW members, and all three US car manufacturers’ market has continued to drop ever since. Obama has unfortunately chosen to kowtow to the UAW instead of showing real leadership. For me, and for most intelligent consumers, we’ll continue buying cars made by non-union firms until the UAW changes its tune.

Dec 10, 2012 8:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ccharles wrote:

What makes the union think it has a right to make a work force union only. What is fair about that? They should make the people want to be in the union, and not make them be in the union to get the job. Everytime I have been forced to be in a union because it necessary for the job, i have never felt like the union was there for me, only there to take my “dues”, which came right out of your check. Right to work is fair, not favoring either union or non union.

Dec 10, 2012 8:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.