The Right Opinion

Misdirected Anger

By Michael Reagan · Dec. 13, 2012

All those union thugs who were rioting in Michigan Tuesday were angry about the wrong thing.

They were demonstrating – which in union-speak means breaking things and punching people – against Michigan's decision to become a right-to-work state.

If you believe the union spin, or the mainstream liberal media's spin, or the Obama spin, which all come from the same propaganda factory, that means Michigan no longer cares about workers, the right to organize, living wages, etc., etc.

But what Michigan's new law really means is that the voters and a majority of the politicians in the state have miraculously decided that a citizen's freedom of choice should extend to the freedom to be able to choose not to join a union.

What a concept.

It's a great step forward for a troubled state that has seen its signature industry crippled to the point of near extinction by unions that had too much power over the lives of workers, American carmakers, politicians and the economy.

If those union thugs and their allies in the Democrat Party really had a clue, they would have been demonstrating – peacefully, if that's possible – against what has happened to the once-great, but now pathetic, city of Detroit.

The statistics are staggering. Detroit – a union town if America ever made one – is a socialist hell on wheels.

Its city government is broke and nearly $50 million in the red, in part because it pays $1.08 in benefits to municipal workers and retirees for every $1 it pays in salaries.

Its population has fallen from 1.8 million in 1950 to about 700,000 as of 2011, and too many of the Detroiters who are left don't pay taxes, don't form traditional two-parent families, don't have jobs and aren't interested in having one.

Of the roughly 224,000 residents who actually have a job, only 190,000 work in the private sector. A third of the populace is on food stamps. Oh, and 99,000 of Detroit's 363,000 housing units are vacant.

Welcome to Obamaville – and the future Obama America.

If Michigan's union thugs want to demonstrate about something beyond their own economic interests as seen through the lens of union fundraising, they might try raising a fist to the sorry state of education in Detroit.

Among students in city schools recently exiting eighth grade, only 7 percent are “proficient” in reading and only 4 percent are “proficient” in math.

Maybe the unions are happy with those shameful numbers, because they will be guaranteed a steady supply of uneducated kids who are only qualified to join a union.

But what were all those parents doing, supporting the union thugs and excusing thousands of schoolteachers who took the day off in solidarity? Those parents, if they had a common-sense proficiency in double digits, would be protesting the lousy education their kids are getting.

It's interesting to see the left go wild in the streets to protest Michigan's giant step for greater worker freedom.

It seems the left only wants you to have freedom of choice when you're pregnant. After you give birth to the child, it's those on the left – not the right – that want to deny your freedom to choose, whether it's a school for your kid, the size of your soft drink, or to be in a union.

Michigan is going the right way – the opposite of the Obama Way that has doubled America's homeless population to 636,000 and jacked up our food stamp population to 47 million.

Detroit has been destroyed by its own bad governments and the kind of federal policies Obama wants to expand. It may be beyond saving, except for growing crops where neighborhoods once were.

But Michigan has taken a dramatic step toward resurrecting its industrial economy. It's no longer a union-made state.

It's a state where freedom of choice extends to people who will no longer be forced to join a union or pay dues to a bunch of thugs who'll spend it to elect more presidents like the one we're stuck with now.

Copyright ©2012 Michael Reagan


rab in jo,mo said:

As a native Detroiter, it pisses me off to see what has happened to my hometown. Years of Coleman Young blaming "white devils" and the "hostile suburbs" for all of Detroit's problems (while robbing the city coffers) created the ultimate entitlement attitude. Ensuing city "leaders" continued the Young model and now there's nothing left.

Where once there was an excellent public school system and plenty of jobs, there is now high illiteracy and unemployment. City services that were once some of the best in the country, are nearly non-existent.
Detroit - a good place to be from...

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Rod in USA replied:

I could easily mistake this piece for yet another hatchet job on the City of Detroit. Even Detroiters find their city council to be absolutely pathetic.

However, it is really a compelling indictment against the concept of corrupt, greedy, power hungry union bosses who seek not to represent their workers as much as they seek to do other stupid things that don't benefit workers. It is also an indictment of all liberal policies.

I would also add that it is interesting to see: Gov Blanchard spent the MI government into massive debt and John Engler fixed it. Then Gov Jennifer ("marketeer", "spin-doctor extraordinaire") Granholm trashed it again. I recall one time she was blaming the previous administration for her budget woes (sound familiar) and chopping some budget items, and the next day going out on the stump to justify another brand new welfare-like entitlement program we did not need. Whenever Paul W Smith had her on WJR, I turned the channel before she opened her mouth. When democrats speak, take everything with a grain of salt and hold onto your wallet. They are about to take your hard earned cash and spend it on stupid stuff we do not need and cannot afford.

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Doktor Riktor Von Zhades in Western KY said:

I recall a conversation I had some 35+ years ago when I first started working. A union rep ( and to be honest he was a pretty good fellow all in all), came up to me and said;

"Hey, I hear your Mr. W's son. Good man, good man, we've worked together many time, and resolved many issues. So, my advice right off the bat, sign up for the union" I asked for a reason, and he said; " representation in all matters", I replied, do I still get represented if I don't join? To which he said, and I quote; " Well yes, yes you do, but the QUALITY, of that representation, will be greatly diminished. "

Rather gentle intimidation, no?

Thus is my dos centavos.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Rod in USA replied:

You know he was talking that the union coffers would be absent your cash and thus less power. I am sure it could be interepreted as intimidation almost regarldess of how it was delivered.

These union dopes don't really get it: If the union was a) sticking to representing me (and not spending the money they took from me on things and candidates I oppose, things that don't directly involve representing me), and b) not presuming that management was evil in all things...... well, there might not have to be a concept of a right to work state.

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:38 PM

wjm in Colorado said:

Once upon a time, if it had a union label, it meant quality. Now it means it probably has a shelf life of about a week before it falls apart. If it is Union Made, in Anything, I don't want it. As those who are able and self sufficient flee Detroit, the Muslims move in and creat their own Sharia controlled area, as they have done in France. I wouldn't go through Detroit without a large militia..

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Tex Horn in Texas said:

Throughout history, unions have typically been made up of socialist types under the guise of the Worker's Party, much like the Karl Marx approach to socialism. Am I concerned with those who are socialist? May they rot in their own filth which they have created. Detroit and cities like it have become the underbelly of America, living off the rest of us, and complaining that they don't have enough. For those that are leaving, please don't come to Texas with your socialist ideas. We have enough stupid people here already, from other socialist states like California and New Jersey.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Miss Kitty in Missouri replied:

That's one of the things I'm worried about - progressives ruining their states and moving to conservative states, then ruining them.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Alex in NJ replied:


Friday, December 14, 2012 at 4:48 AM

Rod in USA replied:

I don't have progressive ideas (not even close), but I am not coming to TX. Your border is too pourous.

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:47 PM

lustyg in Wi. in Wisconsin said:

When you go to work in Mich. and refuse to join the union you had better be wearing your football helmet and cast iron shorts. Think about it.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Rod in USA replied:

Not a lot different than Wisconsin.

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Joe in Texas said:

The unions' reason for being irate is that non-union members at Company A will benefit from the progress that the unions fight for, without having to pay dues. Sure, that seems to make sense.

You know what makes better sense? Unions having no power in a state like Texas, where employers still offer excellent benefits to workers. It's in the employers best interest to offer good pay, insurance, retirement, etc or workers will just look for another employer that does. Hence, companies get to hire good, competitive workers!

And since they're not in unions, it's in the best interest of the worker to work hard, efficiently, etc to keep their job, so then the business sees success! Then? Company and workers are REWARDED!!!!

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

One of the Unions biggest gripes against right-to-work is the mantra that your employer can fire you anytime he wants too. Also, seniority goes out the window because the employer doesn't have to follow a guideline when deciding who goes and who stays. What the idiots can't get through their heads is that any employer is going to keep their best people when it comes to downsizing. The unions want to keep the status quo where it is almost impossible to fire a union worker no matter how incompetent or lazy they are. If a worker is not doing the work he is hired for then the employer should have the option of letting them go. No more protection by the unions to keep their thugs on the payroll.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM