Michigan formally became a right-to-work state on March 28.

Compared to the vociferous outrage by union members and their supporters in front of the state Capitol Building on Dec. 6 – five days before Gov. Rick Snyder signed the RTW bill into law – the events were comparatively quiet.

Union members were encouraged by the state AFL-CIO to wear red on March 28 that day to show their disdain for right-to-work. Snyder was met with protestors outside the Detroit Athletic Club, where he addressed a $75 per-plate “Pancakes and Politics” breakfast. Other protests were held that day in Lansing (a silent protest), East Lansing (an evening candlelight vigil), and in Pontiac and Utica.

“Thousands of people will participate statewide to send a singular message:  ‘right to work is temporary.  Solidarity is forever,’ ” said a statement from the Michigan AFL-CIO. “The way that RTW passed through the legislature was unprecedented and illegal.  Never before has any law been rushed through the lame duck session without public comment while citizens were locked out of their Capitol Building. These laws are about lowering Michigan’s wages, benefits and safety standards for the profit of corporate special interests.  Those who claim RTW will create jobs cannot cite any credible evidence.”

According to Gongwer News Service, a survey of likely Michigan voters – by a group supporting RTW – found that 49 percent of likely voters support the state’s new RTW law, while 44 percent oppose it. But “support drops” the report said, “when respondents are subsequently told those opting not to join the union still receive all the benefits of those who do.”

Basically, a right-to-work law allows workers to enjoy the benefits of a collectively bargained contract, without paying union dues. No country club, chamber of commerce or tax-collecting government would allow members or taxpayers not to pay dues – but that’s what been imposed on Michigan’s unions.

The March 28 date was also significant in that it was a deadline for local school districts, governments and universities to approve contracts with bargaining units before the RTW law took effect. At least 41 school districts and five colleges did just that, allowing them to evade the effects of right-to-work for a few more years.

Schools that did so with terms outside the norm – some agreements were for more than eight years – infuriated state House Republicans. They accused those unions and their management of trying to evade the will of the state law – even though it was not in effect at the time of the contract signing. As retribution, the GOP lawmakers adopted a measure that requires boards of education to prove the pre-RTW contracts provide a savings of at least 10 percent to taxpayers. Otherwise, universities would see their appropriations cut 15 percent, community colleges would lose 2 percent of funding, and technology funds, performance grants and revenue sharing would be withheld from K-12 schools.

That retribution measure faces an uncertain future in the state Senate and the governor, of course, has not indicated whether he would or would not sign it.

Zach Pohl of Progress Michigan called the GOP strategy to threaten to withhold money  “outrageous.” He added: “The law is crystal clear that RTW will not impact any collective bargaining agreement that is approved by March 27. It’s time for politicians in Lansing to stop attacking union workers and start protecting the middle class.”

Michigan AFL-CIO President Karla Swift said unions are fighting back. “So-called right-to-work laws take effect today,” Swift said. “But make no mistake about it, working families will ensure that their labor movement outlasts these destructive policies.

“The way that right-to-work passed through the Legislature was unprecedented and illegal. Never before has any law been rushed through the lame-duck session without public comment while citizens were locked out of their Capitol Building.

“The Michigan State AFL-CIO has joined a lawsuit led by the Michigan ACLU challenging the right-to-work law on the basis of our state’s Open Meetings Act. We believe that case has a strong chance of winning, and we are also filing a separate suit on the grounds that these right-to-work laws overstep their jurisdiction.”