State Reps. Goike, Forlini Break GOP Ranks, Vote Against Right-to-Work Bill
Macomb Township's state representatives were among six Republicans to vote against right-to-work legislation passed in the state House Thursday.
Photos
Macomb Township's representatives in the state House broke ranks with their Republican brethren Thursday, voting against right-to-work legislation now on the fast track to Gov. Rick Snyder’s desk.
Within hours of Snyder’s Dec. 6 call for a "workplace fairness and equity" bill, also called right to work, legislators began voting on House Bill 4054, Senate Bill 116 and House Bill 4003.
Looking for more news on this and other issues affecting Macomb Township? Get the Patch email newsletter.
The bills now move to the chamber opposite from where they originated and could be passed as soon as Tuesday, at which point Snyder said he would sign the chosen version into law, making Michigan the 24th right-to-work state.
The approved bill is slated to prohibit unions from collecting fees from nonunion workers, which opponents say would weaken organized labor’s ability to bargain for good wages while supporters say it would boost jobs.
Although this legislation would cover both the public and private sectors, there would be an exception for police and firefighters.
While Bill 4054 passed the House by a 58-52 vote Thursday, six Republicans opposed the measure, including Macomb Township Reps. Anthony Forlini (R-District 24) and Ken Goike (R-District 33). All House Democrats also cast “no” votes.
“With my being in the private sector for 38 years and dealing with the unions, I know the issue firsthand,” said Goike, who was elected to his second term in November. “I have a big responsibility to the people in my district and what they were relaying to us via email, telephone and in person. Teachers, truck drivers, UAW members, construction workers and the whole realm of constituents in the 33rd District were very clear on their opinions and the majority are against it.”
Despite being an opponent of Proposal 2, a collective bargaining measure that failed in November, Goike said he couldn’t support right-to-work legislation.
“I wasn’t favorable to the idea that some employees will pay for collective bargaining rights while others won’t yet would still get the same benefit,” Goike said. “(District 33) is a predominantly blue collar district. They are in the working trades, but have conservative values like I do. I was sent to Lansing to represent them. I’ve heard from my constituents and that’s the reason I voted the way I did.”
See what your neighbors are saying about this issue in the comments below and on Facebook. You can share your thoughts here, or add your opinion to our Local Voices section.
As for the timetable in which this measure is expected to move through the legislative process, Goike said he is not altogether surprised by the speed, as this is an issue that has been brewing for decades.
“The whole issue of it is pretty cut and dry,” he said. “You’re either for it or against it. It’s been around for so many years it’s going to be contentious no matter what. Everybody’s minds were made up all along when they were elected into office.”
House representatives will likely vote on this legislation again Tuesday. Regardless of what changes made be made in that time, Goike said he plans to vote “no” again.
“It’s pretty black and white, this issue,” he added.
Rep. Forlini, who voted against the legislation proposed in the House, said he does not believe right-to-work is an issue that should be decided by legislators.
“It’s a divisive issue,” he said. “I’m not saying right-to-work doesn’t have merit, but I feel it would have been better as a ballot initiative. It shouldn’t be a Republican or Democratic issue just because one party or the other is in leadership. There are so many things to do in Lansing, it’s unfortunate this is pushing others aside.”
In the State Senate, Macomb Township's Sen. Jack Brandenburg voted with 22 of his fellow Republicans to pass Senate Bill 116 and House Bill 4003.
Frank Cusumano
1:44 pm on Friday, December 7, 2012
I agree with Ken and Tony Forlini. The GOP tent should include organized labor. On June 6, 1936 the GOP Party Platform had the following plank under "Labor" I advance that these economic times are as close to those in 1936 as you will ever see.
LABOR
The welfare of labor rests upon increased production and the prevention of exploitation. We pledge ourselves to:
Protect the right of labor to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of its own choosing without interference from any source. (EDITOR'S NOTE READ THIS TWICE)
Prevent governmental job holders from exercising autocratic powers over labor.
Support the adoption of state laws and interstate compacts to abolish sweatshops and child labor, and to protect women and children with respect to maximum hours, minimum wages and working conditions. We believe that this can be done within the Constitution as it now stands.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29639
Aaron Tuckfield
12:00 am on Sunday, December 9, 2012
Frank,
I took your advice on reading that sentence twice. I believe that "right to work" validates the stated belief. Right now, workers in a union CANNOT bargain through representatives of their own choosing: if they want to work at that location, they have to bargain through a union representative. They have no choice.
Although I am not sure that fact is enough for me to want RTW, but answer me this: what do we/workers lose if RTW is enacted?
Frank Cusumano
1:54 pm on Friday, December 7, 2012
One last thought on how far the GOP has come. Here are two other planks of the GOP 1936 Platform.
Security:
"Real security will be possible only when our productive capacity is sufficient to furnish a decent standard of living for all American families and to provide a surplus for future needs and contingencies. For the attainment of that ultimate objective, we look to the energy, self-reliance and character of our people, and to our system of free enterprise."
Tariff:
"Nearly sixty percent of all imports into the United States are now free of duty. The other forty percent of imports compete directly with the product of our industry. We would keep on the free list all products not grown or produced in the United States in commercial quantities. As to all commodities that commercially compete with our farms, our forests, our mines, our fisheries, our oil wells, our labor and our industries, sufficient protection should be maintained at all times to defend the American farmer and the American wage earner from the destructive competition emanating from the subsidies of foreign governments and the imports from low-wage and depreciated-currency countries."
How quickly we forget true GOP values. Read and educate yourself on where we were during the Great Depression, and why the GOP adopted this platform.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29639
Joyce Black
9:24 am on Saturday, December 8, 2012
I don't understand! "right to work" They are not saying the union can't organize they are saying they can't make a person join just to work at that shop or store. Why should'nt I have the right to choose if I want t be part on a union or not? Sounds like a pretty fair law. No one can force me to be part of somthing I don't want in order to be employed.
Russell D Salyers
11:51 am on Sunday, December 9, 2012
Right to work is divisive, it is a misnomer. It doesn't give a person the right to work, it gives them the right to derive benefit from those who pay into a union for the union to bargain with an employer. Such a person, would not pay union dues but the union is duty bound to fight on behalf of this freeloader if he/she is disciplined or fired. Tell me this, if right to work were not a divisive tool why aren't those who 'choose' not to be in the union, at-will employees free to make their own deal and be fired, hired and disciplined without union interference. If that were the case I would support what they are doing in Lansing.
Joyce Black
9:27 am on Saturday, December 8, 2012
I forgot to mention that the two Reps in Macomb won't be getting my vote again.
John
9:21 am on Monday, December 10, 2012
Because of the way they voted on legislation that you said you don't understand?
JCR
12:24 pm on Tuesday, December 11, 2012
How many reps do you vote for?
Russell D Salyers
11:53 am on Sunday, December 9, 2012
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Ken Goike will get my vote because he understands the issue.
Russell D Salyers
10:10 am on Monday, December 10, 2012
One more reason RTW is wrong. I you want to play poker, will the other players allow you to continue if you don't put in the ante? Basic unfairness is built into this law, unions must represent the worker while the majority pay, you, by law are allowed to freeload.
Donttreadonme
11:20 am on Monday, December 10, 2012
Finally, the union will not longer be able to extort money from me and then take that money go on lavish vacations and support political figures and ideas that most people do not want to support. I can't wait to see all the union figure heads standing in the un-employment line. I'll work out my own deal and keep the extra money to take my own vacation to Vegas.
Russell D Salyers
5:34 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
You sir, should have your freedom to not pay dues. You should also have the freedom to not be represented by anyone unless you pay an attorney. The problem with this legislation is that it still requires the unions to represent you. I say, give them the freedom to not belong and make their own deal. I just don't want to pay for freeloaders.
Rick Shoup
12:04 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
We used to have a motto years ago: 8 hrs pay for 8 hrs work. Since the labor unions got their greedy hands involved businesses have employees that goof off on the job without worrying about losing their job just because they pay unions to threaten to strike if they try to fire a slacker. Getting rid of a bad employee is harder than getting rid of a hair in a biscuit.We have a president that thinks the rich should pay their fair share but promotes unions that think their workers do not have to do their fair share.Pay should be based on merit not Union pressure.
Mike
3:42 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
Along the lines of unions. . . in the 80's and 90's when automotive companies were having troubles, the "union mentality" was a major contributor to the quality problems and then sales problems the car companies faced. Not all union workers are "bad" but I have yet to see an industry where there weren't problems that being in a union brought about. Nurses, automotive, plant, electrical, automotive technicians, Food workers (UFCW),etc. I've never seen such protectionism. I even worked at a GM Tech Center building and if I wanted to carry in a "box" of my personal belongings, I had to have it shipped to the shipping dock and a "union" worker brought it to me. Only problem was that it was 4-6 business days later. Yeah, I need a union worker for that. No thanks. .. Bring on RTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 99% of their arguments are to protect their turf or their political candidate. It's been an unfair advantage that democratic candidates have had for years and now that there's a republican advantage, they cry foul when their "turf" is upset.
eric goosen
1:24 pm on Tuesday, December 11, 2012
RINO's
Kevin Karwowicz
12:49 am on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
"Our government culture is broken. I have watched while government gets bigger and takes more of our hard-earned money. As government grows, our freedoms shrink. Government cannot be allowed to take over private sector functions, especially the economy. People create jobs, not the government! I have encountered the mindless regulations that burden businesses and stifle job growth."
From Ken Goike's website and political fliers!
He claims he represents the voters of his District (per above article) whom clearly said NO to Proposal 2 on a 2 to 1 margin in November! It seems your loyalty was more to "Labor International Union of North America" (Claim past membership on your website), then the VOTERS whom elected you. You have officially lost my support.