Michigan’s Freedom to Work Law Dies in 2024

Michigan's Freedom to Work laws DOD 1-1-24

KOMORN LAW

STATE and FEDERAL
Aggressive Legal Defense
All Criminal Allegations / DUI / Drugs
Since 1993

Michigan’s Freedom to Work Law Dies in 2024

In February, Michigan’s right-to-work law will be repealed, marking a significant milestone as the state becomes the first in decades to overturn a union-restricting law known as “right-to-work,” which was enacted over a decade ago by a Republican-controlled Legislature.

The state’s “right-to-work” law, which allowed individuals in unionized workplaces to opt out of paying union dues and fees, has been repealed. This repeal is celebrated as a significant triumph for organized labor, especially considering the record-low union membership rates experienced last year. No dues and fees – no contributions.

The Democratic lawmakers pushed through the repeal, which Whitmer said would restore workers’ rights and protect Michiganders on the job.

What was the Michigan Freedom to Work Law?

Michigan’s Freedom to Work laws went into effect on March 28, 2013.

Those laws amend two labor statutes: the Labor Mediation Act (LMA), governing the private sector, and the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), applying to the public sector. Generally, the FTW laws prohibit union-security agreements, which required that private and/or public employees pay union dues or service fees as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment.

Employees who choose to opt-out of the union are still afforded rights and benefits as members of the bargaining unit. Additionally, the FTW laws do not prohibit employees from joining or financially assisting a labor organization or participating in collective bargaining with an employer.

In some of the Commission’s freedom to work decisions issued prior to the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, et al., 585 U.S. ___ (2018), there may be language that is not consistent with the decision in Janus.

In Janus, the Court held that States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees because this is a violation of the employees’ First Amendment rights.

Michigan’s Freedom to Work laws FAQ

Michigan-Right to Work_Private Sector Poster

Michigan-Right to Work_Public Sector Poster

Laws and Historical Links

Remember Right to Work DOD 1/1/24. There is a lot here but we started out with a couple news articles and then listed some legislature.

News and Laws

MLive Article 2013

Michigan is officially a right-to-work state, but critics vow to continue fight

MLive Updated: Mar. 28, 2013, 11:00 a.m.
MLive Published: Mar. 28, 2013, 10:00 a.m.

PBS Article

Michigan becomes 1st state in decades to repeal ‘right-to-work’ law
PBS Mar 24, 2023 4:51 PM EST

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan, long known as a mainstay of organized labor, on Friday became the first state in decades to repeal a union-restricting law known as “right-to-work” that was passed over a decade ago by a Republican-controlled Legislature.

The state’s “right-to-work” law had allowed those in unionized workplaces to opt out of paying union dues and fees. Its repeal is seen as a major victory for organized labor with union membership reaching an all-time low last year.

“Today, we are coming together to restore workers’ rights, protect Michiganders on the job, and grow Michigan’s middle class,” Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a statement Friday after signing the legislation. Go to PBS if you dare for more.

USA TODAY: Michigan becomes first state in decades to repeal ‘right to work’ law. Here’s what that means.

In a win for unions, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has signed Democratic legislation repealing thestate’s right-to-work law.

The move makes Michigan the first state in decades to repeal the union-restriction law. Whitmer also signed legislation restoring a prevailing wage law that the state’s Republican lawmakers repealed in 2018.

“Today, we are coming together to restore workers’ rights, protect Michiganders on the job, and grow Michigan’s middle class,” Whitmer said in a statement Friday. “Michigan workers are the most talented and hard-working in the world and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

USA TODAY: What is ‘right to work’?

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION (EXCERPT)
Act 176 of 1939

***** 423.1 THIS SECTION IS AMENDED EFFECTIVE 91 DAYS AFTER ADJOURNMENT OF THE 2023 REGULAR SESSION SINE DIE: See 423.1.amended *****

423.1 Declaration of public policy.

Sec. 1.

It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that the best interests of the people of the state are served by protecting their right to work in a manner consistent with section 14(b) of the national labor relations act, 29 USC 164(b), and preventing or promptly settling labor disputes; that strikes and lockouts and other forms of industrial strife, regardless of where the merits of the controversy lie, are forces productive ultimately of economic waste; that the interests and rights of the consumers and the people of the state, while not direct parties thereto, should always be considered, respected and protected; and that the voluntary mediation of such disputes under the guidance and supervision of a governmental agency will tend to promote permanent industrial peace and the health, welfare, comfort and safety of the people of the state.

History: 1939, Act 176, Imd. Eff. June 8, 1939 ;– CL 1948, 423.1 ;– Am. 2012, Act 348, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013

Constitutionality: Michigan’s labor mediation law was held invalid where it conflicted with provisions of the national labor relations act. International Union of United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO v O’Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, 339 US 454; 70 S Ct 781; 94 L Ed 978 (1949).

Compiler’s Notes: For transfer of powers and duties relating to promulgation of rules by the employment relations commission from the department of labor to the director of the department of consumer and industry services, see E.R.O. No. 1996-2, compiled at MCL 445.2001 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.Enacting section 1 of Act 348 of 2012 provides:”Enacting section 1. If any part or parts of this act are found to be in conflict with the state constitution of 1963, the United States constitution, or federal law, this act shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the state constitution of 1963, the United States constitution, and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid or inoperative shall be severable from the remaining portions of this act.”



Rendered 1/3/2024 16:23:45	Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 319 of 2023
	Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (EXCERPT)
Act 336 of 1947

***** 423.210 THIS SECTION IS AMENDED EFFECTIVE 91 DAYS AFTER ADJOURNMENT OF THE 2023 REGULAR SESSION SINE DIE: See 423.210.amended *****

423.210 Prohibited conduct by public employer or officer or agent; prohibited conduct by labor organization; conduct not required as condition for obtaining or continuing public employment; exception; enforceability of agreement, contract, understanding, or practice; jurisdiction of court; appropriation; violation; civil fine; verification by independent examiner; declaration identifying local bargaining units; civil action.

Sec. 10.

(1) A public employer or an officer or agent of a public employer shall not do any of the following:

(a) Interfere with, restrain, or coerce public employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in section 9.

(b) Initiate, create, dominate, contribute to, or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization. A public school employer’s use of public school resources to assist a labor organization in collecting dues or service fees from wages of public school employees is a prohibited contribution to the administration of a labor organization. However, a public school employer’s collection of dues or service fees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement that is in effect on March 16, 2012 is not prohibited until the agreement expires or is terminated, extended, or renewed. A public employer may permit employees to confer with a labor organization during working hours without loss of time or pay.

(c) Discriminate in regard to hire, terms, or other conditions of employment to encourage or discourage membership in a labor organization.

(d) Discriminate against a public employee because he or she has given testimony or instituted proceedings under this act.

(e) Refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of its public employees, subject to section 11.

(2) A labor organization or its agents shall not do any of the following:

(a) Restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 9. This subdivision does not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership.

(b) Restrain or coerce a public employer in the selection of its representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.

(c) Cause or attempt to cause a public employer to discriminate against a public employee in violation of subsection (1)(c).

(d) Refuse to bargain collectively with a public employer, provided it is the representative of the public employer’s employees, subject to section 11.

(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), an individual shall not be required as a condition of obtaining or continuing public employment to do any of the following:

(a) Refrain or resign from membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization or bargaining representative.

(b) Become or remain a member of a labor organization or bargaining representative.

(c) Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses of any kind or amount, or provide anything of value to a labor organization or bargaining representative.

(d) Pay to any charitable organization or third party any amount that is in lieu of, equivalent to, or any portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses required of members of or public employees represented by a labor organization or bargaining representative.

(4) The application of subsection (3) is subject to the following:

(a) Subsection (3) does not apply to any of the following:

(i) A public police or fire department employee or any person who seeks to become employed as a public police or fire department employee as that term is defined under section 2 of 1969 PA 312, MCL 423.232.

(ii) A state police trooper or sergeant who is granted rights under section 5 of article XI of the state constitution of 1963 or any individual who seeks to become employed as a state police trooper or sergeant.

(b) Any person described in subdivision (a), or a labor organization or bargaining representative representing persons described in subdivision (a) and a public employer or this state may agree that all employees in the bargaining unit shall share fairly in the financial support of the labor organization or their exclusive bargaining representative by paying a fee to the labor organization or exclusive bargaining representative that may be equivalent to the amount of dues uniformly required of members of the labor organization or exclusive bargaining representative. Section 9(2) shall not be construed to interfere with the right of a public employer or this state and a labor organization or bargaining representative to enter into or lawfully administer such an agreement as it relates to the employees or persons described in subdivision (a).

(i) The individuals described in the exclusion found to be invalid shall no longer be excepted from the application of subsection (3).

(ii) Subdivision (b) does not apply to individuals described in the invalid exclusion.

(5) An agreement, contract, understanding, or practice between or involving a public employer, labor organization, or bargaining representative that violates subsection (3) is unlawful and unenforceable. This subsection applies only to an agreement, contract, understanding, or practice that takes effect or is extended or renewed after March 28, 2013.

(6) The court of appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over any action challenging the validity of subsection (3), (4), or (5). The court of appeals shall hear the action in an expedited manner.

(7) For fiscal year 2012-2013, $1,000,000.00 is appropriated to the department of licensing and regulatory affairs to be expended to do all of the following regarding 2012 PA 349:

(a) Respond to public inquiries regarding 2012 PA 349.

(b) Provide the commission with sufficient staff and other resources to implement 2012 PA 349.

(c) Inform public employers, public employees, and labor organizations concerning their rights and responsibilities under 2012 PA 349.

(d) Any other purposes that the director of the department of licensing and regulatory affairs determines in his or her discretion are necessary to implement 2012 PA 349.

(8) A person, public employer, or labor organization that violates subsection (3) is liable for a civil fine of not more than $500.00. A civil fine recovered under this section shall be submitted to the state treasurer for deposit in the general fund of this state.

(9) By July 1 of each year, each exclusive bargaining representative that represents public employees in this state shall have an independent examiner verify the exclusive bargaining representative’s calculation of all expenditures attributed to the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment during the prior calendar year and shall file that verification with the commission. The commission shall make the exclusive bargaining representative’s calculations available to the public on the commission’s website. The exclusive bargaining representative shall also file a declaration identifying the local bargaining units that are represented. Local bargaining units identified in the declaration filed by the exclusive bargaining representative are not required to file a separate calculation of all expenditures attributed to the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment. For fiscal year 2011-2012, $100,000.00 is appropriated to the commission for the costs of implementing this subsection. For fiscal year 2014-2015, $100,000.00 is appropriated to the commission for the costs of implementing this subsection.

(10) Except for actions required to be brought under subsection (6), a person who suffers an injury as a result of a violation or threatened violation of subsection (3) may bring a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or both. In addition, a court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to a plaintiff who prevails in an action brought under this subsection. Remedies provided in this subsection are independent of and in addition to other penalties and remedies prescribed by this act.

History: Add. 1965, Act 379, Imd. Eff. July 23, 1965 ;– Am. 1973, Act 25, Imd. Eff. June 14, 1973 ;– Am. 2012, Act 53, Imd. Eff. Mar. 16, 2012 ;– Am. 2012, Act 349, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013 ;– Am. 2014, Act 414, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 2014

Constitutionality: In Lehnert v Ferris Faculty Association, 500 US 507; 111 S Ct 1950; 114 L Ed 2d 572 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that a collective-bargaining unit constitutionally may compel its employees to subsidize only certain union activities. “[I]n determining which activities a union constitutionally may charge to dissenting employees … chargeable activities must (1) be ‘germane’ to collective-bargaining activity; (2) be justified by the government’s vital policy interest in labor peace and avoiding ‘free riders’; and (3) not significantly add to the burdening of free speech that is inherent in the allowance of an agency or union shop.”Ruling on the respondent union’s disputed activities, the Court held:(1) The respondent may not charge the funds of objecting employees for a program designed to secure funds for Michigan public education or for that portion of a union publication that reports on those activities. The Court found none of the activities “to be oriented toward the ratification or implementation of petitioner’s collective-bargaining agreement.”(2) The respondent may bill dissenting employees for their share of general collective-bargaining costs of the state or national parent union. The district court had found these costs to be germane to collective bargaining and similar support services; the court agreed with the finding.(3) The respondent may not charge for the expenses of litigation that does not concern the dissenting employees’ bargaining unit or, by extension, union literature reporting on such activities. The Court found extra-unit litigation to be proscribed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it is “more akin to lobbying in both kind and effect” and not germane to a union’s activities as an exclusive bargaining agent.(4) The respondent may not bill for certain public relations activities. The Court states: “[T]he … activities … entailed speech of a political nature in a public forum. More important, public speech in support of the teaching profession generally is not sufficiently related to the union’s collective-bargaining functions to justify compelling dissenting employees to support it. Expression of this kind extends beyond the negotiation and grievance-resolution contexts and imposes a substantially greater burden upon First Amendment rights … .”(5) The respondent may charge for those portions of a union publication that concern teaching and education generally, professional development, unemployment, job opportunities, union award programs, and miscellaneous matters. The Court noted that such informational support services are neither political nor public in nature and that expenditures for them benefit all, without additional infringements upon the First Amendment.(6) The respondent may bill for fees to send delegates to state and national affiliated conventions. The Court found that participation by local members in the formal activities of the parent is an important benefit of affiliation and an essential part of a union’s discharge of its duties as a bargaining agent.(7) The respondent may charge expenses incidental to preparation for a strike which, had it occurred, would have been illegal under Michigan law. The Court, noting that the Michigan Legislature had imposed no restriction, stated there was no First Amendment limitation on such charges. The Court added that such expenses are “substantively indistinguishable from those appurtenant to collective-bargaining negotiations … enure to the direct benefit of members of the dissenters’ unit … and impose no additional burden upon First Amendment rights.”

Compiler’s Notes: Enacting section 1 of Act 349 of 2012 provides:”Enacting section 1. If any part or parts of this act are found to be in conflict with the state constitution of 1963, the United States constitution, or federal law, this act shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the state constitution of 1963, the United States constitution, and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid or inoperative shall be severable from the remaining portions of this act.”Enacting section 1 of Act 414 of 2014 provides:”Enacting section 1. If any part or parts of this act are found to be in conflict with the state constitution of 1963, the United States constitution, or federal law, this act shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the state constitution of 1963, the United States constitution, and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid or inoperable shall be severable from the remaining portions of this act.”

Popular Name: Public Employment Relations



Rendered 1/3/2024 16:25:27	Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 319 of 2023
	Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

THE SOCIAL WELFARE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 280 of 1939

400.106a “Michigan freedom to work for individuals with disabilities law” as short title of section; medical assistance to individuals with earned income; establishment of program; limitation; permitted acts; premium; basis; sliding fee scale; revenue; limitation; waiver; definitions.

Sec. 106a.

(1) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Michigan freedom to work for individuals with disabilities law”.

(2) The department of community health shall establish a program to provide medical assistance to individuals who have earned income and who meet all of the following initial eligibility criteria:

(a) The individual has been found to be disabled under the federal supplemental security income program or the social security disability income program, or would be found to be disabled except for earnings in excess of the substantial gainful activity level as established by the United States social security administration.

(b) The individual is at least 16 years of age and younger than 65 years of age.

(c) The individual has a countable income level of not more than 250% of the current federal poverty guidelines for a family of 1.

(d) The individual’s assets meet the medicare part D extra help low income subsidy (LIS) and medicare savings program (MSP) asset limit, as adjusted annually.

(e) The individual is employed on a regular and continuing basis.

(3) The program is limited to the medical assistance services made available to recipients under the medical assistance program administered under section 105.

(4) Without losing eligibility for medical assistance, an individual who qualifies for and is enrolled under this program is permitted to do all of the following:

(a) Accumulate personal savings and assets not to exceed $75,000.00.

(b) Accumulate unlimited retirement and individual retirement accounts with income from employment while enrolled in the freedom to work for individuals with disabilities program. Assets described in this subdivision shall remain excluded from eligibility consideration for other medicaid programs for the individual even if he or she loses eligibility under this section.

(c) Have temporary breaks in employment that do not exceed 24 months if the temporary breaks are the result of an involuntary layoff or are determined to be medically necessary or for relocation necessary due to employment in this state.

(d) Work and have income that exceeds the amount permitted under section 106, but shall not have unearned income that exceeds 250% of the federal poverty guidelines.

(5) The department of community health shall establish a premium that is based on the enrolled individual’s earned and unearned income. An enrolled individual shall pay a sliding fee scale monthly premium based on an annual review of total gross income as follows:

(a) No premium for individuals with gross income less than 138% of the federal poverty guidelines for a family of 1.

(b) Beginning the effective date of the 2014 amendatory act that amended this subdivision, a premium of up to 7.5% per month of gross income for individuals who have total gross income between 138% of the federal poverty guidelines for a family of 1 and $75,000.00 annual adjusted gross income.

(c) A premium of 100% of the average freedom to work program participant cost for an enrolled individual with adjusted gross income over $75,000.00 annually.

(d) The premium for an enrolled individual shall generally be assessed on an annual basis based on the annual return required to be filed under the internal revenue code of 1986 or other evidence of earned income and shall be payable on a monthly basis. The premium shall be adjusted during the year when a change in an enrolled individual’s rate of annual income changes.

(6) Revenue received from premiums collected under this section shall not exceed $3,000,000.00 per year.

(7) If the terms of this section are inconsistent with federal regulations governing federal financial participation in the medical assistance program, the department of community health may to the extent necessary waive any requirement set forth in subsections (1) to (6).

(8) As used in this section:

(a) “Adjusted gross income” means that term as defined in section 62 of the internal revenue code of 1986.

(b) “Countable income”, “earned income”, and “unearned income” mean those terms as used by the department in determining eligibility for the medical assistance program administered under this act.

(c) “Federal poverty guidelines” means the poverty guidelines published annually in the federal register by the United States department of health and human services under its authority to revise the poverty line under section 673(2) of subtitle B of title VI of the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1981, 42 USC 9902.

History: Add. 2003, Act 32, Imd. Eff. July 2, 2003 ;– Am. 2012, Act 356, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013 ;– Am. 2014, Act 518, Imd. Eff. Jan. 14, 2015
Popular Name: Act 280



Rendered 1/3/2024 16:47:56	Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 319 of 2023
	Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

National Labor Relations Act

The Law

National Labor Relations Act

In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), making clear that it is the policy of the United States to encourage collective bargaining by protecting workers’ full freedom of association. The NLRA protects workplace democracy by providing employees at private-sector workplaces the fundamental right to seek better working conditions and designation of representation without fear of retaliation.

What’s the Law?

The National Labor Relations Act protects most employees whether the workplace is unionized or non-unionized. Visit this page to learn more about strikes, concerted activity, the use of social media under the NLRA, union dues, and much more.

Jurisdictional Standards

The Board has statutory jurisdiction over private sector employers whose activity in interstate commerce exceeds a minimal level. Over the years, it has established standards for asserting jurisdiction, which are described below.

Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

The Fourth Amendment was established to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet there are exceptions.In Michigan, understanding the concepts of search and seizure, particularly regarding consent and plain view, is crucial for both law...

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William BartonOn October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton. The case involved a drunk driving investigation following a car...

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive. Critics call it ‘utter nonsense’Haley Butler-Moore sped up to pass a semi on the highway when she suddenly saw the police lights. She’d left Albuquerque hours earlier, heading to a Halloween party in Denver. Tired...

Cannabis – The Rise and Fall and Trail of Survivors Pile Up

Thieves make off with 1,000 pounds of premium flower in cannabis from a corporate grower in Michigan. Then, the GM sells off 650+ pounds to pay employees.The recent theft of over 1,000 pounds of marijuana from 305 Farms, a corporate cannabis grower in West Michigan,...

If you have an LLC you must comply or face fines and possible prison

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.If you own or are a member of an LLC.You have a deadline of January 1, 2025Call us we can take care of it for you. 248-357-2550The new Beneficial Ownership Reporting requirements for LLCs and other...

Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan

Understanding Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan Compounding charges refer to the illegal act of accepting or agreeing to accept a benefit in exchange for not prosecuting a crime. In Michigan, this is considered a serious offense, and the law specifically prohibits...

Harris unveils new proposals targeting black men with cannabis legalization

"Harris unveils new proposals targeting Black men as she looks to shore up Democratic coalition" CNNAmid the ongoing national issues, Vice President Kamala Harris introduced new initiatives on Monday aimed at addressing the needs of Black men as she works to bolster...

Cleary becomes latest US law firm to add non-equity partners

See you in the Home Depot lot.Oct 10, 2024 (Reuters) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton will create a new category of non-equity partners, becoming the latest major U.S. law firm to move away from the traditional single-tier structure in which all partners have an...

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?The Conflict The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a...

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The "automobile exception" in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be...