Michigan Repeals Right-To-Work

07 April 2023 Blog
Author(s): Felicia S. O'Connor
Published To: Manufacturing Industry Advisor Labor & Employment Law Perspectives

In a highly anticipated move, on March 24, 2023, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a repeal of the state’s 2012 so called “Right to Work” legislation. The repeal had long been a stated goal of Democrats in the state legislature. Following the conversion of both houses of the state legislature to Democratic control after the 2022 election, the legislative majorities and Governor made good on the promise.

In 2012, a Republican legislature passed Michigan’s Right to Work law, which prohibited collective bargaining agreement clauses that require employees to become union members and pay union dues. (typically called Union Security clauses). The law permitted Michigan employees in unionized workplaces to refrain from joining the union and/or paying union dues if they chose. Because federal law (namely the National Labor Relations Act) requires unions to continue to represent all employees in a bargaining unit, the effect of the law was that employees could enjoy the benefits of union representation without the burden of paying dues. It is no surprise that unions hotly contested the Right to Work statute, as it denied them resources.

Interestingly, in the time since the passage of Michigan’s Right to Work law, unions have found ways to use the law to their advantage in some circumstances. For example, during organizing campaigns, some unions use the law to convince reluctant employees to vote for the union by informing employees they will not be required to pay dues and could opt out of such payments once the union is elected. In the circumstance of an election, the ironic outcome of the Right to Work law was that it provided unions with a campaign tool while robbing employers of the counter-argument that employees should vote against a union because payment of dues would cut into their wages.

Despite its potential use in union campaign strategy, the Right to Work law in general was still generally disfavored by unions because of its negative impact on resources and membership. Organized labor therefore generally applauded the new legislation, which repeals Michigan’s Right to Work law in its entirety. 

The practical implication of the new law is that, once it comes into effect in March 2024, any negotiations for new collective bargaining agreements in the Great Lakes State will certainly involve bargaining over Union Security clauses as a subject of bargaining. Additionally, some existing agreements may already have Union Security clauses that were drafted to come into effect once permitted under law. Some speculate that the repeal of Right to Work in Michigan may also lead to increased organizing activity because the possibility of having a Union Security clause increases the financial incentive for such campaigns. 

Michigan employers with unionized facilities should review their contracts to determine whether it contains a security clause that may become operative once the repeal goes into effect. Such employers should also consider the expiration of their collective bargaining agreements to determine whether they expire prior to or after the repeal’s effective date as that timing will impact whether union security clauses will be a subject of bargaining. Employers with non-unionized facilities should keep an eye out for potential organizing activity as invigorated unions seek to expand their footprint. 

Even non-Michigan employers in Right to Work states should look to Michigan as a potential harbinger of change in their state if the state legislature is inclined to follow Michigan’s lead.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.


Related Services