Yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court upheld that state’s new right-to-work law with its ruling that state workers are subject to the law.  This means public employees are subject to the same protections from forced unionism as those in private industries.

The Court’s 4-3 ruling was the final nail in the coffin for organized labor’s efforts to rollback right-to-work.  State employee unions filed the lawsuit in 2013, arguing the law violated the state’s Constitution.  Unions claimed the state constitution gives the Michigan Civil Service Commission sole jurisdiction over the wages, benefits and other conditions of employment of public employees, and that the Legislature has no power to interfere in those matters.  

The Court ruled the Commission never had the right to force public employees to pay union dues or agency fees.  The ruling effectively removes the final hurdles to full implementation of Michigan’s right-to-work law.  

State workers in Michigan will now have a choice in whether they want to participate in a union and pay union dues or fees; they can’t be forced to against their wishes.  What this means for public sector unions in Michigan remains to be seen.

Implementation of Wisconsin’s right-to-work protections for state workers resulted in a dramatic decline in public sector union membership—from 63,000 before the law took effect to just 23,000 today.

But the leader of Washington State’s public employee union, Greg Devereux, believes public employee unions should not be afraid of right-to-work laws, saying they are “change that we’ve needed for a long time.”  Devereux says the unions instead should consider such laws an “opportunity” to improve how unions operate and the services they offer members.  And far from being the nail in the coffin for unions, he believes forcing unions to earn their members will make the union movement stronger.

That appears to be the experience in Oklahoma.  Since that state adopted a right-to-work law in 2001, union membership has increased by more than 10%; over that same period the national rate of union membership declined by 17%.

The President of Oklahoma AFL-CIO said in 2012 that since his state adopted a right-to-work law in 2001, his union has not noticed any significant decrease in membership:

Somebody asked me how many workers got out because of right-to-work and I said, well, we don’t track that number…It’s like any other workforce, where 10% cause you 90% of your problems. Those are the ones that bailed out of paying dues.”

The Oklahoma AFL-CIO President says his union discovered after that state became right-to-work that “our labor-management relationship was terrible,” and the union worked hard to improve those relationships.  Based on that state’s union membership level, those extra efforts paid off.

Unions won’t lose members because of a right-to-work law; one of the most powerful unions in the country is in a right-to-work state.  Unions simply must work harder to earn members and keep them happy and satisfied.  

And as Washington labor executive Greg Devereux says, “I don’t think that’s a bad thing necessarily.”