I’m not sure which genius lawyer came up with that one, but it’s an argument that really cuts the other way.
A Michigan union invoked the provision of the state constitution that bans slavery in their argument against right-to-work, court documents show.
Teamsters Local No. 214 stated Dec. 6 that right-to-work was “a violation of the prohibitions against involuntary servitude” because members of the union had to work against their will on behalf of non-union members. The union then referred to Article I, Section 9 of the state constitution, which states: “Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crime, shall ever be tolerated in this state.”
The claim was made in response to a lawsuit filed by four city of Dearborn employees who were going to be charged $150 by the union for any grievance they filed after they left the union when they exercised their rights under state law.
If “compelling” union employees, who have a bargaining monopoly, to work on behalf of non-union members is slavery… then compelling non-union members to work and pay dues to union employees must likewise be slavery.
If “Right to Work” is slavery then so are all union monopolies and any form of compulsory unionization. The two arguments effectively cancel each other out.





















