I'm talking to you, Jabbo.: The Midwest in the News

Organized Labor
Michigan governor, Rick Snyder (Republican), signed Michigan's first Right to Work bill into effect last week. This occurred only months after Indiana passed a similar law, indicating an ebb of organized labor's political influence in the Midwest. Pundits consider Michigan, the birthplace of the American Auto Industry and historical bastion of organized labor, the "defining domino." Whatever that means. I don't do metaphor.

The provisions in the law state that membership in a union can't be required as a prerequisite for employment, and, more importantly, that a union can't take money out of your paycheck even if you aren't a member. This is usually the defining factor of union political influence. Unions claim that all workers in an industry should pay dues, even if they refuse membership, since all workers benefit from union activity. Of course, you don't have to belong to the union, a provision that sounds eerily reminiscent of Robert Cormier's The Chocolate War. A new kid opts out of the voluntary school fund raiser, selling chocolate, and soon becomes a social pariah, scorned by both students and teachers. The book ends with him beaten to an unrecognizable pulp. It's a kid's book. Check it out.

According to theory, since the union can't force you to pay, union revenue shrinks and the union can no longer effectively represent its members. Proponents of organized labor vilify this legislation as a political move to undermine union power and that Right to Work will actually kill the Michigan economy. Opponents state a fear of losing commercial enterprise to Indiana and claim breaking union power will invite more industry to Michigan and improve the economic conditions of the state.

Unsurprisingly, the economic claims of both sides, made by partisans rather than economists, have no real basis in reality. Economics unfolds slowly, so Indiana is too fresh to produce revealing data. Most of the southern states passed Right to Work legislation in the late 40s, seeing a steady economic increase. Economic historians think this has more to do with Eisenhower's interstate highways and the invention of the air conditioner. The former making southern industry accessible and the latter making factory work bearable in the summer months.

The only states to pass Right to Work legislation in the measurable past from which economists can gather relevant data have been Idaho (1985) and Oklahoma (2001). Okies actually wrote a Right to Work section into their state constitution rather than enact legislation. I don't know that you can tell much from Idaho: the state has a population around the size of the Austin Metro Area. Results from Oklahoma have been mixed. Mostly due to bad timing on the part of Okies. They went Right to Work just in time to catch two national recessions.

Long story short, we don't have enough information, aside from partisan rhetoric, to say how Right to Work versus Organized Labor affects a state's economy. It's entirely possible that the union question is entirely beside the economic point. Texas is Right to Work. New York is not. They have similar populations and nearly identical state GDPs.

Right to Work States

Wikimedia Commons - Scott5114

Concealed Carry
Last week in Moore v. Madigan, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision that the Illinois law banning concealed firearms was unconstitutional. Illinois was the only state in the union banning concealed firearms. The court called the law the "most restrictive gun law in the US" and gave the state legislature 180 days to come up with a better idea. Word on the interwebs is that State Attorney General Lisa Madigan may be preparing to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court, a worrisome proposition for both sides of the argument as the Supreme Court's decision would impact all states and not just Illinois. I know what you're wondering. You're wondering, on what basis can she appeal and how does this case fit into legal history? You're lucky I'm here.

Bill of Rights 1789
The 2nd Amendment established the right to bear arms with a single line: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To the Classically-trained Founders, a line like this, which would make perfect sense in Latin or Greek, comes across a wee bit ambiguous in English. Centuries of bickering has ensued, basically over whether the Founders would have put a so or an and between "free state" and "the right of the people." Foremost in the Founders' minds was fear of the political influence of a standing army and the reluctance to shell out the cash for one. State militias with self-armed citizens had long been the first line of defense through the several wars of the 1600s and 1700s. Implicit in this was the necessity of firearms for personal defense and hunting since over 90% of the population lived in the boonies. Also important are the due process clauses of the 5th Amendment, which says the federal government can't take your property without the due process of law, and the later 14th Amendment, which says the states can't do it either.

Robertson v. Baldwin 1897
The Supremes ruled that a ban on concealed weapons does not infringe on the right to bear arms.

District of Columbia v. Heller 2008
In a landmark case, the Court (split 5-4 as always) interpreted the right to bear arms as a right to self defense within the home. This ruling only applied to Federal Enclaves, which pretty much meant Washington DC.

McDonald v. Chicago 2010
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Chicago ban on firearm ownership in the home. This case shuffled up to the Supremes, who, in another 5-4 decision, expanded Heller to include the states. The Court explained that gun ownership is protected by the 2nd Amendment and any state law to the contrary would violate the 14th Amendment.

Kachalsky et al v. County of Westchester 2012
A month before the Illinois decision, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled unanimously that concealed carry is not protected under the 2nd Amendment and only extended the concealed carry to those with a "distinguishable need" above that of the general population and folks engaged in a relevant profession. Translation: you can only carry a concealed firearm in New York if you get a badge or a sex change operation.

Moore v. Madigan 2012
The 7th Circuit decided that the state did not make a convincing argument that prohibiting concealed carry increased public safety and went on to expand Heller: the right of self defense extends beyond your front door since one is more likely to encounter violent situations outside the home. Especially in Chicago.

Since Moore came close on the heels of Kachalsky and the two are contradictory, an escalation to the Supreme Court is being anticipated to settle the matter. It's notoriously difficult to get a case into the Supreme Court. A case has to be relevant, it has to compel an interpretation of the Constitution. It has to be fresh, not an issue clearly decided in a previous case. It helps if the issue has been decided differently by different courts. Moore meets all these criteria. Gun ownership is a done deal. Protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, still open are questions about what types of guns you can own, where you can take them, and how much say a state has in the matter.

Concealed Carry History