Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon that he had privately signed into law so-called “right-to-work” legislation, despite mass protests from unions. The measure would allow public and private union members to opt out of paying union dues, while benefiting from union contracts. It does not apply to existing union contracts.

Snyder attributed his sudden (and unexpected) push for the measure earlier last week to unions themselves, who unsuccessfully sought to pass a constitutional amendment (known as Proposition 2) voiding “existing and future laws restricting workers’ ability to organize unions, or to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions.” The governor argued that this failed effort divided the public and brought the issue to a head.

“I don’t believe we wouldn’t be standing here in this timeframe if it hadn’t been for Proposition 2 moving ahead,” Snyder said. “If you look at what clearly happened after the election, there was an extreme escalation in discussions on right-to-work that was very divisive. And so the divisiveness was there. And my view is, since it’s here, let’s step up, take some leadership, take a position and get an answer.” Union leaders and Democratic lawmakers, however, were surprised and caught off guard by Snyder’s sudden push for legislation, though the move that was supported by the Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity.

Challenged by a reporter as to why he signed the right-to-work legislation behind closed doors, Snyder again faulted union organizers. “It’s one of those things, there were a number of people out protesting. So I don’t see the need to have a public ceremony to over-emphasize that.”

Michigan voters may now seek to repeal the bill through a state ballot initiative.

In addition to grappling with a persistent pay gap, working women also have to deal with extreme difficulty ascending to powerful corporate positions, according to a report by the research organization Catalyst. As Bryce Covert explained at The Nation:

Women held just over 14 percent of executive officer positions at Fortune 500 companies this year and 16.6 percent of board seats at the same. Adding insult to injury, an even smaller percent of those female executive officers are counted among the highest earners—less than 8 percent of the top earner positions were held by women. Meanwhile, a full quarter of these companies simply had no women executive officers at all and one-tenth had no women directors on their boards. [...]

Did this year represent a step forward? Not even close. Women’s share of these positions went up by a mere half of a percentage point or less last year. Even worse, 2012 was the seventh consecutive year in which we haven’t seen any growth in board seats and the third year of stagnation in the C-suite.

Overall, more than one-third of companies have no women on their board of directors. But economic evidence shows that keeping women out of the board room is a mistake. According to work by the Credit Suisse Research Institute, “companies with at least one woman on the board would have outperformed in terms of share price performance, those with no women on the board over the course of the past six years.”

After Oregon voters passed a referendum ending one corporate tax break — and with unions and education officials calling for the closure of tax loopholes to raise more revenues — one of the state’s biggest and most identifiable companies is calling for more tax certainty. And if it doesn’t get it, it is threatening to move.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) called a special legislative session Tuesday so lawmakers could consider handing Nike, the Oregon-based apparel and athletic shoe company, the “tax certainty” bill it is demanding. In exchange for the legislation, which will allow the governor to enter into agreements that lock-in current tax laws for certain large companies, Nike says it will create 500 jobs in the state, the Oregonian reports:

Kitzhaber said Nike officials approached him more that a month ago to discuss the company’s expansion plans. Kitzhaber said they told him that Nike was being “heavily courted” by other states but wanted to stay in Oregon.

To do so, the company wanted a guarantee that the state would continue its tax policy, known as the “single-sales factor,” in which companies are taxed only on in-state sales.

“To me, that’s an easy call,” Kitzhaber said.

In addition to the 500 jobs Nike promises to create, Kitzhaber said the tax policy could lead to 12,000 more jobs and a $2 billion boost to Oregon’s economy. But state tax preferences and subsidies aimed at specific businesses often fall flat. New Jersey, for instance, handed a food company $80 million in tax incentives last year, all so it could create just nine jobs. And Sears announced layoffs in Illinois just months after the state gave it millions in tax subsidies.

What Nike wants from Kitzhaber, though, may be even worse. At a time when Oregon is cutting funding for public education and for its colleges and universities — one of which Nike has a close relationship with — Kitzhaber is asking for legislation that would allow the governor to enter into a “tax certainty” agreement with any company that promises to create at least 500 jobs and invest at least $150 million over five years. In exchange for that investment, current tax laws would be set for a time-frame determined by the governor, essentially turning control of the state’s taxes and revenue stream over to any corporation that, like Nike, raised the possibility of moving without the maintenance of Oregon’s already-favorable corporate tax law.

Wisconsin Republicans claim they have no interest in following Michigan’s lead by pursuing passage of union-busting “right-to-work” legislation: it appears they have decided table their own version of the same bill. Though famously anti-union Governor Scott Walker (R) won’t say whether or not he’d support a Michigan style bill, incoming State Assembly speaker Robin Vos has said no such legislation will be brought up for consideration in the forthcoming term:

However, a spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker-elect Robin Vos, R-Rochester, said Assembly Republicans don’t have plans to restrict private-sector unions in Wisconsin when the Legislature reconvenes Jan. 7.

“Right-to-work legislation is not something that is being pursued this session in the Assembly,” Vos spokeswoman Kit Beyer said. “That folder has been put away.”

It’s important not to give Walker and co. too much credit: Walker’s refusal to comment on right-to-work is a step backwards from his previous pledge to “do everything in my power to make sure [right to work] isn’t there.” Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) similarly opposed right-to-work before ramrodding it through the current lame duck session.

Right-to-work legislation prohibits unions from making dues mandatory for all employees, crippling union fundraising and organizing bases. These laws have, in states they’ve been implemented, cost union and non-union workers an average of $1,500 per year in salary. They also hit the middle class particularly hard and don’t appear to improve employment prospects.

The Michigan state House of Representatives has passed a so-called “right-to-work” law by a vote of 58-51. Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has already promised to sign the legislation into law, even though it has dire consequences for both Michigan’s union and non-union workers.

Thousands of workers amassed outside the state capitol in Lansing this morning to protest the law’s passage, but with Snyder’s signature, the state will become the 24th to adopt “right-to-work.”

The House legislation refers to public sector unions; the House is expected to vote on “right-to-work” legislation for private sector unions, which the Senate has already passed, later today.

Before the vote, Democrats introduced an amendment that would put “right-to-work” before voters as a ballot referendum, but House Republicans blocked the amendment’s approval.

Protesters are marching on the Michigan Capitol Building today, where lawmakers are expected to approve the final version of a so-called “right-to-work” law. Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI), who had previously said he wouldn’t pursue such anti-union legislation, has indicated he’ll sign the measure.

During an interview on WWJ Newsradio 950, Snyder claimed that the law is necessary in order to boost Michigan’s economy. “This is about more and better jobs coming to Michigan,” he said:

“Michigan is not unique in doing this. Twenty-three other states are right-to-work states and they’ve been fast growing, in terms of their economic growth in relationship to other states… If you look at Indiana, Indiana’s had at least 30 companies accept offers from the Indiana Academic Development Corporation since they did this in February that are bringing thousands of good jobs to Indiana. And we could use those jobs here in Michigan,” he said.

And more jobs in Michigan is something Snyder said will benefit all the state’s residents.

“This is about more and better jobs coming to Michigan because a lot of companies do look at this as a major factor in their analysis. We’ll then be more competitive as a state and that’s good for all of us. It’s good for workers and good for unions, because it gives them more of an opportunity to grow themselves,” he said.

However, the economic research isn’t on Snyder’s side. As Adam Hersh, Heather Boushey, and David Madland note:

There is really no economic evidence showing “right-to-work” laws leading to more jobs or better outcomes for workers. This is seen plainly in analysis looking at the impact of such laws in Oklahoma, the only other state to adopt a right-to-work law in the past 25 years prior to Indiana doing so in 2011 and Michigan’s current legislative move. In fact, economists Sylvia Allegretto and Gordon Lafer of the University of California, Berkeley and University of Oregon, respectively, show that since Oklahoma’s law passed in 2001, manufacturing employment and business relocations to the state actually reversed their “pre-right-to-work” increases and began to fall—and this at a time when Oklahoma’s extractive industry economies were booming. To the contrary, these researchers show that right-to-work laws have failed to increase employment growth in the 22 states that have adopted them.

Instead, right-to-work laws simply result in lower wages and fewer benefits for workers, union and non-union alike. In Michigan (and across the country), as unionization rates fall, so does middle-class income. President Obama yesterday blasted right-to-work as “giving you the right to work for less money.”

Michigan’s state legislature will vote today on so-called “right-to-work” laws aimed at decimating the state’s public and private unions, and much like Wisconsin workers last winter, thousands of Michigan workers have gathered inside and outside the state capitol in Lansing to protest the legislation. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced his support for the “right-to-work” laws last week after promising that it wasn’t on his agenda, and both the state House and state Senate immediately passed similar pieces of legislation.

The final pieces of legislation are expected to pass today, sparking a march through downtown Lansing and massive protests outside the capitol:

Photo via Jamee Urrea

Photo via Ned Resnikoff

Photo via Laura Misjak

Photo via Jeff Rae

As New Jersey continues to suffer from extensive damage left in the wake of Hurricane Sandy at the end of October, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) is poised to veto $60 million in federal aid meant to help his own constituents recover and rebuild.

Sandy’s devastation of the New Jersey shoreline was estimated to cost the state at least $29.4 billion. Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) said the proposed $60.4 million in federal aid would cover the state’s damages. Garrett, however, suggested to CNBC host and fellow New Jersey resident Jim Cramer that he might deny his home state these much-needed funds, claiming he is concerned about “accountability” for “wasteful spending.”

CRAMER: Our state has been hit by a storm that may be worse than Hurricane Andrew. It requires spending. Do you veto that spending on principle?

GARRETT: At this point in time, we just got the president’s proposal as to the 60 some odd billion dollars. The governor said they’re looking for more. [...] I think in those numbers, I think it’s appropriate for Congress to look at them, and to also look for what I was asking for, that we never got with Katrina, and that was some degree of accountability. You remember all the stories about the FEMA trailers, about the credit, debit cards, whatever they were at that time, given out to people across the country, even if they were not in those areas. I think the American public wants to make sure there is a level of accountability going into this sort of thing. But you raise a good point, we’re at $239 billion in deficit, I think in the first couple months of this year and they’re talking about adding $60 billion on top of that.

CRAMER: I’m trying to figure out what kind of spending is good and what kind of spending is bad. [...] But if New Jersey doesn’t get that spending, even if it’s a little bit wasteful for heaven’s sakes, we’re really going to be hurt.

GARRETT: One person’s stimulus is another person’s wasteful spending.

Watch it:

Garrett appears to be siding with his Republican colleagues over his constituents. Republicans, including former presidential candidate Mitt Romney and House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), have expressed reluctance to provide federal assistance to areas hit by deadly natural disasters in the past few years. When faced with tornadoes that ravaged the Midwest, an earthquake in Virginia, and now Hurricane Sandy, Republicans demanded that relief funds be offset by spending cuts elsewhere.

Garrett also claimed that the government takes money from the private sector, saying, “I have a problem” with the idea that “the government is able to spend this money better than the private sector.” Privatizing disaster relief has been proven to be its own disaster; federal agencies like FEMA, despite Garrett’s maligning, are far more efficient and more able to coordinate resources than private efforts. Hurricane Katrina, which Garrett claims had no accountability for wasteful spending, was actually bungled by a delayed response and lack of resources provided by President George W. Bush’s FEMA.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), who was also on the program, blasted Garrett for using accountability as a “dodge” for acting and declared, “I’m going to make sure the people in New Jersey and New York are not left high and dry. Because it’s a national issue. We are a national community. And when there’s a tragedy, when there’s some kind of event in New Jersey, New York, we all have a responsibility.”

Garrett eventually conceded that he may support the Sandy aid if it had accountability measures built into it.

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien tore into Sen. Jeff Sessions’ (R-AL) efforts cut food stamps on CNN’s Starting Point Tuesday morning, arguing that the lawmaker’s efforts would disadvantage thousands of lower-income constituents who rely on the program. Earlier this year, Sessions proposed an amendment to the Farm Bill that would have removed $11 billion from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over 10 years. The effort ultimately failed.

The conservative lawmaker defended his proposed cuts to a visibly skeptical O’Brien, arguing that growing enrollment in food stamps during a period of shrinking unemployment suggests that Americans are free riding on the program for free government meals. O’Brien observed that Sessions himself twice voted to grow SNAP during the Bush administration and cited a study showing minimum fraud and abuse in the program.

“Twenty percent of your constituents are on food stamps and they look at the people who are actually eligible, it’s something like under 70 percent who [are] eligible who sign up,” O’Brien said:

O’BRIEN: You voted in fact in 2002 and 2008 to grow the program yourself. I think first under President Bush in 2002, and when it comes to fraud, this Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said SNAP has ‘the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program in recent years, it’s received its lowest error rates on record.’ … Most people who are on it aren’t working the system, they are just hungry people. [...]

When you’re thinking of things to cut, people basically say, why are you trying to balance the budget on people making less than $23,000 a year, I think that range roughly, is the national average of a family on food stamps. So why not cut something else? There are other things that could be on the table before you pick a program that is feeding the nation’s poor children.

SESSIONS: I’m not picking a program. I say all programs need to be examined in this government. This government wasting money every day. There is no doubt about that. We have got to do better. And food stamps is a program that was totally exempt from any oversight and change when it has gone up four times in the last ten years in the amount we spend …

O’BRIEN: Two of those times you voted for it, sir. 2002 and 2008 you voted for it. Some people are saying, it’s growing because people are hurting.

SESSIONS: I voted for the ag bill that had that in it, probably so.

Watch it:

SNAP’s fraud rate rests at 1 percent and overall error rates have plunged in recent years, hitting an all-time low in 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

A study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture find that food stamps reduced the poverty rate by 8 percent in 2009 and “lifted the average poor person’s income up about six percent closer to the [federal poverty] line.” In 2010, the program kept more than 5 million Americans from falling below the poverty line and reduced the number of children living in extreme poverty — defined as less than $2 per day, before government aid — by half in 2011.