Are you tired of the talking heads in the press making every single labor issue into a "right to work" issue? Do they even know what they are saying?
In most states, the only "right to work" you have is to try and work for yourself, to attempt to be self employed. That is certainly your right, and as long as the line of business is legal, you certainly have a right to pursue it. HOWEVER....you have no RIGHT to work for ME, and I have no obligation, none whatsoever, to hire or employ you in any way, shape, or form, do I? You have no "right to work" for me, do ya?
Now then, that said, of all the issues before the various legislatures right now that the media is lumping into a "right to work", one stands out for me as actually falling into that category. Before we go that direction, let me say that I come from a Union family. My father is a life-long union member, and I have also been a member and an Officer in a Union local at one time. I have also spent many years as a shop floor laborer in both Union and non-Union shops. I understand where the arguments are coming from. And, in the big picture, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. But, in my not-so-humble opinion, for the one little issue of "right to work", the Union is wrong.
At issue here is whether a "closed shop" is constitutional or fair. Can the Employer force all employees to pony up dues to the Union as a condition of employment? I say no, and before you throw a big hissy fit, let me tell you why. The Union has evolved over the years into much more than a bargaining unit. They are now a Political entity. They spend a large portion of their budget on political issues, and political candidates. We are not only talking about political action committees, but also financial support of specific candidates, and concentrated lobbying efforts. Forcing you to pay the Union, so they can take your money and back a candidate with different views than yours is wrong. Sure, their chosen candidates back labor, and labor unions. Problem is, those same candidates also, almost to the man, are pro-choice and anti-gun. Some are atheist, and most are not "conservative" Christian. So, your Union, and your dues, is backing these candidates, and by default, also backing several issues with which you may not agree. If, as the Union keeps telling the press and the membership, the issue is only that the Union has a right to collect money for their representation services, then I would be on the side of the Union. The Union has negotiated on it's members' behalf, and come to "good faith" agreements with the various employers. I believe that passing laws "after the fact" to negate these faithfully negotiated and agreed contracts is wrong. MY personal issue with this whole discussion focuses on the one little constitutional point. The point of "rights". In the case of a closed shop discussion, the union, by their own choice, and their own design, has moved way beyond the point of only negotiating on your behalf.. The Union, I believe, is every bit as much a political party or political entity as the Democrats or Republicans. Every bit as much a religion as those so-called Baptists that protest at the funerals of the dead soldiers. I don't have to support that, and neither should you. This is the United States, after all. We do have a right to work, if you want to call it that, without the employer setting a condition of political or religious affiliation.
The Union created this situation. If they had stayed a bargaining unit, just representing the working man and woman in contract and labor disputes, then "right to work", or refusal to pay dues would not be a problem. But that is not the case, is it? They have spent millions of dollars and many years to get Politicians in their pocket, and those Politicians always vote for the Union, no matter what. As long as those Politicians vote for the Union, the Union doesn't seem to care what else your so-called "elected Representatives" do. The Union continues to tell their members, and the rest of the world, that this all about a "right to work", when what it is really about is money, pure and simple. Money, and where they spend it. Whose allegiance they can buy with it. What power they can gain with it. The Unions have gone way beyond empowering the "working man", and have been that way for years. The Union still represents the "working man" to be sure, but they sure spend a lot more time these days representing the Union as an entity than they do the "working man". The "union" is a self-aware being unto itself. They seem more interested in the preservation of the wealth and power of the "Union" as an entity, than they do about the welfare of the members. By constantly telling members, and the general public as well, what to think, they hope you will miss the issues they don;t want you to think about and only focus on those they can "spin" to their advantage. They are assuming the Union members do not think for themselves, and won't notice. They assume all working class Americans will follow blindly the garbage they tell you to believe. You know what? Both sides of the "bigger" debate are doing this, and it seems to be working. This type of tactic does not serve to promote actual discussion of the actual issues, nor does it bring much truth to light. What a shame.
To put a pinpoint on my particular view, I will sum it up by saying: By supporting political candidates, and by default religious beliefs and political issues that have nothing to do with collective bargaining, the Union have given up any right they had to your money, or your support. People who believe in their Union have every right to support them. But, like a church, or a political party, no matter how much you love your cause, when the cause is political or religious in nature, you have no right to force others to support it, financially or otherwise. I think the Union will survive just fine either way, but they have chosen their path, so I believe they have no right to force you to support it.
No comments:
Post a Comment