A question for those who support unions … now that the “right to work” issue is front burner (perhaps shot down) in Indiana … this brings up the question of what justification not having right to work might be. That is, by what justification do closed shop union states and areas rationalize that stance. In a non-right to work state, you can’t work for the public schools (for example) without joining the union. You <em>must</em> pay union dues (60% of which typically go to PACs contributing to Democrats). How do you justify that? 

And up front, please let’s dismiss any notion that “the union is working/negotiating for you so you must contribute” as a rational argument. It isn’t. Following that as an argument would mean that you must provide payment to anyone for any unsolicited action claimed to be done on your behalf. Obviously that isn’t reasonable and for the same reason the above argument is fallacious. 

So … why is “right to work” not an unalienable right for workers? 

Related posts:

  1. A Stupid Question
  2. Taxation Without Representation, Union-Style
  3. Mr Obama: Stupid or Evil?
  4. A Clear Look Into the Soviet Union. >yawn<
  5. Same Sex Marriage: A Question

Filed under: Mark O. • Politics

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!