Skip to comments.Government Is Different From Unions: The fallacy of a 'right-to-live' law
Posted on 01/21/2013 5:35:53 AM PST by MichCapCon
Brent Graves, a biology professor at Northern Michigan University, sarcastically promotes in MLive a right-to-live law to balance right-to-work laws in Michigan. But the attempt to make worker freedom proponents look silly comes up short.
Graves proposes that his right-to-live law would allow Michigan residents to choose whether to opt out of paying taxes while still receiving benefits from state government. Gravess main point is that there are similarities between union representation and an elected government:
Unions exist only where a majority of those represented vote for them; they are democratically elected, just like governors and legislators, he writes. Every person in a union may not support all that the union does, and it is certainly true that not everyone agrees with the policies of our state government.
There are several reasons this analogy falls short; for example, the fact that unions fight for exclusive representation of workers to increase their bargaining power. But the most significant reason is simpler: Government has a monopoly on force unions (and other private political organizations) do not.
To see how silly the point is, consider stretching the analogy further.
Suppose the businesses in a town voted to be represented by the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber can make a plausible case that they advocate for businesses at the state and local level, meaning that they believe all businesses benefit from their work. Though they support some politicians on both sides, the Chamber generally sides with conservatives in the Legislature and on ballot proposals. This decision would surely make those on the left upset (the Michigan Chamber building was marched on during the union protest last month). So would Graves support the ability for a private business group to coerce dues money from local companies?
Just because a business happens to operate in a certain municipality does not give a majority the right to extract money from them for a private entity. And in the same way, state government should not force workers to send money to a union because of where they work.
The most important job of government is to protect the rights of everyone, which includes protecting the right to not send money to private political organizations people disagree with.
Many private organizations quickly devolve into those who control the organization and everyone else. Those who control the organization stack the deck so that it is virtually impossible for anyone to oppose them. They devolve into virtual dictatorships or oligarchies. The analogy with a democratic republic with strong checks and balances is a terribly flawed one.
I would ask of Union elections: does an independent organization outside of the union count to votes? Is voter integrity and anonymity guaranteed? Are challengers to elected positions guaranteed equal access to the organizations newsletters for campaigning?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.