Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich Agree: It's Okay for the Feds to Force Workers to Pay Tribute

Big Government ^ | 8/26/11 | Don Loos

[Nachum]

As reported in the Boston Globe and as seen in the New Hampshire debate video, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich believe it is perfectly okay for the federal government to mandate that every private sector worker in the United States pay forced-dues to labor unions as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Attention Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich: Right To Work is not a states’ rights issue, it is a freedom issue. The Federal government should not mandate compulsory unionism.

It appears that Forced Unionism is a Big Government idea that Newt & Mitt embrace. In fact, it was the brain child of our Biggest Big Government president, before Obama. Franklin Roosevelt’s 1935 Wagoner Act used, for the first time, federal powers to force every working man and woman to pay a third party, Big Labor bosses, in order to get or keep a job. It was wrong then, and it is outrageous now. Why would Gingrich and Romney embrace it?

In 1947, the American public had become so exasperated with Big Labor abuses of power that Congress made a half-hearted effort to fix the problem and passed the Taft-Hartley Act over President Harry Truman’s veto. (Truman’s presidential campaign had been heavily financed by forced-union dues.)

[skintight buffoonery]

According to the article “The fact is The National Right To Work Act that is pending in the U.S. Congress does not add a single word to federal law; it simply repeals two sections-two sections that federally authorizes forced-unionism across America.”

However in the video the question is “would you support a federal right to work law?”. Which is a quite different thing - the obvious interpretation of the phrase “federal right to work law” would be a law, at the federal level, banning closed shops etc. in all states. Which would probably be a positive thing, pragmatically, but may or may not be constitutional.

[Tublecane]

“Of course not, which you’d realize I understand if you read my post. A (minimally) closed shop is one with mandatory union representation (though not necessarily membership) upon a union achieving majority vote. ‘Vote’ in this instance is not to be confused with what people usually do under that name.”

To elaborate, a closed shop is one in which a majority union bargains for everyone, in which neither individuals nor minority unions can negotiate for themselves (unless the individuals are special employees, independent contractors and the like), and in which agreements between the employer and the majority union are binding on all employees.

[skintight buffoonery]

What I mean is, the National Right to Work Act, despite the name, is not a right to work act in the usual sense of the term, and their answers suggest they did not have that particular proposal in mind when they answered the question.

If they DO oppose the repeal of federal laws that force people to join and pay tribute to unions, then that is indeed cause for concern, but from what I can see neither of them do anything of the sort.

[Cheetahcat]

According to the article “The fact is The National Right To Work Act that is pending in the U.S. Congress does not add a “single word to federal law; it simply repeals two sections-two sections that federally authorizes forced-unionism across America.”

However in the video the question is “would you support a federal right to work law?”. Which is a quite different thing - the obvious interpretation of the phrase “federal right to work law” would be a law, at the federal level, banning closed shops etc. in all states. Which would probably be a positive thing, pragmatically, but may or may not be constitutional.”

Let’s put it this way,The real difference is productive and non productive or profitable or a annual loss,The handwriting is on the wall for the unions,OVER!

[newzjunkey]

I hope you understand you don't even have to be a member in some places, like CA, to be required by law to pay the dues. In fact, you don't even pay the dues yourself; they're taken from your paycheck before it gets to you.

There's clearly a war on 'right-to-work' states.

CA is ruled by Big Labor. It can wage a $100 million state-wide campaign even against an off year election. We saw it in 2005 where Arnold tried to bring some reforms through ballot initiatives and was outspent 3-1.