Posted on 12/15/2012 8:05:00 AM PST by Kaslin
All right to work laws provide, is a choice for employees.
People who do not support what unions do, should have the ability to be teachers, auto workers, or anything else they want to do, without being shut out by a union.
I support that.
While we're pondering this issue, lets focus in part on the fact that employers cannot prevent unions from taking over. If employees vote to go union, the employer can either submit or close his business.
That's hardly a free market at work.
That has got to be the dumbest thing I read today. Of course it is not noon yet so I am sure some other piece of nonsense will assault me before the day ends but so far this is hands down the winner.
...and I don’t like high taxation...
It looks like Panetta and Bob Beckel.
Greedy unions have destroyed themselves. As membership continues to decline, it will happen faster and faster until the only union left will be the Buggy Whip Union.
On the other hand in a fair world also the union would have nothing beyond its ability to sell itself on its own economic merits. It wouldn’t be required by law to be recognized by anybody who didn’t want to recognize it. You can’t have unions-as-we-know-them-today coexisting with this kind of libertarian philosophy.
I can help this clown. If workers want to organize and possibly strike, then they should have every right to organize. And if they strike or cannot reach agreement, then the employer should have every right to fire them and replace them. That would level the playing field a bit.
Unionized health care workers will be in place once the federal government takes full control of our nation’s health care.
The premise of his article seems to be that the employee is chattel of the employer or union and therefore not free...which is where we seem to be heading based on the actions of both parties. Serfdom is serfdom the only difference is who is the lord of the manor.
If it is your belief that the natural state would be no right-to-work laws and no anti right-to-work laws then I would agree. But given the sordid history of unions in the US - especially over the last forty years or so - I prefer legislation that protects an individuals right to work unfettered and unmolested by monsters.
If there really was a ‘right to work’ 24,000,000 would not be looking for jobs.
Mandatory union membership ought not to exist, either.
Fair point. I know this was the Democrat demographic that Reagan was able to capture and his lackluster successors have not.
Unions feel that the only ones with the right to work are Union members.
And despite what moderates try to convince us of, Reagan won that demographic with a complete social/fiscal conservative message. (not cowering from social issues)
I know among my union neighbors there was considerable support for Santorum. My neighbor even had a Santorum sign in his yard and he’s a union steward.
“The relevant issue in this instance, however, is not whether one can be forced to join a union, because a person cannot; if he does not like the union, he can refuse the job.
That has got to be the dumbest thing I read today.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oh, it makes perfect sense, just like no one can be forced to live under the current dictatorship, we all have the right to leave the country or drop dead, you see. Well, some may not have a passport or be able to obtain one but they can still drop dead if they don’t like having their natural rights stolen from them. What? Does that not actually make perfect sense to you?
What planet did you say this is?
This is basically a repeat of the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists positions on the need for the Bill of Rights.
The Federalists arguing that the Bill of Rights wasn’t needed because the Constitution made it clear that the Federal govt. only had limited “enumerated” powers. And that if you actually made of list of proscribed powers it would eventually be flipped around and used as a list of whatever is not proscribed is permitted.
And the Anti-Federalists arguing that they didn’t trust the Federalists so the enumerated powers clause wasn’t adequate. And they wanted to make certain some things were definitely off limits.
This is one of those rare moments when both sides ended up being right. There’s no way in hell the enumerated powers clause would have stopped the statists from continually increasing the power of the Fed, And the statists have in fact turned the Bill of Rights on it’s head by just ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments (just like they ignore the enumerated powers clause).
But I have to side with the Anti-Feds on these issues. Actually stating the proscriptions at least slows down the statists, especially for the politically popular proscriptions. So I’m all for “Right To Work” legislation that helps maintain the rights of free association even though it shouldn’t be needed.
The people who scream about the right to a job, holler and caterwaul at the mere statement of the right to work. How is that possible?
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.