Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kaslin
Sorry Daniel but the "unjust form of intervention" occurred years ago when the government inserted itself on behalf of a 3rd party (the unions) and against not only the employer but the employee as well.

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.

12 posted on 12/15/2012 9:06:42 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: rockrr
Sorry Daniel but the "unjust form of intervention" occurred years ago when the government inserted itself on behalf of a 3rd party (the unions) and against not only the employer but the employee as well.

The fundamental problem is that the fe'ral government has decreed that if 51% of the current employees of a plant want to form a union, they can force their will not only on the other 49% of current workers, but also on the countless people who might decide to work there in future. While I agree that the proper remedy would be to say that employers should have the freedom to either negotiate whatever sort of contract they want with unions, or refuse to deal with unions and fire anyone who refuses to work on the employer's terms, the fe'ral government won't allow that. Since fe'ral rules don't allow an employer to decide whether to accede to union demands, restricting the demands unions can make is probably the best protection states can offer.

22 posted on 12/15/2012 4:42:48 PM PST by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson