As a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, Big Labor has long embraced

As a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, Big Labor has long embraced "the necessity for coercion"

Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, blasts Big Labor's "shameless pretext" for fighting without abandon against Right To Work Freedom: SOON -- PERHAPS AS EARLY AS TODAY -- Gov. Mitch Daniels will sign legislation making Indiana the nation's 23rd right-to-work state. Labor unions angrily oppose the change, but their opposition has no legitimate or principled basis. State right-to-work laws, authorized by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, are not anti-union. They are pro-choice: They protect workers from being forced to join or pay fees to a labor union as a condition of keeping a job. In non-right-to-work states, employees who work in a "union shop" are compelled to fork over part of each paycheck to a labor organization -- even if they want nothing to do with unions, let alone to be represented by one. Laws like the one Indiana is poised to enact simply make union support voluntary. Hoosiers can't be required to kick back part of their wages to the Republican Party or the Methodist Church or the Animal Liberation Front; the new measure will ensure that they don't have to give a cut of everything they earn to labor unions, either. Most Americans regard compulsory unionism as unconscionable. In a new Rasmussen survey, 74 percent of likely voters say non-union workers should not have to pay dues against their will. Once upon a time, labor movement giants like Samuel Gompers, a founder of the American Federation of Labor, agreed. "I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty -- the principles of voluntarism," declared Gompers in his last speech to the AFL in 1924. "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion." Those words can be seen chiseled on Gompers's memorial in Washington, DC. So as a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, it is easy to understand why Big Labor long ago embraced what liberal scholar Robert Reich (who served as Bill Clinton's secretary of labor) dubbed "the necessity for coercion." In order "to maintain themselves," Reich said in 1985, "unions have got to have some ability to strap their members to the mast." Or, as Don Corleone might have put it, to make them an offer they can't refuse. But is there any ethical reason -- any honorable basis -- for the union shop?
As a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, Big Labor has long embraced "the necessity for coercion"

As a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, Big Labor has long embraced "the necessity for coercion"

Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, blasts Big Labor's "shameless pretext" for fighting without abandon against Right To Work Freedom: SOON -- PERHAPS AS EARLY AS TODAY -- Gov. Mitch Daniels will sign legislation making Indiana the nation's 23rd right-to-work state. Labor unions angrily oppose the change, but their opposition has no legitimate or principled basis. State right-to-work laws, authorized by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, are not anti-union. They are pro-choice: They protect workers from being forced to join or pay fees to a labor union as a condition of keeping a job. In non-right-to-work states, employees who work in a "union shop" are compelled to fork over part of each paycheck to a labor organization -- even if they want nothing to do with unions, let alone to be represented by one. Laws like the one Indiana is poised to enact simply make union support voluntary. Hoosiers can't be required to kick back part of their wages to the Republican Party or the Methodist Church or the Animal Liberation Front; the new measure will ensure that they don't have to give a cut of everything they earn to labor unions, either. Most Americans regard compulsory unionism as unconscionable. In a new Rasmussen survey, 74 percent of likely voters say non-union workers should not have to pay dues against their will. Once upon a time, labor movement giants like Samuel Gompers, a founder of the American Federation of Labor, agreed. "I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty -- the principles of voluntarism," declared Gompers in his last speech to the AFL in 1924. "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion." Those words can be seen chiseled on Gompers's memorial in Washington, DC. So as a matter of by-any-means-necessary expediency, it is easy to understand why Big Labor long ago embraced what liberal scholar Robert Reich (who served as Bill Clinton's secretary of labor) dubbed "the necessity for coercion." In order "to maintain themselves," Reich said in 1985, "unions have got to have some ability to strap their members to the mast." Or, as Don Corleone might have put it, to make them an offer they can't refuse. But is there any ethical reason -- any honorable basis -- for the union shop?
ERA would require employees to reaffirm unions every 3 years

ERA would require employees to reaffirm unions every 3 years

Most employees working under a union contract have never voted to be organized by a union.  Sen. Hatch and Rep. Scott want to fix that wit the Employee Rights Act.  From the Washington Times: In an effort to loosen labor’s grip on workers, two GOP lawmakers want legislation that would require workers to re-affirm the existence of their unions with new votes every three years. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina are pushing the Employee Rights Act that also would place limits on strikes, how fast a union can organize and how membership fees may be used to support political candidates. The bill has yet to receive a committee hearing in either chamber. Few workers - less than 10 percent of union members - vote to organize. Instead, most workers join an existing union as a condition of employment. This bill, however, would give workers a chance to voice their opinions. Union officials would be up for re-election every three years. At that time, employees could decide whether to keep or eliminate their union. “My goal is to make sure that employees of a company make the decision on joining unions,” Mr. Scott said. “This just gives them an opportunity to say, ‘Yes, I want to be a part of the union.’"
Big Labor's Wisconsin Vendetta

Big Labor's Wisconsin Vendetta

WI Teacher Union Losing Its Teacher Healthcare Monopoly Big Labor will spend millions trying to remove Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker from office but facts about the local economy and the finances of state government is making the argument for removal much more difficult.  As the Wall Street Journal notes, Walker's reforms are working -- saving taxpayers money and putting people back to work: It's not turning out that way: The Apocalypse has not arrived for services, and Mr. Walker was able to balance the state budget without new taxes or looming deficits. They swore revenge for his offenses, and last week Wisconsin Democrats delivered what they say are a million signatures for the recall of Republican Governor Scott Walker... to campaign against reforms that have already saved taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and rescued the state from a budget crisis. Game on. Since last summer,  Big Labor waged and lost a bitter fight over the election of a state Supreme Court Justice and spent millions trying to recall Republican state senators. Last year state senator Spencer Coggs called Mr. Walker's plan "legalized slavery" while others predicted disaster for school districts and public services. In districts like Wauwatosa, Racine, LaCrosse and Eau Claire, the changes in health and pension contributions prevented layoffs that were expected to be widespread and in some cases allowed the boards not to fire a single teacher.