New Hampshire Governor Lynch claims that it is okay to force someone who is not party to a contract to be obligated under the private contract.
For Example: Let’s say Paul is hired by Peter to work. Brutus sees Paul earning money and wants a share. Brutus meets with Peter. Peter and Brutus make a private contract of the kind Gov. Lynch endorses. Peter agrees to pay Brutus a cut from Paul’s paycheck before he pays Paul. The agreement cost Peter no more money, it gave Brutus some of Paul’s money and Paul gets less money for the same work, an amount exclusivley agreed upon by Peter and Brutus. Gov. Lynch endorses the idea that Peter and Brutus can force Paul to pay Brutus against his will or lose his job.
This is what Governor Lynch wants to defend as freedom, compelling a third party (any employee) to be part of a private contract?
From National Review’s Brian Bolduc article, Work Free or Die:
New Hampshire is “an island of common sense” in blizzard-blue New England, state representative D. J. Bettencourt tells National Review Online. As the Republican majority leader in the state house of representatives, Bettencourt, along with Speaker William O’Brien, hopes to fortify this bastion of liberty’s defenses by passing a right-to-work bill.
Although H.B. 474 passed the Republican-controlled house by a hefty margin of 225 to 140, Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, promised to veto it.
“We’re reaching out to members of the GOP caucus individually and making the case,” Bettencourt notes.
He makes two points in the bill’s defense: One, “the individual-freedom component,” is that “people who don’t want to join a union shouldn’t be forced to do so.” Two, New England is awash in government, and a right-to-work law would further distinguish New Hampshire from its left-leaning neighbors Vermont and Massachusetts. “To be a right-to-work state carries the potential to be a magnet for small businesses,” Bettencourt argues.
Governor Lynch retorts that the bill smacks of bureaucratic meddling in business decisions. “The governor has maintained for some time now [that] so-called right-to-work legislation has state government dictating to private businesses and their employees what should be included in a contract,” Lynch’s press secretary, Colin Manning, has said. Technically, the bill is written in such a way that it forbids private contracts from including provisions to mandate that employees join unions. [Is freedom from compulsion or mandates a bad thing?]
But Speaker O’Brien is having none of it.Labor relations are “such a heavily regulated activity that for the Democrats to point to one piece of legislation that promotes employee freedom is really disingenuous,” he says. “All we’re trying to do is make sure government doesn’t establish a mandatory regime of employee unionization.”
By way of an example, he cites Franklin A. Partin Jr., for whom the bill is named. “He was working for the Air Force satellite-tracking station in New Boston as a civilian employee,” O’Brien recounts. “The workplace became organized, and he was told he would have to join a union. For personal reasons he said, ‘I do not want to join,’ and he lost his job.”
The bill arrived on the governor’s desk on Friday, and, excluding Sunday, he has five days to respond.
Nonetheless, the unions are trying to finagle a victory. O’Brien contends that they have fostered disagreements between the house and the senate.
Still, Republicans are cautiously optimistic.
“If unions are providing a benefit to employees,” O’Brien says, “then they don’t need to pass a law to force them to join.”