It's a Civil Right to Join or Not Join a Union without coercion

It's a Civil Right to Join or Not Join a Union without coercion

The latest poll driven rhetoric from the union bosses is the claim that union compulsion should be a civil right under color of law.  Anthony Davies, a professor at Duquesne University looks behind the rhetoric noting that the problem with Big Labor's proposed law because it makes compulsory unionism a 'right' for Big Labor while taking away from employees' freedom to not join or be compelled to pay tribute to a union boss. A recent op-ed in The New York Times called for new labor laws that will ensure that workers have the right to organize labor unions. These laws already exist, so what are unions griping about? It’s not that workers are being prevented from unionizing. The problem, as unions see it, is that it is too difficult to force workers to unionize. Free workers have weighed the costs and benefits of today’s unions and most have freely chosen to do without them. It is this free will that unions — and their advocates on the country’s op-ed pages — seek to quash. Union membership in the private sector has fallen to 7% not because unions have failed, but because they have done so well that — at least for the present — they are no longer needed. The exploitation of employees by their employers is a thing of the past; in fact, nowadays it seems like we’re more likely to hear about union bosses exploiting union members than about employers exploiting employees. Today, no matter how much labor leaders and their advocates pretend otherwise, labor reform means reforming unions.

It's a Civil Right to Join or Not Join a Union without coercion

It's a Civil Right to Join or Not Join a Union without coercion

The latest poll driven rhetoric from the union bosses is the claim that union compulsion should be a civil right under color of law.  Anthony Davies, a professor at Duquesne University looks behind the rhetoric noting that the problem with Big Labor's proposed law because it makes compulsory unionism a 'right' for Big Labor while taking away from employees' freedom to not join or be compelled to pay tribute to a union boss. A recent op-ed in The New York Times called for new labor laws that will ensure that workers have the right to organize labor unions. These laws already exist, so what are unions griping about? It’s not that workers are being prevented from unionizing. The problem, as unions see it, is that it is too difficult to force workers to unionize. Free workers have weighed the costs and benefits of today’s unions and most have freely chosen to do without them. It is this free will that unions — and their advocates on the country’s op-ed pages — seek to quash. Union membership in the private sector has fallen to 7% not because unions have failed, but because they have done so well that — at least for the present — they are no longer needed. The exploitation of employees by their employers is a thing of the past; in fact, nowadays it seems like we’re more likely to hear about union bosses exploiting union members than about employers exploiting employees. Today, no matter how much labor leaders and their advocates pretend otherwise, labor reform means reforming unions.

What does the $2.2 Billion Big Labor spent on politicians buy labor bosses?

What does the $2.2 Billion Big Labor spent on politicians buy labor bosses?

BigGovernment.com reports that $2.2 Billion was spent by Big Labor during the last two election cycles from its forced-dues fed treasuries.  This by far exceed Big Labor's $1/2 Billion 20-year cumulative political contributions found at OpenSecrets.org. The big question: What does the $2.2 Billion Big Labor spent on politicians buy labor bosses?  The list is so extensive that it deserves a blog post of its own.  Please consider commenting with your own suggestions for the list that may be added to the upcoming related blog post. From BigGovernment.com: The [Professor Anthony Davies’ series of charts] represent dollars flowing to politicians from the “Top-100” special interest donors over the last 20 years.  [In Davies' chart Big Labor spent $500 million combined over a 20-year time period.] Further investigation reveals that the money represented on this chart is only the tip of the iceberg. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Big Labor spent $2.2 Billion on political activities during the 2008 & 2010 election cycles alone — eclipsing by four times the 20-year $1/2 Billion from the chart. But, then no one should be shocked by this. You see Big Labor has special powers above all other special interests..