Tag Archives: Union

Leftist arguments against right-to-work laws are emblematic of flawed liberal logic

Liberal ideology becomes more incoherent by the day.

Their latest crowing about right-to-work laws in Michigan are part and parcel of the degradation of the arguments in our political landscape.

Why, they’ll ask, should a worker be allowed to be a member of the union and reap all the benefits of membership without having to pay dues? That’s unfair!

You mean like the 50% of Americans who reap the benefits of being a citizen without paying taxes? That kind of unfair?

There is no argument being given by pro-union lefties as to why these laws are so painfully awful. According to Richard Hurd, a Cornell professor of labor studies, only about two-thirds of employees join a union in a right-to-work situation.

Oh the humanity.

You mean giving people the option to join a union means some people won’t do it? Remind me again how letting someone make a choice is infringing on their liberty.

When you get hired by an employer, you aren’t being hired by the union bosses, yet those bosses can force you to join a union and pay dues.

What are those dues for? Salaries of the union bosses, pensions for the union bosses and money to lobby legislators or even help fund campaigns.

Without those dues, you have fewer union bosses, smaller pensions and much less money to use for political gain. You can understand why the unionistas don’t like these laws.

According to State Budget Solutions, employment grew 8.2% from 2001 to 2010 in right-to-work states, while union states saw a .5% decrease.

Unemployment in the 23 states who have right-to-work laws is under 7%, while union states are facing nearly 9% unemployment.

Unions are part of the European model. Germany, for instance, is fine with contact unemployment in the 8% range or higher because those who are employed are getting higher wages and benefits. That’s not the way our system works, nor is it the way our system was set up to work.

But the left can’t come up with a good reason not to have right-to-work laws. They don’t want them because they think unions are the only thing preventing workers from working 20-hour days, shackled up in damp, dark, dungeons.

It’s not much different than their arguments for higher taxes on the rich. Ask a liberal to defend higher taxes on the rich and they’ll inevitably cite historical models to show how low taxes are right now. “Well under Clinton blah blah blah.”

That’s it. That’s all they’ve got.

Obama’s plan for higher taxes on the top 2% doesn’t do anything to reduce the deficit. In fact, 75% of Obama’s tax increases will go to new spending. These new revenues won’t pay down the debt and won’t spark economic growth. So what will they do? Make everyone feel better? Not when they lose their jobs.

If Obama’s economic model of massive deficits and debts amid gargantuan government spending worked, we’d have a booming economy. We don’t.

But the left is in charge and they like to wave their (rhymes with) stick around and punish those who have been successful.

Unless those people are teachers, or union heads, or actors, singers…well basically any liberal.

Liberals will fight at all costs to keep teachers’ unions in power, even while they’re bankrupting local communities, and state governments. Obama’s own right-hand man, Rahm Emmanuel, saw the destructive power of unions and their inability to stand for anything other than the greed of their own union members.

You can be in favor of right-to-work laws without being anti-union. If anything, people voluntarily joining unions actually strengthens the positioning power of that union because everyone in the union wants to be there and is more likely to be engaged as a result.

Conservatives are often portrayed as the party of tradition, of people who do things just because that’s the way it’s always been.

But liberals have lately been victims of their own ideological traditionalism. We should raise taxes because we always want to raise taxes. We should have unions because we’ve always had them and they always give us money.

Why should we give money to people who don’t serve us? Unions don’t serve union workers, they serve union heads. Taxes don’t serve the people who pay them, they serve the people who don’t.

As part of the social contract, we agree to be governed in order to gain additional liberty that the state of nature deprives us. Defense and the mediation of resources that we could not otherwise handle are the main functions of government. Anything behind that must be justified, but the left has no concept of its role as a governing party, nor any concept of what a government’s relationship ought to be with its people.

That’s why we get leaders like Barack Obama who, when the chips are down, has no coherent ideology to fall back on when trying to make decisions. That’s liberalism.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Unions pledge allegiance to the left

The left loves “choices,” unless you don’t want to makes choices they like.

It’s a platform as old as the party itself and we see it born out in the Democratic bowing to union power.

For most of the last century, the union’s influence on politics has been mostly implicit to the mainstream population. We knew it was happening, but we didn’t really see it.

Lately, though, the veil of secrecy has been lifted the left has openly embraced their union masters. Unions across the country pumped money in the Wisconsin recall race when Scott Walker dismantled collective bargaining for public employees (saving the state billions).

Even avowed lefty Rahm Emmanuel, upon leaving the Obama administration and becoming mayor of Chicago, took aim at union power for one simple reason: the city couldn’t afford to pay for it.

Today, it comes out that the teachers will strike (it’s all about the kids right?), saying they’ve been bullied. The only problem is the district offered 16% raises over four years and an improved benefit package. You aren’t getting a big enough raise at a time when NO ONE is getting raises and you’re getting bullied? The gumption it takes to say that belies how incredibly out of touch such a statement is.

Unfortunately, it’s that kind of logic which has driven the political discussion in Washington, thanks to our president adopting similar policies from the White House.

Mitt Romney has, for his part, played the Chicago Public School scenario perfectly from a political standpoint. By backing Obama’s former Chief of Staff against the union, Romney has forced Obama to make an anti-union stand and risk alienating his donors, or back the unions and risk looking like a union servant, not to mention the guy who supports 400,000 not being in school. 

In fact, the New York Times even went so far as to frame the election as unions vs. corporations in terms of how each side is being financed.

(Apparently Bill Maher and the liberal media elitist making million dollar contributions to the Obama campaign isn’t as newsworthy or relevant)

Unions even had the audacity to complain (Mother Jones referred to them as “getting the shaft”) that they weren’t “consulted” regarding the Democratic National Convention, specifically that it would be in North Carolina, a “right to work” state.

A classic lefty hypocrisy: you get to choose, unless we don’t like your choices.

Pro-unionistas will tell you that a union is the most democratic way to fight “the establishment.”

That is if you want to have no choice as to whether you join it, no choice on how much it costs, no choice on where that money goes or what political candidates that money funds, or no choice as to whether or not your bargainers bankrupt the local government, school district, or business for whom the union works.

Unions worked really well when we had no government restrictions about the work week, working conditions, break times, and myriad other rights we now enjoy thanks to the organized labor movement.

Wisconsin, who dismantled collective bargaining for public employees, was a leader in creating those rights and ultimately it bankrupted the state.

States around the country are fighting similar battles.

When you have a union in Milwaukee for instance, more concerned with holding the line on salary and benefits than worried about hundreds of teachers being laid off, how can you argue that is a democratic system?

I bet if you let those teachers vote, they would choose overwhelmingly to take small cuts in order to protect the jobs of their friends and colleagues.

The so-called “democracy” practiced by unions is much closer to fascism, with the illusion of democracy. No wonder they’ve so closely aligned themselves with the left.

Tagged , , , , , , ,