Columnist Charles Krauthammer correctly notes that when it comes to where to send your children for their education, or whether to join or pay dues to unions, they’re definitely not pro-choice.
This odd anti-freedom position is on full and ugly display in Michigan, where union mobs have destroyed property and assaulted people in bitter opposition to some pro-freedom legislation in that state.
A Democratic lawmaker there predicted “there will be blood” over the law. President Barack Obama interrupted “fiscal cliff” negotiations to go and campaign against the state law. And Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa predicted a “civil war” over the matter.
Don’t be fooled by the ridiculous over-the-top rhetoric or the climate of hatred being created by union supporters. Know the facts.
The commonsense legislation in question, now signed by the governor, essentially does two things: 1) it gives workers the right to refuse to join a union and 2) ends a requirement that non-union workers pay union dues.
That’s it. That’s what the “civil war” is about.
As another observer noted, “The law imposes no limitation on unions’ ability to organize, to engage in collective bargaining, or to strike. It merely forbids them to take money out of the pockets of workers who do not wish to join them.”
Of course, a reasonable person doesn’t need financial incentives to see the wisdom in those two changes. But there can be no doubt that they will increase the likelihood of businesses locating in Michigan. That’s been the experience in Indiana and a growing number of other so-called “right to work” states.
Statistics also show that unemployment is lower in such states — 6.9 percent vs. 8.7 percent.
But the most important facet of this battle is that it’s about freedom.
And union power.
Union bosses know that if workers have a choice of whether to join or pay dues, they may not. They don’t want workers to have that freedom. They even want the government to sanction the taking of non-union workers’ dues.
What other organization in this country has the right to take your money whether you join it or not?
It’s too bad the news networks and even the president of the United States are whipping up this frenzy. They have succeeded in creating a climate of fear and loathing that has resulted in the destruction of property and the assault of a Fox News contributor, who was punched in the face by a union thug.
A few years ago, when they wrongly jumped to the conclusion that a conservative was to blame for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, Democrats on up to the president appealed for civility and a change in the public dialogue. Now look at them. Shameful.
In the glory days of the country’s union movement, organizers were fighting for worker freedom and working conditions. It was a noble movement. Today, the state and federal governments oversee most aspects of worker safety and conditions. And union officials are fighting against worker freedoms.
And they’re doing it violently, and with rhetoric that incites hatred and violence.
If unions are the answer, workers will join them and happily pay dues. But they should not be forced to, in either case.
Here’s the nut of it, though: As Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus said this week, “Unions aren’t going to survive when people have a choice ...”
Where are all the pro-choice people now?