My friend Jim noted this in an email. I chose to post it separately from my last piece.
From Dana's blog: The main reasons people claim a state should not adopt Right to Work laws are that they lead to lower wages, are damaging to unions, and are morally wrong because they allow people to receive union services without paying for them. So let me get this straight: it is morally wrong for people to receive union services without paying for them, but it is a moral imperative for "the rich" to pay into the system so that "the poor" can pull more tax refunds, social security, and welfare than they pay in? I'm confused.I had an anti-RTW caller last week claim (falsely, as leaving a union actually exempts you from many if not most union activities along with your vote) that he disliked RTW because it encouraged "freeloaders." Yet these are the same individuals who vote for a party whose mantra is "spread the wealth" and "pay your fair share" towards entitlements mostly used by 46% of people who don't pay anything into the system via income tax. "Freeloaders," as my caller would describe them. What makes them any different? Why are self-sustaining workers who don't want their options limited by big labor laws considered freeloaders but those clamoring for cradle-to-grave entitlements without contributing towards them are not considered as such? By what measure is the latter sanctified? It's illogical and betrays the truth: it isn't about workers' rights, it's about control. Maybe big labor should "spread the wealth."