There are those that understand that by getting ahead of the curve, you can greatly extract the truth; then when the subject comes up the majority of the people will not pay attention to details.
Over the last few weeks this paper, in my opinion, has done just that. In the Thursday, Dec. 13 edition, there was an editorial on right to work.
The article stated "right to work law could be described accurately as freedom of choice guarantees. All they do is ensure that if a working man or woman does not want to join a union he or she cannot be compelled to do so through a closed- or union-shop contract with an employer. That's it." A freedom of choice. Doesn't that sound pleasant? You see, if you give it a pretty name, it sounds good. Well how about this: Right to work for less. But what they don't tell you is, yes, if right to work for less passes, you can refuse to pay your dues, except you get all the benefits of the union contract. The union has to represent you if you ask for representation at no cost to the worker. At that time, it comes down to greed. I don't have to pay my dues, but if I need them they can save my bacon at no cost to me. Depending on the problem, this could cost thousands of dollars.
What effect will this have on unions, and what do they do? Eventually the unions have less money. In a union, every few years you elect your officials; it could be anyone in the union who decides to run for the position. This person more than likely has no or little background in contract negotiation, safety training, or how to handle these jobs.
These dues pay for the elected official's training so that the members can have good representation. The big picture here is safety. Do you think most of these companies will do the extensive safety training the members have now if the union isn't there to have their say in safety training? I guarantee most will not.
Let's get down to the real issue of right to work for less. Unions lead the fight against unfair trade deals that have eliminated so many domestic manufacturing jobs in this country. Big business has made a fortune over the years with unfair trade deals. Big business wants you to think that what's ruining your country is money that unions put into political races when, in fact, they outspend unions 12:1 in the political arena. Our problem with jobs in the United States is the fact that so many jobs are being moved out of the country. Big business has paid for these laws required to export jobs. So, no EPA rules, no wages, no paid benefits, where does the money go? The price of goods hasn't come down. If you guessed the money went to big business, you're right. Picture the United States covered with umbrellas; under each umbrella is your local economy. What happens to your local economy when instead of having good paying wages, you have stale and stagnant wages? The first thing people do is stop spending so much. They stop going out to eat, stop buying newspapers and stop paying for niceties that helps fuel our economy. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Unions help the economy grow. Right to work only takes the money away from the unions that are using it for collective bargaining, safety training and to fight unfair trade.
Right to work for less laws will not bring business to any of the states that have adopted it. In fact, it would have the opposite effect. Right to work for less states on average spend $2,600 less per pupil on education because the tax base isn't there; have 50 percent more work place fatalities (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and living standards are much less than non right to work states.
Unions mean better wages, safer work places and this, in return, means a more balanced economy. A more balanced economy equals more tax base for better schools, more police manpower (which means less crime), more fire and emergency response teams.
Don't be fooled ... right to work means right to work for less!