Posted on 03/12/2011 10:32:19 AM PST by GVnana
A group of conservative U.S. senators has introduced a bill to restrict unions from forcing workers to join and pay dues as a condition of employment.
The move on Capitol Hill comes as several states consider what's known as "right-to-work" legislation -- proposals that have met stiff resistance. Indiana Republicans recently shelved their right-to-work bill after it sparked protests at the capital and after Democrats fled the state to block it, mimicking the tactic used by Wisconsin lawmakers holding up Gov. Scott Walker's anti-union proposal.
But GOP senators in Washington said national legislation is needed to stop the "strong-arm political tactics" they claim labor bosses are using to compel new employees into joining their ranks. They introduced the National Right to Work Act Tuesday.
-snip-
DeMint was joined by seven other co-sponsors, including Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Mike Lee, R-Utah; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; James Risch, R-Idaho; Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; and David Vitter, R-La.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don't kow how you can say that compelling a person to join an organization and pay dues --just to earn a living-- is justified by "agency."
Seems to me the states are impairing the right to contract.
This is Bill of Rights stuff.
My feelings also. However I think I go further; in some instances there should be no approval/granting of salaries, benefits, pension plans, etc. without a vote of the public.
My feelings also. However I think I go further; in some instances there should be no approval/granting of salaries, benefits, pension plans, etc. without a vote of the public.
I would have to agree with that. I do like the fact that Dem-libs heads will explode over this. This at least expands attention to the issue and we can correct our over zealous Congress-critters in the ensuing discussion.
In my opinion, no. The whole point of having 50 separate states is to let them govern the way they want. If a state wants to be completely socially liberal, let it. People will move or attitudes will change. But, with some of the later amendments, this will probably be justified as equal protection, or something.
Not exactly. It doesnt say anything about association. It says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right to peaceably assemble.
“Bravo, sir, bravo.”
Terrorize the terrorists.
The Constitution doesnt really address anyone’s right to work. If you dont want to work for a Union, find a non-union job or move. No one is compelled into anything.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree?
I'm in support of this legislation because:
1. Forced membership in a union, as I see it, is a violation of the principle of free association.
2. Why allow such an obvious corruption of liberty and our political process to remain simply because it is "established."
3. The timing is right.
Its just like saving the free market by abandoning free market principles (said by both Bush and FDR, practiced by most)
We certainly dont get it with more Federal laws. Plus, no one is forced to join a union. There are always options. Most people that dont want to join but do anyway, do it because they would rather sacrifice that than something in their personal life.
I agree...you have stated this very well.
Hopefully this will cause others to stop and think.
Thank you for posting this.
Freedom of association is not in the 1st Amendment. The right to peaceably assemble and petition the government is.
Really?
Why should someone be forced to give up a good job because union membership is required?
You're letting unions control the field. There's nothing "free" about that.
-——is this a proper use of federal authority?———
That is a very good question.
The matter of unions is likely one of those powers not specifically enumerated but possibly applicable to jobs related to interstate commerce. That is having closed shop in Michigqan makes the cost of a car in Tennessee, a right to work state, more expensive than necessary. The forced unionism makes a Tennessee car buyer a party to the union dues pass through to the DNC.
The problem is union dues pass through directly to the DNC.
The political pass through should be deductible from the dues paid by those not wising to make a political contribution. As I understand it now a request can be made for a refund but that refund might not be made and the size is determined by the union.
It will be killed by Senate RINOs.
I know. And it’s patently unconstitutional in my view.
I know. And it’s patently unconstitutional in my view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.