Replies

It’s hard to know where to begin to comment on this exercise in illogic, but this sentence is as good a place to start as any.

“Right-to-work laws make collective bargaining more difficult by requiring that union members pay for the representation of nonmembers. Burdening those who desire union representation does not make economic sense, particularly now...”

So, then if I understand it, this well paid minion of the AFL-CIO believes that it makes more economic sense to burden those who do NOT desire union representation so that those who do might find their collective bargaining made easier.

I don’t see how one has anything to do with the other.

All I see here is a union minion worried about his personal salary and job security.

And is this yo-yo totally oblivious to the moral dimension of this issue?

Should not those desiring a service be the ones to pay for its provision? Where is the moral argument for coercion of those who are not desirous of union representation?

It's the socialism - the collective - the "borg is beautiful" thinking being pushed by a "more equal" elite - without shame - as he lies to Americans about how Walker is "taking food out of their children's mouths," when in fact, it has everything to do with HIS loss of using THEIR stolen wages to keep HIS own power.

“Should not those desiring a service be the ones to pay for its provision? Where is the moral argument for coercion of those who are not desirous of union representation?”

Amen. And why should they support an arm of the Democratic party.