Right-to-Work Is A Fundamental Freedom

Writing Chuck Schumer, Left-wing , Democrat (redundancy) senator from New york is a waste of time and I don’t waste time. I have now learned that writing Kirsten Gillebrand, the other New York Senator is a waste of time as well.

Though not unique in political strategy, the fondness of these two, working with Harry Reid, to assure no issues come to the senate floor with which they do not agree – or which force elected officials to take a stand on a controversial issue - is a travesty of representation.

My immediate issue is "right to work." I believe, with no exceptions, that an individual should never be required to join a union in order to hold a job. Unions are political animals and no one should be required to donate to causes or candidates s/he does not support. Unions will show "audited" books demonstrating the percentage of dues that are given to political causes but independent audits usually demonstrate that those amounts are seriously under-stated. Dismiss the "fair share" argument. This is the argument unions use: "we got all these nice things for you; it is not ‘fair’ for you to get them for free at the expense of dues-paying members." Rarely does "fair share" appear anywhere in public dialogue other than Leftist dogma either about income taxes or union dues. If one house has 8 children and the neighbor has 1, should not the house with 8 children pay 8 times as much in property taxes, that portion devoted to schools?  Most employees are happy to donate an equivalent amount to a charity of THEIR choice (where alternative contributions are permitted, the unions have lost the battle to control which charities are eligible…always union-friendly charities.)  Union dues and charitable deductions are tax deductible, at least on the IRS long form (the unions made sure it is on the short form as well). MUCH better to give my money to Guide Dogs for The Blind instead of the AFof L/CIO.

To donate to a cause or candidate or to choose to NOT donate to a cause or candidate are equal freedoms of speech. Why an individual can be forced to give money to causes or candidates in which he has no faith is a practice that the courts allow with inconsistency. Though not clearly decided, the First Amendment has appeared in judicial cases surrounding union membership requirements and is inconsistently interpreted that people have the freedom to "not associate" with labor unions. The occasional court cases I read seem to see this issue as one of "state's rights." If a forced-membership law is in place the Supreme Court will not toss it but nor does the court toss a "right to work" law. Because the First Amendment is a Federal right, I don't understand that inconsistency. This is the importance of Federal-level law trumping state law. It is not likely the Supreme Court will invalidate "right to work" law thus people in all fifty states can seek work knowing they do not have to pay homage to union goons and their causes. If I like Romney there is no argument sufficient to require me to give money to Obama…and that is EXACTLY what compulsory union membership does.

In this vein I wrote Gillebrand demanding that she put pressure on Harry Reid to take a vote on the National Right to Work Act. In the myopic state of New York Schumer and Gillebrand will always be re-elected since the letter "D" follows their names. However, there are many states in which right-to-work is an issue that may well affect the outcome of the upcoming elections…exactly why Gillebrand/Schumer/Reid do not want a vote on the legislation. This is not about her voting "no" on right to work in a state where she is immune from being unseated. Rather, forcing the vote by leftist senators in states that might support "right to work" she might cost the leftists some senate seats. Excellent, quality, transparent representation and employment of the legislative process, Gillebrand.

We see a recent refreshing diminishing of union membership requirements in Wisconsin and we know that private sector union membership is at all all-time low, 8% of the labor force. So I wrote her she would never lose her seat, and I understand that requiring a public position of senatorial candidates in many states may cost Harry Reid his power. Life is tough. For all power Harry Reid and Kirsten Gillebrand have, I have less, as do thinking union members and the majority of the U.S. workforce . The union lemming (and not all are)  will never figure it out. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

You can understand that Gillebrand did not write me back; my point to her was straightforward: conduct a straight vote and set the record straight. Clearly, quality, accountable representation is not Gillebrand’s objective. Nor is freedom of association and of speech. For her lack of understanding of these fundamental rights I gather she has never read the Constitution of The United States.