To The Herald-Whig:
In response to your recent articles on so-called right-to-work legislation, I offer the following on this deceptive term.
The term right-to-work is a misnomer.
Under federal law no one can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.
All the so-called right-to-work legislation entitles employees to are benefits of a union contract, including the right to have the union take up a grievance if they feel they have been wronged, without paying any of the cost of representation.
These non-dues-paying workers would also be guaranteed the same wages and benefits their dues-paying co-workers enjoy through the union/employer contract.
To further clarify this issue, I offer the following:
Definition of a labor union: An organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members' interests in respect to wages, benefits and working conditions.
Definition of a democracy: A government by the people; especially: rule of the majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
For the most part, we live in a democratic society where the majority rules. Under this democratic form of government, we go to the polls and vote for whatever or whoever we think will serve our best interest. Should the opponent win, I still must pay my taxes and follow the law.
Not so, say the proponents of the so-called right-to-work agenda. Where workers are concerned, the minority can opt out of paying the tax (union dues) and still receive the same benefits as the taxpayers (union members).
Since this type of legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the right to work, it should be more accurately referred to as the right-to-work-for-less law.