LETTER: Right-to-work legislation is not anti-union

I’d like to start by saying that I know and like Dale Groves and I don’t think for a moment that he is a liar. I believe that he is convinced that the falsehoods in his letter (Jan. 26 issue) are true much like some folks believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa.

I will address his points but first a short story. Years ago I worked at a union factory that was considering going on strike. A public meeting was held at Tell City High School’s auditorium and hundreds of members were present when the union rep, an unapologetic thug, began to speak.

He said that if the union went on strike and the company hired replacement workers that the union “would shoot their scabs and burn the factory down”– a direct quote. He was advocating murder and arson in a public forum!

I felt like an indentured servant. I was forced to be in a union for which I had no respect. They took their cut of my paycheck every week and I couldn’t do a thing about it.

Point No. 1. The letter states that no worker in a non right-to-work state can be compelled to join a union.

The key word is compel. It means to coerce. If you work in a union shop and decide not to join the union your life will suddenly become very unpleasant.

The above anecdote tells what kind of people with which you would be dealing. Union bullying of non-union workers is common knowledge. Imagine the goon intimidation level if you refused to join a union that had possibly 1,000 union members in one place.

Workers in non-right-to-work states can be forced to pay union dues even if they don’t want to be in the union. That is totally unfair and is a major point that Dale has chosen not to address.

Point No. 2. The letter says that my statement that union bosses spend much money in support of Barack Obama is false. Here is a direct quote from Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union to the Las Vegas Sun, “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama – $60.7 million to be exact – and we’re proud of it.”

Point No. 3. The letter says that my statement that union contributions dwarf all business or industrial contributions is false.

The fact is union contributions dwarf any single business or industrial contribution.

Dale lumped the businesses and industries together to try to prove my statement wrong.

He finishes with the worn-out statement that union members have been spoon fed by their leadership over the years, that right-to-work is a union busting scheme and how the unions are the only ones that stand up for the American workers, blah, blah, blah.

The truth is this right-to-work is neither pro-union nor anti-union. The focus is on individual freedom. Compulsory unionism is primarily responsible for the tax-and-spend policies of the U.S. Congress.

Under their federally granted coercive powers, union officials collect some $4.5 billion annually in compulsory dues and funnel much of it into unreported campaign operations to elect and control congressional majorities dedicated to higher taxes and increased government spending.

“Unions have greatly increased their financial commitment to political activity in recent election cycles as a way to achieve in the political process the gains that have eluded them at the bargaining table,” economist James T. Bennett wrote in the Winter 1991 issue of the Journal of Labor Research. His authoritative study revealed that, despite membership losses, the total income – $11.5 billion annually – of private-sector unions is at an all-time high.

Union income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, has more than doubled in the past 30 years.

As John Adams said, facts are stubborn things, Dale, and oh, by the way, sorry, there is no Easter Bunny.

JIM ADKINS
Tell City