Disunion

Unions are another area where I can't find myself to answer whether I am for or against them. The best answer to "Are Unions Good?" really is, "Why and under what circumstances?"

Can they be good, even necessary? Yes, of course. Can they be counterproductive? Yes they can. That's why I can't say that I'm particularly pro-union in the same way that I can't say flat out assert that I'm for peace or education or tolerance. I need to know what's going on in a particular case to know if a union is a good fit for those circumstances.

I've known family and friends who needed to organize due to poor treatment; it fit their bill. And I've known people who have been harmed by union affiliation: it can promote an unfair sameness when it comes to pay, for example. At least three folks I know couldn't get raises which management told them they deserved and wanted to give them but their union wouldn't allow it. So union protection isn't automatically the answer either.

Until I know the background of a given situation I'm not willing to say that I'm pro or anti-union. There's simply no blanket answer.

Right to Work in Michigan

The Board of State Canvassers has approved petition language on a proposed Constitutional Amendment which would prevent Michigan from becoming a right to work state as well as place in the state Constitution collective bargaining rights. Governor Rick Snyder has asked the union backers of these ideas to, well, back off. He wants to avoid having any terribly divisive issues on the November ballot. The unions in turn say that he has backed all sorts of 'anti-worker' legislation and that this is their only way to fight against that. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce says that the measures will be fought by business tooth and nail. O what a tangled web...

It is rather silly of the Governor to ask that divisive issues be kept from the ballot. Politics are all about settling divisive questions, and to ask that they not be spoken of is simply stupid. But the unions are playing with fire when they attempt to enforce within the supreme law of the state rights which so obviously only help them.

Surely even the most extreme supporter of the unions must see that enforced unionism is, at the least, questionable in terms of human rights. How can anyone seriously argue that they are for someone who is against them in terms which unionism commands? Can they really say, "I'm so much for you that I'm going to force you to follow me", and expect to be taken seriously in the public forum? It seems that Christianity doesn't even demand that, and we're talking about the salvation of souls there. With unionization, we're talking about mere jobs. Such demands are sheer effrontery, and nothing but.

Still, if everything must be unanimous there can be very little progress. We could have no nation unless the tiny minority who may not want it are compelled to live in and participate in it, through taxes and whatnot. That certainly appears to be a higher calling than mandatory participation in bargaining moves with which the individual may not agree. That person could be wrong in a particular situation, true. But it seems more dignified to protect his personal options than live by simply majority rule, which may itself also be in error in particular situations.

The bottom line is that we ought to back off entirely and let the individual businesses and the individuals involved work it all out. Unions may well be necessary in some cases. But surely not all. Especially as such a close state as Indiana has become right to work, it will hurt our recovery prospects in Michigan to enshrine in our top law mandatory unionism with all its creeds. Such actions aren't in the best interests of Michigan. As to who they might help, well, notice who filed the petition wording.