Catholics and the Right to Work

Now that a few hours have passed and Michigan is firmly a right to work state, let's take a quick look at the likely aftermath.

There will be lawsuits and rumors of lawsuits. Why? Because liberals love democracy, until it happens to be against them and their aims. Then they have to go the courts, which are the closest thing to a pure dictatorship which our nation supports. 2014 simply isn't near enough; we can't have patience and wait for an actual election, can we? That's just not right.

There will protests and threats of violence. There will be takeovers of public property simply to be disruptive. Why? Because the left hates civil debate and will do all it can to prevent it. Force is the only way to get things done, you know, and liberals are very good at that game. One word - Obamacare - proves that.

There will be union members such as teachers leaving their jobs to do union bidding. After all, they can't support the kids when greater issues are at stake. Why, they'll love the kids more if they are in a union. About all which can said about that is, if you got into education for yourself, you're in it for the wrong reasons. Period.

As a special aside, it would be interesting to know what Catholic union supporters think about all the stuff that happened in Lansing this past Tuesday. We all know, of course, that the Church has always supported unions. Or do we? Has the Church supported unions or has She in fact spoken out for the dignity of work and the dignity of the worker? That is hardly the same as speaking out for unions. It's more supporting the rights of the individual rather than the collective.

So where does that leave Catholic union members and supporters? Hopefully it will have them examining their consciences. The Church, after all, does not force anyone to join nor force them to act in certain ways or even to support Her and Her work. All of that, though, of course, encouraged, is voluntary. Think about that: an organization which is inspired by God does not demand that individuals join. Yet a purely human construct such as a union (or in the case of right to work laws, the mere idea of a union) feels it has the moral right to compel membership. If that is not hubris, we don't know what to call it.

In sort, all of the hubbub involved in making Michigan a right to work demonstrates precisely why it ought to be the 24th right to work state.

The Right to Work

Union supporters in Michigan are determined that our state not become another right to work state. They took the Capitol in Lansing by storm yesterday to make their point. Such is not unexpected. Unions play to the grandstand, to the lowest common denominator. But we wonder what their real problem is with right to work laws.

Well, we don't, really. Unions lose their clout if they can't make people join them.

They don't seem very willing to answer certain questions. Questions such as, 'If unions are so good for workers, why must workers be compelled to join them?' Or, 'If unions are so good, why isn't it obvious that all workers would benefit from them?' Or, 'If this is all about the rights and dignity of the person, why not go all the way and let each person decide the matter for themselves?'

We fully realize that are difficulties involved in what would amount to mixed shops. Who negotiates for the non-union workforce within them? If the non-union employees get the same benefits as the unionized, ought not the unions be compensated?

We're not sure. If someone didn't ask you to speak for them yet gets similar pay and benefits, well, what of it? Did the union get them their job or give them their skills? This may at times be the case, but only after the union was in the position to grant such privileges. We know that the Ironworkers and the Electricians offer training programs sponsored by their unions, and, to be fair, that these programs are very good. Yet what if they hadn't been there to begin with? If someone got their job on their own, using their own skills and own wherewithal, what would they owe to a union?

Perhaps some workers will be taken unfair advantage of by their employers. No doubt this will and has at times happened; yet no doubt also that at times the union will take advantage of its members as well. That point strikes us as a moral wash. If you're to raise a boogeyman solely for the sake of raising him, then you must grant that he might turn either way. He might harm those he is presumed to protect as much as anything else. He may be that fabled wolf in sheep's clothing.

Then we have the matter of why ought the majority rule in the workplace? Why ought fifty percent plus one have the right to make everyone else do what they wish done? That's all democracy in general means, let alone in the particular cases such as union shops. Why ought Bob Smith join a union simply because John Jones think he should?

And there's the rub. Why must any given worker join a union simply because a majority, even a decided majority within one plant or one industry, thinks he should? That's nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. It is, at the risk of hyperbole, the Divine Right of Kings under another guise. We rule, you follow, and don't ask questions.

To be sure, we risk the tyranny of the minority should we go the other way. Why ought the minority hold the majority back? Certainly there are times when this is the case. We cannot have viable nations should the minority vote hold a true and absolute veto over all things faced by the body politic. But the minority, in the case of unionization anyway, is nothing like what we find on a national level. Only on the national level are we dealing with a nation as a whole, on issues of general consequence. In the cases of simple human employment, we are dealing with persons directly. We are dealing with issues of who can work where, and why.

That is the trump card. When we think of who should work where and why, we are in perhaps the most exact sense dealing with individual rights. Why should anyone be excluded from competition in a given workforce merely because the guild which presumes (and we must stress the term presumes) to speak for him claims the authority, on its own authority, to speak for the person?

When Life Gives you Lemons

A Michigan farmer's market has turned away a twelve year old trying to sell his own chocolates. You will find an article about it here: http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312070028&nclick_check=1 They say they have no room. The young entrepreneur's supporters basically feel he has been slighted. How should they feel?

They should feel that it's no big deal. So he can't sell his wares at the Meridian Township Farmer's Market. Does that mean he can't sell them anywhere? So one place says no; why not take it as a learning opportunity and go somewhere else and show those farmers something about the free market.

Yet rather than do that, we have sympathetic articles in the Detroit Free Press. Sure, he's a kid, and that makes it hard not to feel for him. That doesn't mean that the situation cannot be turned into a positive, especially as his own work ethic has apparently gained him a following as it is.

Rise above it, young man. Show them what you can do without them, Mr. William Zsigo. Show them, with what you've done so far, that you can and will do more. Perhaps this minor media campaign is part of that process, even beyond your control. Okay, then, move on. Show them that must deal with in one way or another. They'll learn to adapt themselves, or they'll garner more and greater adversity.

Or they'll get along and you'll both be fine. We'll even hazard to guess that, in response to the apparent outcry, that you will indeed find a place or places to peddle your wares. So don't worry about the Meridian Farmers' Market. Learn that, should you put all your eggs in one basket, you'll only paint yourself into a corner. Such a lesson would likely be tougher to swallow than one simple rejection.