Letters to the Editor - Aug. 22, 2014

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Subscribe online by clicking here.

Already a subscriber, please .



Mr. Zimmerman's concerns about "right to work" legislation are misplaced. Said rights do nothing to drive wages down, or facilitate "a race to the bottom." Collective bargaining remains intact, but the influence on political contributions does take a hit. That's where the rub is: a loss of political clout.

Mr. Zimmerman may have statistics to support the surface of his claim that states with such rights have diminishing economies, but they are not evidence of cause-and-effect proof of the claim. Nor can he infer from the claim that the economies of the states without such rights are fareing demonstrably better (or, if they are, that it's because they don't allow such rights).

Mr. Zimmerman has a political agenda, here, couched in the emotional plea for increasingly better wages for workers. Those who do not want to toe the prevailing political line through confiscated dues from their wages should, indeed, have that right.


To Spongebob: Political agenda is a fair assumption. Of course, presently the political climate has been so heated that employment, healthcare, grocery shopping, almost everything that we do now seems to take on some kind of political agenda. Unions do campaign for political causes which they feel are in the best interest of the employees. Unions do have separate PAC funds which are funded differently, through voluntary contributions and fund raisers. The dues are used to fund overhead of the offices. legal counsel, training, etc. Unions are set up with an elected board comprised of the union representatives and other employees chosen by the members of the union. These positions rotate on 2 and 4 year schedules. So set up similar to our own political system, the members choose a group of their own to represent their best interests. Sometime not every single decision is what 100% of the members agree with but that has been found the most effective system to date. Again, pretty much like our countries political system.


Your primary point, Robin, was that weak unions make for weak economies, and that "right to work" legislation weakens unions. I disagree with both the premise and its inferrence. The protection of workers through collective bargaining is not hindered at all by such legislation.

My only point was that workers should not be forced to join a union, any more than they should be forced to join a political party. They should pay "fair share" for the benefits of the collective bargaining effort, just like citizens should pay taxes for the benefits derived from the public government. But workers should not be forced to join the union as a condition of the job. Protecting workers from that kind of coercion is the basis for "right to work" legislation.

My comment about a "political agenda" was directed at the use of union money to buy access to politicians to affect legislation; not how much the union organization mirrors democratic processes.


For Carabelle, Good people all over the country are fighting against those as well. Just because your worldview is so limited that you don't know about the many complaints and legal actions taken against official prayers and other endorsements of religion, doesn't mean that the fight is contained to our small county.

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS