Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Right To Work

Sen Ron Paul is sponsoring the National Right To Work act in the U.S. Senate. This bill touches all the right bases and Dr. Paul's heart is certainly in the right place. The Senate, being controled by the UAW and the SEIU, has the perogative to park the bill in a committee with the understanding that it should never see the light of day, which they have done.

The Dems are missing an opportunity here. If the bill is voted out of committee, it means that one or two Dems voted to do so. The unions will be furious, but if they come from mostly non-union states, they have little to fear. Secondly, the bill must pass the Senate.There are lots of ways to buy political cvover here, such as adding an amendment that pushes out its effective date until after the upcoming election, or put in an opt-out clause that would effectively gut the thing. There are enough Dems from right-to-work states to actually pass this in any case.

We assume that house passage will not present problems.

The last refuge is to make it an open secret that the president is expected to veto the bill, so a Dem can vote for it and explain to his union constituents that the vote didn't really count, and he was just pandering.

If the president vetoes it, it improves his already solid standing with the 7% of U.S. workers who still belong to unions, and further alienates the remaining 93%, improving his already good odds of becoming a one-termer. Of course he could announce he was considering signing, and change his mind when Richard Trumka arrives at the White House in an armored truck full of campaign cash. There aren't enough votes in the Senate to override a veto anyway.

Of course if he signs it, he improves his odds of a second term. The question would be Does he think this will help more than having the unions out there waving signs and donating their dues.

Well, do ya feel lucky, punk?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

“Sen Ron Paul is sponsoring the National Right To Work act in the U.S. Senate.”

(1) Ron Paul was a Representative, not a Senator.

”If the president vetoes it, it improves his already solid standing with the 7% of U.S. workers who still belong to unions, and further alienates the remaining 93”

(2) Why would a veto improve the president’s standing with union workers? I thought the whole idea behind “right to work” legislation — i.e., government interference in a private contract between employers, employees, and labour unions — is that the workers are “forced” to join a union. Wouldn’t a veto decrease his standing with involuntary union members yearning to be free?

”Of course if he signs it, he improves his odds of a second term.”

(3) How did that election turn out?

Billll said...

Been 6 years since I wrote this one but keep reading, there's lots of good stuff to come.
1. My bad. Sorry.Really though the big difference between a Sen and a rep is the size of bribe they command.
2. You got it exactly backwards. Under right to work, union membership cannot be a requirement for getting hired. In states where this is the case, union membership has plummeted as the members see their dues as little more than a slush fund for politicians they disagree with in the first place.
3. The Stupid Party ran a traditional candidate and had a traditional outcome. More recently the constituents rose up in revolt and nominated a truly revolting candidate to run against a thoroughly dislikable fugitive from the federal pen. How'd that turn out?

Anonymous said...

"You got it exactly backwards. Under right to work, union membership cannot be a requirement for getting hired."

I'm familiar with "right to work", which is why you have it exactly backwards. You are claiming that the workers who are forced to join labour unions support Democrats who oppose "right to work" laws. Which makes no sense if the workers are yearning to be free from the shackles of forced union membership.

Anonymous said...

"A contract is void" sounds like government interference in a private contract.

Texas Codes Title 3 § 101.053

Contract Requiring or Prohibiting Labor Union Membership Void

A contract is void if it requires that, to work for an employer, employees or applicants for employment:

(1) must be or may not be members of a labor union; or
(2) must remain or may not remain members of a labor union. (Enacted 1993.)

Billll said...

" workers who are forced to join labour unions support Democrats who oppose "right to work" laws"

They don't support the Dems voluntarily. Their dues are funneled to Dem pols weather the workers favor them or not. The union leadership supports the Dems since forced membership increases their paychecks and the Dems support forced unionization since about 80-90% of the dues money seems to wind up in their reelection coffers.

The Texas statute is neutral on union membership as it makes joining or not strictly voluntary. The Dems and unions don't like it as most workers would rather decide for themselves whether or not to donate to a pol or simply keep the money and spend it on themselves.

Anonymous said...

"The Texas statute is neutral on union membership"

Uh, the Texas statute I cited is Texas's right-to-work law. You know, law you're in favor of. As usual, I am not sure what your point is, or if you even have one.

"The union leadership supports the Dems since forced membership increases their paychecks and the Dems support forced unionization since about 80-90% of the dues money seems to wind up in their reelection coffers."

That's not the same as union members (as opposed to union leaders) voting for Democrats, which is what you are claiming. If union members are yearning to be free because they are forced to join a labour union against their will, then why would opposing "right to work" legislation improve the Democrats' "already solid standing with the 7% of U.S. workers who still belong to unions"?