Why so stubborn? (Right-to-work proponents risk more than they might gain)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/18/why-so-stubborn/

Rocky Mountain News
Friday, April 18, 2008

In war, the nation with the smaller arsenal is usually the one that sues for peace. But here in Colorado, in a battle between pro-unionists and anti-unionists, the coalition with the smaller arsenal is the side refusing to seek a settlement.

We don't get it.

Here's what we mean. Last year some people started the process of putting a "right-to-work" measure on this fall's state ballot. It would prohibit all-union workplaces in which everyone,like it or not, is forced to pay union dues. We have nothing against the concept in principle, but in this case it apparently triggered union-backed efforts to put other measures on the ballot - and are they ever beauties.

Taken together or even alone in some cases, the labor-backed initiatives would do far more harm to the economic prospects of this state than the right-to-work law would help.

In fact, we're not certain right-to-work would boost the economy at all. It would assist some workers in asserting the freedom of association that they rightly should enjoy - and that's not to be sneered at - but unions do not represent a large portion of the Colorado work force, indeed only about 9 percent.

Moreover, as an article Thursday by the Rocky's Joanne Kelley pointed out, most recent elections to form all-union shops - and there haven't been many, by the way - involved unanimous votes in favor of the move. Droves of workers apparently aren't being driven into unions against their will and forced to financially support organizations they may not like - at least not in this state.

FULL story at link.

[classykaren]

1. then they can have employee at will and turn into florida n/t

low wage state no benifits no employee laws