“Right-to-work, or forbidding unions from charging non-members agency fees for negotiating and administering collective bargaining agreements, will also be back next session. During the 2011-2012 term, lawmakers battled over the issue – which was promoted by House Speaker Bill O’Brien – more than two times before the Senate called a halt to the maneuvering by simply refusing to take it up any more.”
Frankly, if we ARE the Land of the Free and we do cherish the Constitution (First Amendment, Right to Free Association), I have no problem with people voluntarily banding together for whatever reason. What I do protest is the FORCING of association simply because one wishes to make a living and provide for their families. It should not be that to sit in a particular chair or at a designated bench or doing some set of tasks that your future is determined by union bosses that, often, are more interested in just power and changing everyone else’s lives (e.g., look at the list of political issues that the NEA or AFT involved themselves in that have NOTHING to do with teaching).
If I was the next Republican Speaker of the NH House dealing with this issue, I would simply emulate one change that we saw happen in Wisconsin – no longer keep government in between the unions and its members. Specifically, if the unions are so all that important and helpful to their members, let the unions deal with getting their rightful dues monies directly from their members. Let the rest of the Right To Work issues stay on the table (or off). And in the private sector, let the companies and unions contract over that as well.
How could that be all that controversial? I could see the Republicans going along with this – and what would be the problem for the Democrats as it doesn’t decrease the power of the unions in the important areas. It’s not even about who represents who and all that – all my suggestion is to keep the money exchanges between the unions and their members without any third parties involved.