Making public pronouncements on public policy issues naturally invites reader comments. And we welcome them.
Many respondents are supportive. They are like-minded lovers of freedom and liberty who know all too well the damage caused by government overreach. Oftentimes, they even point out additional examples that are most instructive to us.
But some respondents hardly are supportive. Some are downright nasty. And their comments, too, are instructive in that, instead of serving to debunk this institute’s assertions, they buttress them.
Such is the case with our recent white paper (Policy Brief Vol. 16, No. 55) “Right to Work and the Recent Election” and the companion commentary published around the commonwealth.
Simply put, right-to-work legislation, which has been gaining steam across the country and which has boosted jobs and economic growth in states enacting it, prohibits forced unionism of those who don’t want to join a union.
And contrary to popular (though false) rhetoric, it does not prevent a labor union from organizing workers.
Reprinted below (cut and pasted from the original, thus uncut and unedited) is one of the more negative and colorful comments, we received:
SIR,
First, I gather that you are a Republican, I only surmise this because I am a former Union Leader and all my working days the Republicans have blamed Unions for high costs of goods and production. They have tried for years to eliminate Unions. I totally disagree with you on your assertion that Union bosses are greedy. I notice you mention nothing about the real greedy and that is C E O’S of corporations and you don’t interject them into the high cost of goods and production ,plus the hit on the bottom line of these companies that are run by these FAT CATS.I sir was Union boss for 13 years and the company that I worked for had a C E O that made $1,600,000 plus all his bennies on top of that, It was employee owned, and I on the other hand ran the union and my salary for that position was $0,so I ask you sir whom is the greedy boss in this situation. So what you want to do is go back to slave labor where people work for pennies with no medical no vacations no days off and long hours of work, and also no safety regulations, My son works in a RTW state and ask him how he likes it, No protection from being let go without just cause(i.e.) oh you just don’t fit in your work is good but you just don’t fit in.the part about the taxes is bogus too. If people make more money there is more taxable income that is put into the government coffers to pay for all those programs and defense weapons and subsidize many products that would be outrageously too expensive to buy, I guess it’s better to have an incoming president who added nothing to all those little things I mention for 20 years because he had a loop hole that we, the( overpaid )cannot use. As far as him bringing jobs back, who are you trying to kid, He then takes credit for deals he had no part in, RTW laws will only destroy the middle class, Unions give workers a living wage and benefits that can make their lives easier, I would love to see you and all the money men of this country try to live on the wages and benefits that we, the working class have to live on, Let me ask you this, are you and your FAT CAT C E O’S willing to do that. if not then stick that RTW law where the son don’t shine. Oh yeah, I bet those RTW states are all governed by REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS and REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS.
The writer’s comments are heavy on polemic and light on facts, of course, (and intellectual heft). And as Allegheny Institute President Jake Haulk proffers, the writer is blind to the reality that “unions in manufacturing largely put themselves out of jobs with demands and work rules that the companies could not afford.”
Furthermore, Haulk reminds that there are thousands of nonunion auto workers in the South and that most of these states were under Democrat control when they voted to become right to work.”
“The really nasty reality is that blind support of Democrats by unions brought the far-left EPA and other job-killing laws that helped bring about the massive decline in jobs,” Haulk adds.
And as far as the “fat cat” CEO argument goes, Haulk says that’s an oft-employed a red herring:
“He (the CEO), as an employee, has not been given monopoly power by the government to make demands beyond his value to his employer.”
Reminded 17th-century English scholar John Seldon:
“Rhetoric without logic is like a tree with leaves and blossoms, but no root; yet more are taken with rhetoric than logic because they are caught with fine expressions when they understand not reason.”
Or liberty. Or freedom. Or independence. And, certainly, not fundamental economics.
Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
