* Kristen McQueary on Lincolnshire’s recent “right to work” ordinance vote…
For too long, unions have dictated public policy in this state. They’ve told politicians what to approve or reject. No questions asked.
Lincolnshire asked questions. It is offering employees an option. A choice. Unions are free to make their case to workers that they should join the union. Why is that so scary?
“Our goal is not to bust unions,” Lincolnshire Mayor Elizabeth Brandt says. “Want to join? No problem. Want to pay dues? No problem. But this (right-to-work zone) says, if you don’t want to, you don’t have to. That empowers the worker.”
It’s fascinating how unions talk about empowering workers, but don’t want them to have the power to join or not.
The unions? They like mandates.
Lincolnshire likes freedom.
I wonder how the Tribune owners would react if the government ordered the company to provide free advertising to anyone who wanted it.
* What these folks either fail to understand or don’t want to admit is that unions are required by federal law to represent every employee in their bargaining units, whether the employees pay union dues or not.
So, people can withhold dues and then legally demand all sorts of union services, like grievance procedures. The freeloaders are entitled to be provided the same wages, benefits and working condition protections earned for them by the very unions that they refuse to help pay for.
And if you’re OK with the government ordering that sort of thing, you’re not a small government person. That’s some Big Brother stuff right there, man.
* Somewhat related…
* Labor board upholds ruling to dismiss AFSCME’s unfair labor charge against Rauner administration: “I find insufficient evidence that CMS made a threat of reprisal,” she wrote. “The available evidence is that the ‘answer’ set forth in the FAQ’s regarding health insurance for employees on strike was accurately reflective of a long standing policy. An employer stating the potential negative impact to pay and benefits (including health insurance) that accompany a strike is not, in and of itself, evidence of coercive conduct.”