I just love the way our conservative friends dress up and name a bill to sound like it is something good.
The Right to Work bill is a prime example. We have that right to work now, and we can choose to work in a union or non-union facility as we wish, if we can find a job.
However, if someone is receiving the benefits of the union — higher wages, vacation and sick leave, etc. — then one should have to pay the union dues. Remember the adage: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
What most people in the liberal camps argue is that the legislation did not originate in Missouri but is part of a bigger plan to eliminate organized labor by the neo-conservatives. The RTW proposal was originally written by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.
The council’s mission is simple: “To advance limited government, free markets and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public.”
The problem is that ALEC is not a “nonpartisan” organization but one that fits into the neo-conservative camp. The libertarians of the right-wingers.
Unlike other liberals, I am not so concerned that ALEC is an out-of-state organization trying to influence Missouri politics. Liberals and progressives have done the same over the years. Maybe not so blatantly, but they have.
There is something else about the ALEC bill that is more interesting; the bill wants to restrict how unions can spend their money on political campaigns.
This flies in the face of at least two recent Supreme Court decisions — that corporations are “people” and that money is free speech. Unions are nonprofit corporations and should fit within the same guidelines as profit corporations. Spend as much as you wish without first appealing to the shareholders or the membership.