Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Right to Work?

There is a current story in the news that I find simply unbelievable. Michigan has become a right-to-work state. The home of the UAW is giving people a choice.


Now, President Obama said that this is “political.” Ironic that this is his complaint. The Campaigner-in-Chief still has no idea how to be a president, so all he’s done since winning, is campaign. Now he’s campaigning for the unions.

But once again, let’s step aside and look at the FACTS. Facts are this law does not make unions illegal. This gives people the choice to be a part of the union or not. How things have worked in the past is that unions formed to protest unsafe working conditions (though they have outlived that purpose). The problem is once a business unionized, they were unionized forever. You didn’t get to vote whether to have a union. You didn’t get a choice whether to be in the union. You were in the union period.

Here’s where the next level of history comes in. When Prohibition ended, the Chicago mafia needed a new area to maintain their lives. They bought Vegas. But once honest people took back Vegas, the mob took over--you guessed it--the unions. And as the mobsters have a habit of doing, they got in bed with politicians, paying for campaigns and organizing for politicians that they had in their pockets (Gee, what politician do we know with Chicago connections?).

If you don’t see the mafia connection, look to how they behaved yesterday as the bill was signed. Union reps rioted, violently. One punched out a reporter.  It's the same mafia strong-arm tactics that they always run (watch the movie "The Untouchables" sometime).

So what’s this all about? This is about freedom to choose. (wait, I though the DEMS were pro-choice? Nope.) Why are union reps so against choice? Because people will choose not to participate, and that less money in THEIR pockets.

The president said that this is “the right to work for less.” He’s right. Less union dues, less oversight, less bribery, less corruption. How can people get less, if they get to take home their money instead of passing it on to full time thugs?  Then again, since when do thugs worry about freedom. 

No comments:

Post a Comment