If it's Fair, Does That Make It Right?

So, the topic of unions has come up recently. I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in Iowa, union leadership is trying to push through bills including the idea of "fair share" in the workplace.

In Iowa, we have right to work laws, that state that in order to work, one needn't necessarily join a union or pay union dues, just because a union is present in a particular workplace. Union and non-union members alike work side by side. With Fair Share, if put into legislation, any worker in these particular workshops would be required to pay union dues (people hired before enactment of any such law would be grandfathered in, as this is limited to new hires) regardless of union membership.

Now, let me first say this. I am not against unions. I think they have their place in our society. They have done many good things in the past for workers (the 40 hr week, weekends off, etc), and still presently provide benefits to their members.

Where my argument against this idea of fair share lies is the limitation of my choices. If I'm a welder by trade (which I'm not, just an example), and I wish to go to work at a local foundry or whereever, and they have union representation in that particular shop, the union leadership is trying to say that I have to pay them, or go look elsewhere for employment. I've never met an employer that demands payment from me, for my work. It's always been that they pay me for my doing work so that they can make and distribute a product, or provide a service. But in order to participate in this hypothetical scenario, I now am required not only to pay about 20% or so of my earnings to the government in taxes, social security, and medicare/aid, but also now I'm throwing a percentage of my check at the union leadership. What all they do these days, depends on the local and the particular workplaces, I don't know the specifics. If the union leadership decides everything in our shop is hunky-dory over the span of my career, what exactly is my money funding?
In the end that's not even the point. The point is, I need money to support myself and more importantly my family, so that we have what we need to live. If I have the money by trading my time and efforts, and I have to use this money to pay for al these things, why should I also pay someone for the God-given right and responsibility to support my family?

Does my union membership somehow make me a better worker? Or for that matter, lack of membership suddenly decrease my talents and abilities on the job? I don't think so. I know some union workers who make my work activities look like kid's play, but I also know union workers who wouldn't work as hard as me, because they don't get paid enough to work that hard (despite making more than I do, which isnt hard to do), or "it's not their job" (I dont much care...if your forklift load lost a package off the pallet, pick the damn thing up if it isnt all that big or heavy).

Does union membership or lack thereof determine who I can trust in the workplace? Or suddenly preclude me from friendship with a memebr of the other side of the issue? No, because that's stupid. I'm a conservative, yet many of my closest friends and family are bleeding heart liberals, who agree on nothing with me politically. We don't say to each other, either take my side, or you're not a firend, or someone I can trust. I'm a devout gun guy, but those who don't care for guns, are fine by me. I also like to eat meat, a LOT. Do vegetarians offend me? Not really..although if you try to sneak in a tofu burger in place of my all beef patties, we might have ourselves a bit of a disagreement on the spot.

Anyways, my ADHD-like ways took over again...sorry. If I'm out looking for a job, and I'm offered an opportunity to work at a place, I'm going to take the job. If a union is present, undoubtedly a union rep will find me. I will listen to what he has to say and offer me. In the end, it should be my decision as to what I participate in, for exchanging my time and labor. If the employer is offering me one wage, and the union offers me better pay for the exact same position, I'll most likely go through the union rep. But in the end, I'd like the opportunity to sign my own deals. Either way I go, the rewards or consequences solely rest on my shoulders. My work choices shouldn't be mandated by the government, as these bill, if passed, would be a reality.

Pro-union people have pushed the "right to work" laws as "right to work for less". The way I see it, I have the right to work for whatever amount of money is within the limits of an employers ability to pay. Again, I'm not opposed to unions, but unions shouldn't be opposed to me making my choice of where i work, and for what amount of money.

You've Got To Be Kidding Me

I just finished reading an article in NewsMax, concerning Al Franken's run for Senate in Minnesota. Apparently, including amongst democrats and according to Representative Betty McCollum, a huge number of constituents have shown very grave concern over an interview Franken did with Playboy 8 years ago, over the internet and porn. While I do not politically agree with Al Franken, and I find some of his humor to be crude, I also find him funny. (mostly as a comedian and satirist, but sometimes politically as well)

"Al understands, and the people of Minnesota understand, the difference between what a satirist does and what a senator does," Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr said. "It's unfortunate that she's trying to create divisions in our party rather than working with other DFLers (Minnesota Democrats) to take on the special-interest senator."

I have to agree with Mr. Barr on this issue. Was Jack Kennedy's supposed lovelife brought up as the issue of the day when he ran for office? Was Eisenhower excoriated for his involvement in the persuading then President Truman over the issue of using Atomic weapons against Japan? Was Ronald Reagan vetted over some lines he used in a movie?

The Democrats of the 90s wished to make little issue of Clinton's in-office rendevouz, AS IT HAPPENED! But now they want to make issue of something a COMEDIAN said 8 years ago, for his job and livelihood, when it has nothing to do with his current occupational aspirations?

I just can't wrap my head around this. It's okay to condone a very real act, plaster it all over tv, radio, the INTERNET, where any kid could access all the information on it at any time of day, but apparently it is off limits for a guy to joke about it:

At one point in the Playboy piece titled "Porn-O-Rama!" Franken called the Internet a "terrific learning tool," writing that his 12-year-old son was able to use it for a sixth-grade report on bestiality.

Sure it's crude and lacks a bit in taste depending on your personal preference, but to be akin to ruining your political career for life....I just don't understand these democrats who are suddenly taking issue with it. And to be fair, I don't really get why NewsMax, a conservative corporation, is bothering to publish this useless news. I mean I DO get it, 24/7 opportunities to find anything to help the conservative political cause, but the entire basis is ludicrous from the get go.

When I was a teenager, I listened to hardcore Rap music, pretended to live teh lifestyle I knew nothing about, glorifying it to boot. I guess I'd better not ever try to seek office of any kind...this might all come back to bite me, via concerned current members of public office and all of their VERY concerned constituents who just can't believe it. Oh, and I stole Graham Crackers after not eating my supper on more than one occasion. Label me a homegrown terrorist, and use my deeds to discredit anyone who ever knew me while you're at it.....give me a break.

If that's all they have on Al Franken, as a party I say drop it and move on to the truly important issues.

To read the entire article: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_playboy/2008/05/29/100040.html?s=al&promo_code=635B-1