Right-To-Work v. Union Security (Protection) Clause

There are currently 22 right-to-work states. That leaves (of course :-) 28 states and the District of Columbia with laws that allow a union security or protection clause. I don't know if the average worker is "better off" in one environment or the other but I don't want anyone, union or anti-union, to try and force-feed me any crap.

It's 2009 and as a thinking person, I have to ask: "If unions are such a great deal for me, why do they insist on laws allowing my employer to deduct money from my paycheck just so I can keep my job?" I won't even comment on the (choke, gasp) "Employee Free Choice Act", the most blatant, self-serving bucket of chicken manure ever proposed. Thankfully, it's starting to look like it's on life-support and it's only a matter of time till the plug is pulled.

I make many other decisions on how to spend my money, why not allow me that choice also? I promise, that if a union offered me something of value I couldn't get on my own, I'd gladly authorize a payroll deduction to them.

The amount of money the unions spend to protect the unions is staggering! Long ago, I belonged to the B.S.A. and even as poor as my parents were, always found the ten cents a week to pay my dues. Is it possible that the difference between the B.S.A. and the unions, is that the B.S.A. has adult leadership?

My challenge to all the so-called labor leaders, looking out only for the welfare of the "down-trodden" worker: "Quit hiding behind the cowardly Federal/State protection laws and compete like a (wo)man!". It would earn my respect.