- Why NJ Needs "Right To Work"

I find I have to say this a lot lately, but I have no problem with labor unions, only the massive legal advantages that labor unions are awarded. Among those advantages are a series of laws which make union membership 'compulsory' once a union is voted in. In effect the unions become a 'monopoly' on labor. And like all monopolies, it's government force that keeps it in place.

If union membership wasn't compulsory, things would probably change. The most corrupt of the unions would probably just wither away, but if a union was offering a genuine benefit to it's members, I could easily see union membership rising. This might not suit my particular tastes, but if that's how people choose to have their money spent then far be it from me to argue. I'll always support the right of people to decide how to spend their own cash even if it's on something I don't personally care for. So if that admittedly unlikely circumstance were to actually occur, I could easily see myself arguing for greater union membership.

Unfortunately, in NJ that's all moot because the choice doesn't exist. Union membership in our state is still very much compulsory. If your workplace is unionized you either pay your union dues, or you don't work. In fact, the government will take the money directly from your paycheck on behalf of the unions, to avoid any mistakes. Non union labor is prohibited by law from offering competitive bidding, and if they offer it, the company (or the government department) is prevented from accepting it.

IN NJ, unions are a nice racket, with all but complete legal protection from outside forces. They can do what they like to who they like - which is why every business with a strong union that can move from NJ, already has.

Chipping away at that monopoly on labor and making union membership optional by not giving such a huge legal advantage to them is called the "right to work". It's overwhelmingly popular with the workers but far less popular with (guess who) union bosses. And in Wisconsin, those union leaders just spent 20 million bucks of member dues trying to recall legislators who weakened their position. But they tried to do it without actually telling anyone what they were really upset about:

Last month, Big Labor–launched recall elections, we were told, would wipe out members of the Wisconsin state senate who . . . well, it wasn’t entirely clear.

By looking at the television ads paid for with union dues, you wouldn’t have the slightest idea that’s what the fight was all about in the first place. “The millions of dollars in commercials in support of the Democrats did not talk about unions,” one Wisconsin union official wrote online.


Mark Mix goes on to give one of the most lucid explanations of the current state of 'right to work' initiatives, and if you read the whole thing, it's easy to see the advantage that this would have for NJ.

NJ is a strong union state. Unions are all about corrupting the political process, and NJ is nothing if not corrupt. In fact in NJ, I think it's fair to say that both parties are as corrupt as they can manage. (The arrest record of both parties does seem to support that view). But if NJ were to adopt "right to work" rules, it would defang the unions and over time, eliminate their bought political sock puppets.

The net result would be a more effective Democratic process, and a better (probably smaller) government.