Why is the right to choose to not be required to join a union or to contribute to a union so much different from the right to choose to have an abortion or to choose to marry a same sex partner or choose to be a mother, a wife and a business professional without career impact?
I have written and seeded a number of articles on “right to work” legislation, over the past few weeks, and the reactions, opinions and comments on the subject are passionate, partisan and aggressive and as often as not targeted at supporters of right to work legislation rather than at the pro’s and con’s of legislation itself.
I love passionate debate and passionate and aggressive debaters and even become more amused than annoyed at the labels, name calling and disingenuous remarks tossed my way and towards other commeters who have the temerity to support peoples’ right to choose to support right to work legislation.
I am wildly amused at the offense and self righteous indignation that commenters feel about the cartoons I use to illustrate points in articles such as this one.
This article is not about the positive or negative economic impact of right to work legislation on employment, the cost of living, GDP growth or economic expansion.
This article is about one single question?
Why is a citizen’s right to choose so important, so inviolable and to be defended at all costs except in the right to choose to support right to work legislation?
Thanks for the grahpics top to bottom to
Thanks for the graphic to Henry Payne - December 17, 2012
Thanks for the graphic to Chip Bok - December 14, 2012
Thanks for the graphic to Henry Payne - December 14, 2012