But your response was to me, and the question I am asking is not about viewpoints on libertey but viewpoints on the economic effects of right-to-work. You can hold a view becasue you beleive a giant pasta bowl in the sky told you it was so, that doesn't mean it will answer my questions :(
--- In [email protected], "hrearden_hr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am pro-liberty. That is why I hold the views that I hold. I see > nothing wrong with holding a view for no other reason than it is a > pro-liberty view. My ideology is the ideology of liberty. There are > people who describe their views as libertarian who disagre with me on > this issue. I believe of course that their view is wrong. Some people > who use the labels libertarian and conservative support right to work > laws because they don't think union membership should be compulsary in > order for one to work for any employer. I believe that employers have > the right to enter into a contract with unions that state that union > membership is compulsary as a condition of employement. Personally I > would not work for an employer in which union membership was > compulsary but I believe it should be legal to have such a > requirement. An anology is that I don't smoke but I don't think that > it should be illegal for restaurants and bars to allow their customers > to smoke. If it really bothered me I simply would not patronize a > place that allows smoking. It doesn't bother me however. I support > property rights and thus believe it should be up to the property > owner. Unless a union official sticks a gun to the head of an > employer's head and tells the employer to sign a contract, I do not > see that unions are forcing employers to sign contracts that state > that union membership is compulsary as a condition of employment. > No person is forced to work for an employer. > > $ > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > wrote: > > > > You have no reasons other than idealogy? > > > > I'am from a no right-to-work state who's economy is on a downward > > spiral, and the fact is that the 10 states with the worst rate of > > worker exodus are non right to work states. My brother is a trained > > welder, and he quit his very well paying job for a less paying job > > out of frustration over the many problems inherint in unions of non > > right-to-work states. > > > > Michigan's unemployment rate is growing, its economy is griding to a > > hault. The downside of right-to-work as that it, for obvious > > reasons, statistacly results in lower wages for workers. However, it > > seems the benifit to the over all economy and decrease in > > unemployment outwieghs that draw back. > > > > Now, your blind anti goverment point of view is understandable, but > > there are more forms of intitutional agression than just government. > > Are you simply an anti US goverment person, or are you one who > > stands for the right of the individual. You claim an employers > > rights, but if that employer can not resit the strength of a union > > is that realy his free will or an act of agression by the union > > coercing him to agree to there terms. > > > > Drop the ideology, I am looking to talk pragmaticly > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "hrearden_hr" <HRearden@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It is a matter of the right for an employer to enter into certatin > > > working arangements with employees. Employers are not forced to > > sign > > > contracts that state that being a member of a union is a condition > > of > > > employement. No person is forced to work for a particular > > employer. If > > > one does not want to join a union and union membership is > > compulsory > > > in order to work for a particular employer then they can choose not > > > work for that particular employer. At one time there were employers > > > who actually prefered to hire union members because unions trained > > > workers for certain skilled jobs and thus if one was a union member > > > the employer knew that they had been trained for the job by the > > union > > > or guild. Why should the government not allow employers and > > employees > > > to enter into certain working arrangements? I support the freedom > > of > > > employers and employees to enter into whatever contract they both > > > agree to. The government does not and should not be involved. > > > > > > $ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > That does not apply much to the points I actualy care about. The > > > > ratio between loss and gain from the balancing act of wages > > versus > > > > unemployment. > > > > > > > > You can attack right-to-work, from both sides with a Libertarian > > > > standpoint, either yours against or as a protection of the > > > > individuals libertey to not be coerced by unions. Making an > > > > idealogical point for or against is not, effective. If you could > > > > quantify your stance though, it would be intrest to me. IE You > > don't > > > > believe it is the role of the state because it has *THIS > > NEGATIVE > > > > IMPACT* supported by *THIS SET OF STATISTICAL FACTS*. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "hrearden_hr" <HRearden@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I live in a right to work state but I don't work in a unionized > > > > > industry. I oppose right to work laws because they interfere > > with > > > > the > > > > > type of agreements employers and employees can enter in to. I > > > > support > > > > > a separation of economy and state. In a capitalist economy the > > > > state > > > > > would dictate which type of agrrements employers and employees > > can > > > > > enter in to. It is a matter of principle with me. I don't > > believe > > > > the > > > > > state should favor either the employer or employee in matters > > of > > > > > employement, benefits, wages, salaries, etc... or act as a > > > > arbitrator > > > > > in disputes between employees and employers. I don't see that > > as a > > > > > legitimate roll of the state. > > > > > > > > > > $ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" > > <uncoolrabbit@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Any one here working in a right-to-work state , preferably > > one > > > > working > > > > > > in a unionized industry, who could give there point of view > > on > > > > right- > > > > > > to-work legislation? I am from a state with out such > > legislation > > > > and I > > > > > > want a better perspective of the pro's and cons of such > > > > legislations, > > > > > > or lack of legislation, effect on economic growth, work > > force > > > > growth, > > > > > > saleries and unemployment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
