Posts
The images coming out of Michigan in the wake of its recent right-to-work legislation are disheartening.
Let me begin by conceding the moral case: no one should be required to join any organization as a condition of employment*. But what difference will it actually make?
UNION BOSS: “Okay, everybody, listen up. Y’all may have heard that Jim Bob decided not to join our union. Now, it’s important that you understand that, according to the right-to-work law, he has the right not to do that. So it’s important that nobody do nuthin’ to him, like throw rocks through the windows of his house on 123 Straight St., or slash the tires of his sandy brown 1998 Buick Skylark when its parked at the factory. And its especially important that y’all’s kids don’t mess with his kids, Billy and Tommy, in 4th and 6th grades at Sandy Hook Elementary, by, like beatin’ ‘em up at recess. ‘Cause, you know, that would be bad.”
UNION GOONS: “Right boss. 123 Straight St. Got it.”
Seriously, I’m not necessarily arguing that right-to-work laws have made southern states attractive to industrial development, but I’m not sure how it actually works.
But more importantly, I am morally certain that Barak Obama and his moneymen, watching the spectacle of Michiganders, almost all of them white, coming to blows outside the legislature, are laughing their asses off. Keeping the GOP and the unions antagonistic towards each other is all part of his plan to keep power until immigration makes the GOP unelectable.
The GOP, meanwhile, may never get the support of the unions, but it needs those union members votes if it ever expects to win the presidency again. Again, once the GOP picked the fight, then it’s better that they won, but really, were there really no more pressing problems to worry about?
* It’s quite reasonable for, say, a church that operates a private school, to require teachers to be members of the church. But the private schools I know about don’t actually impose this requirement.
3 comments:
Breaking the stranglehold that some unions have on some states is about the only way that those states are going to return to prosperity. Now businesses may move there, taxes may be paid there, and, the government may be able to restrict the power of government unions, thus saving taxpayer dollars.
So, no, there were no more pressing problems.
As far as getting the unions to vote GOP, around 40% of their membership identifies themselves as conservative or republican. We have now served at least those, and they will probably leave the union, depriving the leftists of their hard earned money. The rest have never and will never vote for us anyway, because we aren't going to mandate unions for everyone. Those thugs that we have all seen on TV voted en masse for Obama and every other Democrat for the past fifty years, I'd be willing to bet.
until immigration makes the GOP unelectable
That day is already here.
The only proviso is that the GOP, of course, will frantically seek to writhe itself into an "electable" form (which means, from my perspective, who cares if they get elected or not?).
Dexter: Electing the GOP requires whites to work together. But yeah, there isn't much evidence of that happening.
Here: I'm not arguing against right-to-work. I'm saying that by itself it doesn't build the kind of coalition the GOP needs.
True, labor unions are not compatible with the high immigration, high import society our elites have given us. But GOP would be better focused on restricting immigration and trade.
Post a Comment