Im wondering what readers on this web are thinking about the controversial right to work legislation likely to become Indiana law which removes mandatory union payments from non union members in the work place. I remember when I was a member of the Laborers union long ago that health insurance and retirement and I think some other benefits were part of the package and I was happy to be a union member because of that. Why cant union membership be voluntary? Just wondering.

Ron Ackman

It seems to depend on whether a person is union or non-union; most union people who are blindly following the union way hate that they cannot force union membership. On the other hand the majority of the people are in favor of the new law because of union mistakes such as backing far left democratic candidates; this causes union members on the right and center to hate their money is being used to elect people into office who they do not agree with.
There will be democrat walkouts in Indianapolis but in time it will pass because the majority will back it and it is an election year and keeping their office will trump union kickbacks.
It is not the union that everybody is objecting to but the upper union management’s corruption. It is much like politicians that allow money and benefit pedaling among the state and federal elected officials.
It is good when the unions help the workers with such things as medical and retirement but it is not good when they use member’s monies to back such things as Obama Care and global warming that the majority does not agree with. There is also the voting for union ship where the unions want an open vote so that they will know for certain who voted against them; this reminds people of the days of the mob in the unions.
The new law simply means that the unions will need to sell their product to the workers to get them to sign on and if they are in defiance of the membership then the rank and file can reject the union’s liberal agenda.
John R. Stanczak