Right to Work States vs Forced Unionization States

State by State Differences:  In the United States, we have Right to Work States and Forced Unionization States.  Approximately 50% of the states are in each category.  With Right to
Work States, people have a right to work anywhere in that state without beng forced to join a union/pay union dues.  For Forced Unionization States - if a company in one of these states is unionized, you must join the union, or you won't be able to work for that company.  Each state has laws specifically relating to this "right to work" union issue. 

Constitutonalality of forced unionization states?   For Forced Unionization States, have to say that the concept of requiring people to join a union as a prerequisite for obtaining a job at a unionized company doesn't sound like something our founding fathers would have approved of.  While I realize that there have been all sorts of Congressional Legislative/judicial rulings on this, am of the belief that the current laws on this matter, are more related to judicial activism/liberal politicians than it is due to anything that is in (or reasonably can be inferred to be in) the constitution of the United States.  Note:  If you'd like to read my article on Judicial Activism/Construtionism, it's available under in my blog (see "onemanandhisview", title = Supreme Court - Activism vs. Construtionsm).

Advantages of Right to Work States:  Aside from not compelling people to join unions/pay union dues, businesses in Right to Work States can typically put themselves in a more competitive position domestically and interationally due to the decreased power of unions in regards to the negotiation of pay, leave, benefit package, and hirings/firings.  This increased viability of businesses in Right to Work States benefits not just the owners of the business, but also the employees of that business. Comment:  While the concept of unionization in general is fine, union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing.   NOTE:  If you'd like to read more on union competitiveness, go to "Unions - Competitiveness and Intimidation Tactics" at "onemanandhisview".

Public Unions and the Democratic Party:  The practice of public unions donating a substantial portion of their union dues to the Democratic Party, who then - if elected, grant pay, leave, and benefit packages that are favorable to the unions, is unseemly at best.  It certainly gives the appearance of impropriety - a conflict of interest for the elected Democratic politicians who, once elected, are supposed to be exercising the judicious use of taxpayer dollars, and not "paying back" those that helped them get elected.  NOTE:  Take a look at the current budget situation in California if you want to see where this "pay back" gone way awry can lead you.

Unions and the Federal Government:  In the federal government, public unions are not allowed to bargain for pay and benefits.  They are only allowed to bargain/negotiate over conditions of employment - employee safety and working conditions.

Recommendations:

1.  State Public Employee Unions:  To avoid conflicts of interest as much as possible, public unions in our states should be modeled after the federal public unions - bargaining yes - but not for pay and benefits.

2.  Treating people differently in different states:  Consider it highly improper for people in one state to be treated differently than people in another state in regard to something as critical to their very livelihood as employment.  Am hopeful that eventually all fifty states will become right to work states - either through state by state legislative action, or by having forced unionization declared unconsitutional in a Supreme Court decision devoid of judicial activism.