Isn’t a Job Also a “Basic Human Right?”

by lewwaters

Union StrangleholdIt seems everywhere we turn today, some Progressive twit is declaring what they want to be a “basic human right.” Abortion, birth control, medicine, healthcare, a home, public transportation, recreational drugs, food and any number of other wants are declared basic human rights that should just be given to them, free of charge with someone else footing the bill.

But it seems that when it comes to a job, that is not a basic human right and judging by the actions unfolding as the Michigan legislature passes Right to Work legislation, you should not be able to have a job or work for a paycheck unless you are held hostage to a union.

Right to work very simply says that someone may not be required to join a union and be forced to pay dues to a third party (the union) in order to be hired and work at a company or place of business, drawing a paycheck.

It does not kill the union, but makes joining the union voluntary.

Unions, who use the collected dues often to donate and support Democrats, who in turn write legislation favorable to corrupt unions, hate right to work for obvious reasons, people do not like being forced to pay a third party in order to be able to work and feed their families.

All too often, unions see their membership drop and dues decline as workers opt out of union membership after right to work legislation is passed. The worker does better with more money in their pocket, spending it on their family instead of ensuring union bosses have luxurious lifestyles and freely give money to Democrats, but the union abhors people being able to succeed on their own, beholding to no one, held hostage only to their talents and abilities.

Unions are known for their violent rallies and protests, even murder to force their way into people’s lives an Michigan is seeing that very thing happen today as they passed the latest right to work law.

The video below one such violent outburst by union zombies against an Americans for Prosperity tent set

The tent was occupied by people freely using their first amendment rights to support or oppose legislation, just as any of the rest us have and do. Some union thugs were armed with knives as their tore down and ripped up the tent, all because they oppose other people not being forced to join their union against their will.

We saw this last year in Longview, Washington as the Longshoremen’s union turned violent in protesting a company using another union, taking hostages, destroying private property and terrorizing the citizens.

Unions also promote lies about their worth and history, falsely they are who brought about the 40 hour work week. That was Henry Ford who brought about the 5 day, 40 hour work week and Henry Ford was very much anti-union, fighting to keep them out of his early corporation.

The effectiveness of unions can be seen in the economic decline of Detroit, Michigan, once a thriving center of American Automobile production. The city is nearing bankruptcy, neighborhoods that once were filled with productive workers now see empty dilapidated houses and deteriorating sidewalks and streets.

We recently saw city council members calling for a federal government bailout as one member expressed to Barack Obama, “we elected you now bail us out,” explaining his job was to “bring home the bacon.”

We even see Barack Obama, who champions himself a protector of basic human rights inserting himself into the Michigan right to work matter, telling union stooges, “What we shouldn’t be doing is try to take away your rights to bargain for better wages or working conditions.”

Newsflash for Obama, Right to Work does not remove anybodies rights to collective bargaining or improved working conditions, it only makes membership in a union voluntary, removing the unions’ ability to force membership and dues collection.

What it does it lets workers decide on their own if they will join a union or act as free agents when it comes to employment, not be held hostage by a third party.

Obviously, voluntary union membership strokes a note of fear in the union bosses hearts.

To be clear, when I say a job is a basic human right I do not mean that everyone is owed a job. No, but we should be free to pursue any job we want and work wherever we can impress the owner that they need our talents, not being held hostage to third party unions who only take from workers and produce nothing but more violence.

We cannot be the “Land of the Free” if we are forced into owing our souls to thuggish union bosses in order to just have a job and care for our families.

Union appreciation for our first amendment freedoms

Do you want to be held hostage to these thugs?

23 Comments to “Isn’t a Job Also a “Basic Human Right?””

  1. Nice example of liberal tolerance and openness. “When words don’t work, use rocks”

  2. I’m a liberal Democrat and a pro-private (not public) union supporter but “Right to Work” is exactly that. We have a Right of Association which should allow workers to eschew unions – and it’s not just me (an attorney) talking – Article 20(2) of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” expressly provides that no one may be compelled to belong to unions, and Article 11 of the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)” says the same thing. Only the supposedly “free” U.S.of A. forces workers to join unions!

  3. Martin, you must be a very unique liberal Democrat. It seems to me that the Democratic Party very much favors forcing people to join unions, and I would guess that they would be very dismayed by your deliberate exclusion of public unions (which I very much agree with you on).

    If you ask me, this behavior in Michigan was subtly promoted and perhaps instigated by President Obama with his choice of words in his recent remarks addressing the issue. His statement “What we shouldn’t be doing is taking away your rights to bargain for better labor agreements.” is an outright fabrication designed to generate anger and reaction. The bill does not take away anyone’s rights – it actually enhances worker rights, yet he chose to exacerbate the situation by using language like he did.

  4. Fresh from graduation from high school with a semester or two of college under my belt, I got my first full time job with a major railroad (I lived in California at the time). I was shocked to discover that I had to either join a particular union within the first 30 days of my employment or be discharged from my new job. This was extremely unsettling as I’d learned the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution so recently during my years of education (mostly outside the public school system).

    When this requirement was brought to my attention, I was not given any information about the value of the union to me (as a worker) nor information about the advantages it might provide. I was simply told, you _must_ pay an “initiation fee” (about 1/4 my monthly earnings) and subsequent monthly dues so long as I was employed in a position covered under union contract. During the next dozen years of my career, I watched (as an unwilling union member) as the union acted in ways that were often contrary to individual member interests — but that benefited the unions. A new contract would give us a 3% raise — and the union would increase dues by 5%. Another new contract gave workers a minimal wage increase (1%) — but extended union coverage to classes of workers who were not previously required to be a union member — office supervisors — a job level I had reached — requiring me to pay a large “reinstatement” fee and to again pay monthly union dues. The outrage (on top of paying dues against my will) was that the “exemption” of my position remained in effect, where my pay and job were completely at the company’s will — I received exactly zero benefit from being “in the union.”

    I have subsequently come to the conclusion that nobody should be forced to join a union against their free will. Unions, if they provide a benefit to the workers, can (and should) “sell” themselves and generate a free will desire among those workers to join the union if they feel the union can adequately represent them and generate benefits for them. In addition, political activities by unions should be funded outside the regular dues (that should pay for the expenses of organizing and representing workers). Political expenses should be financed by individual, freely paid donations — just like free citizens contribute to any other political action committee. I note that the union local I belonged to was on the losing side of the Supreme Court Case that allowed union members to “opt out” of the political funding aspect of union dues. Despite this “opt out” option, unions have uniformly made opt out options exceedingly difficult to establish and typically provide considerable social pressure on the few who do attempt to exercise their right to not fund political speech that they don’t believe in.

    I would urge our representatives in Olympia to immediately establish the State of Washington as a “right to work” state and end the coerced union membership that plagues workers in our state.

  5. The State of Washington public employees local 307 is forcing all temporary state USDA workers to join, but not entitled to the same rights as a permanent state employee. You dont have a choice to say no, so to me, the union is being forced up my human rights. Why would anyone support it when there is no benefit.

  6. Not USDA, WSDA,

  7. council 28 AFSCME
    not local 307. oops again.

  8. Isn’t a Job Also a “Basic Human Right?”

    Nope. That only applies to mandatory employer provided birth control.

  9. Craig, I’ve been very open about my position on unions since I began seeking elective office as a Democrat. In fact, I enshrined my position both legally and politically a couple years ago in the following post:

    http://www.martinhash.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=218

    Obviously, I cannot get my party’s endorsement even though I was a PCO for years, attended every meeting, was among the largest donors of many Democratic candidates, and had a following of like-minded Democrats in my corner. The local Democratic Party is controlled by public employee unions and The League of Women Voters, so there’s little chance you’ll ever see me representing our great state but I plan on staying in the game just to keep the bastards honest.

  10. Glad to see your clarification that a job is not a basic right down at the bottom of the article. I think the phrase you’re really looking for is freedom of association, which mandatory union violates.

  11. Josef, I think Lew’s characterization of a job being a “basic human right” correct (including his disclaimer). Either that or there better be some kind of “safety net.” I simply do not understand the Conservative reasoning behind allowing people to suffer & die as punishment for failure, whatever caused it. I’m not a bleeding-heart, and I’m not religious, I just didn’t sign up for a society that treats pets like kings but dismisses people as deserving their fates.

  12. Martin, your characterization of conservatives is far from how we feel and off-base. It sounds like more Progressive Democrat propaganda.

    We do believe in a TEMPORARY safety net, not to make some life-long wards of the state or reward them in the long term for not even trying and seeking the easy way out, sponging off of others people’s efforts.

    The characterization of conservatives as cold-hearted bastards willing to let people die is as bogus of a claim as you have ever made.

  13. Dude, “sponging off others.” Who the hell are you to make that determination?

    I worked free legal aid for years. Most of those peoples are losers & exploiters. I certainly wouldn’t want any of them as friends, or depend on them, or trust their word or judgment on anything. They were definitely “sponging off others,” but there is no other choice but to deal with it.

    I wish there was some kind of in-between citizenship, where incompetent people had fewer rights – but there’s not. They are the burden of a liberty-based society.

  14. Believe it or not, Martin, there are a lot of other people in the world besides you.

    It is those “losers & exploiters” you mention that I am talking about. Why do they get the free ride at the expense of the rest of us?

    And your answer is to just continue enabling them?

    This also goes back to what I have said previously, blanket solutions don’t work. It needs to be tailored more individually, less acceptability for the sponges. They can be identified, it just means someone would have to do the work and we already pay millions of people to do that, but they too take the easy way out.

    It also protects their paycheck to keep people dependent.

    Years ago I married a woman with 3 kids that was on welfare. I contacted DSHS to tell them to remove her as I was making decent money.

    Instead, they tried to find a way to add me to welfare. They couldn’t so they finally took her off.

  15. Let me get this straight: Conservatives aren’t “cold-hearted bastards” because they only let SOME people suffer & die? (The ones that deserve it.)

  16. Martin, twist it any way you desire, what you propose only enables those very “losers & exploiters” you embrace.

    Does it not occur to you that without the free and easy hand outs, most of them would be forced to work and contribute to society?

    And those that won’t work will likely turn to crime and be locked up anyway.

    Or do you propose emptying prisons and fee sorry for murderers and bank robbers?

    You say you’re not bleeding heart, then propose a bleeding heart approach

    I guess you never heard of “tough love?”

  17. Dude, I almost used “tough love” as an example of Conservatism but I didn’t know if you folks still fell for that kind of moral justification of an immoral act? “Tough love” is a euphorism for “cold-hearted bastards.”

  18. A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person’s freedom of action in a social context. The Declaration of Independence lays out these rights as fundamental: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — there is back ground writing that suggests that the founders intended “pursuit of happiness” to mean the ability to own and benefit from property.

    Philosophically, there is only one fundamental right — all others are its consequences or corollaries: A person’s right to his/her own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. The right to life means the freedom to take all actions required by a rational being for the support, furtherance, fulfillment, and the enjoyment of his/her own life. (This is the basic meaning of the phrase: “…right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

    The right to life is the source of all rights and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since a person has to sustain his/her own life BY HIS/HER OWN EFFORT, the person who has no right to the product of his/her effort has no means to sustain his/her life. The person who produces while OTHERS dispose of his product, is a slave.

    So, Martin, you suggest that all of us should be slaves to provide for those who are unable or unwilling to produce for themselves. This is morally false and an invalid option.

    Those who are better off, if they so wish. can, without coercion, give to charities that would provide for those unfortunates who are unable to find work. (Note that most of the problems with finding work are due to ill considered government policies.) When government, at the point of a gun (or incarceration) takes from the productive to give to the unproductive, that is simply establishing a means for the sponges to live without effort. Prior to the age of bleeding heart liberalism (progressivism), the poor and unhealthy were effectively well taken care of. Of course there were failures of providing for some — they fell through the cracks. But the current system also fails to provide for some (the cracks are still there), but also unjustly supports many who might otherwise be self-supporting.

  19. In your mind, Martin.

    It’s also a euphemism for “sink or swim.”

    By your reasoning, we should work to end drug addiction, alcoholism, pedophilia or any other scourge on society, we should just let them be and supply them what they want.

    Where do you draw a line, Martin?

    To me, the real “cold hearted bastards” are those that enable such leeches on society an leave the rest of us prey to their lazy antics.

  20. Obviously from the last two posts, Conservatives are seen as “cold-hearted bastards” because they are. I didn’t say it – you guys did.

    However, we DO agree in RTW!

  21. You want to believe we are cold hearted bastards and that is all you want to see, martin.

    Just like other good little brainwashed liberal, progressive, Marxists.

    You just believe what you want, the hell with truth.

    Your own words prove it.

    So tell me, since you are also an attorney, why do we have prisons?

    Shouldn’t those incarcerated be set free to pursue life as they want?

    Justify your bleeding heart attitude and locking up people.

  22. It is wrong to describe conservatives as “cold-hearted bastards” because they don’t want the government to provide cradle-to-grave support for everyone in the country.

    It is typical of liberals to demonize conservatives as cheap, stingy, non-caring, and mean because conservatives don’t want large government programs to take the place of hard work and initiative.
    Martin, you would do well to pay close attention to ‘Friend of John Galt’. An important statement he makes is the difference between charities helping people and the government helping people. When charities help, it is of their own free will and the free will donations of those who support their efforts. When government helps, it is with one hand outstretched to help, with the other hand in my pocket or your pocket – there are no ‘free-will’ donations involved. As ‘Friend’ states, it is coerced at the point of a gun. In addition, when government ‘helps’, those so ‘helped’ become thralls to the state. The government virtually owns millions of individuals in this country because of government programs. The truth is though, that is exactly what progressive liberals want.

    As far as giving, conservatives are more generous than liberals. Liberals, for all their emoting about helping others, are notoriously tight-fisted when it comes to their own money. It’s only other people’s money that they’re generous with. To help you understand, here is a link to a New York Times Op-Ed wherein the notoriously liberal Nicholas Kristof admits that liberals are a bunch of whining cheapskates. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

  23. What I literally feel is, if you take the tax exemptions away, cut spending and basically tell people, there is no free lunch in life. That is how I feel is what is missing from society.

    And as someone who has had to use medical based social support services from the government to stay alive. Yes, I’m one of the people that conversatives describe in their attempt to qualify and quantify as “the lazy…” I would love to find a way to be able to live out my life without needing that financial burden of others. And every single point and decision in my life, I work 100 percent hard to make sure that every single dollar I believe I am using is well, SPENT.

    But a lot has been said here. And I agree. How the federal and state government is set up, is to take from those who may or may not have the means to pay to support those who I personally believe may not need to be on social services. But I would suggest and make the very SAME type of argument to government subsidies and wasteful defense budgets that are put together to funnel special interest money back to states and regions…. If you think or feel that social services sucks up huge resources, take a hard look at ALL of the budget. What about the farming, food and transportation industries that get huge subsidies? And that too numerous to list and give light executive summary too…

    So let us be fair here. I don’t make any bones about any government subsidy. And as the blog owner may know, I go after all of it from Defense to the Veterans Administaton down to social services. Are ther better ways to deliver? I can honestly say and tell you, I believe there are way too many special interests in Washington, DC. That is some thing I agree all of us can agree with…… And I also believe, not every one needs or deserves “special” treatment or exemption as they are getting now…..

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers

%d bloggers like this: