Your view: Right to work is wrong

The Jan. 24 editorial suggesting that Gov. Blunt should renew discussion on Right to Work as one of his first priorities and that it would level the playing field in attracting industry is a distorted fact.

All the law does is allow workers to choose if they want to be a "dues paying" member and in turn financially weakens a Union when some employees refuse to pay dues. These same employees that refuse to be a "member" of the union are entitled by law the same representation and financial benefits as dues paying members.

This creates division within the union and therefore weakens the union financially and spiritually. This is what "Right to Work" is intended to do. It is a tactic to virtually destroy and in the end "bust" unions. Some non-union shops pay what we call union wages solely because there is still a threat of workers organizing.

Sometimes paying good wages will prevent workers from wanting to organize and allow these companies to "keep" unions out. Keeping unions out allow these companies to operate without having to offer health care benefits, abide by safety laws, etc. that unions demand. This way of operating is a financial advantage without regards to the safety and health of their employees. Do you think these same companies would still pay union wages if the threat of unions were no longer there?

Besides, before a workplace becomes union under present law there is an organizing campaign that has to get a majority of workers to vote yes to be certified through the dept. of labor. Majority rules in unionizing a plant and the employees voting no along with all members pay dues. Employees that refuse to be "active" members and are "forced" to pay dues are getting a tremendous return for their dollar rather they admit it or not.

So if you think mandating union membership, as you call it, is such a bad thing and runs industry out of the area maybe we need to put most of the blame on NAFTA and other lax laws that allow industry to flee for "greener pastures." Unions are the only way to force these greedy companies to pay and treat employees with dignity and respect they deserve.

This greed and the scramble to secure cheap labor and make bigger profits at the expense of their employees is immoral. This is called exploiting workers.

Implementing the Right to Work in Missouri would be another tactic of targeting the very existence of unions. This is also a legal form of "union busting." This is not where our country needs to go. This is an assault on hard working families that deserve better. It is my hope that people find out what "Right to Work" really is before they support this law. This law gives industry more leverage on an already uneven playing field that tilts their way.

Erwin Porter

New Madrid