Home > conservative, government, republicans > Indiana’s proposed union legislation is a little too ‘big govt.’ for me

Indiana’s proposed union legislation is a little too ‘big govt.’ for me

The Great Seal of the State of Indiana

Image via Wikipedia

You know, maybe I’m missing something here (which is entirely possible), but I don’t think I like what’s happening in Indiana.  According to the Wall Street Journal, there is a bill making its way through the Indiana House of Representatives which would, reportedly, bar a private union from requiring that a worker belong to the union before the union has to bargain on behalf of the worker.  This would change Indiana law rather significantly for unions:

In Indiana currently, if a union bargains for a group of employees at a workplace, all workers covered by the contract must belong to the union.

As a conservative, this proposed legislation sounds like one of the worst ideas ever.  A union, like a country club, is a private organization with operating costs and limited resources, right?  Why would it use its own resources to bargain on behalf of a non-member?  More importantly, where does the government get off telling private organizations – and private businesses – what they can and can’t do?

Look, if someone wants to be in a union, he should be able to.  If he doesn’t want to be in a union, he shouldn’t have to.  If a private company wants to hire only union members, it should be able to.  If the private company doesn’t want to hire any union members, it shouldn’t have to.  This seems like a no-brainer.  Of course, I’m the guy who thinks an owner should be able to hire and/or serve whomever he wants at his restaurant, for whatever reason, since it’s his restaurant; others, including the Supreme Court, disagree.  So what do I know?

When I said private and public unions are different animals, I meant it.  When I said private unions, as opposed to public unions, should be able to exist and bargain for better pay and benefits, I meant it.  The entire point of being a conservative is advocating for small government.  When the government is telling private citizens, groups, and companies what they can and can’t do, the government is no longer small. 

If the Indiana bill proposes to do what the Wall Street Journal says it does, then conservatives everywhere should be with the unions in defeating it.  Just because legislation is offered by a Republican doesn’t make it any less instrusive.

  1. Mary
    February 22, 2011 at 7:28 PM

    Well, that would mean no more unions. And I agree, that isn’t any of the government’s business. After all, why would anyone join and pay dues if they are going to get all the benefits without paying dues.

  2. July 11, 2015 at 1:10 AM

    Quality content is the crucial to invite the visitors to go
    to see the website, that’s what this site is providing.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: