In a paper union officials will undoubtedly ignore, Michael Oswalt, a graduate of the AFL-CIO’s “Law Student Union Summer” program, observed an obvious truth: unions in Right to Work states are more accountable to their members because they have to be.
Citing AFL-CIO founder Samuel Gomper’s own opposition of forced unionism, Oswalt writes that “simple logic” shows that when forced dues are eliminated union officials must be more accountable to the concerns of individual members:
Indeed, simple logic suggests that when dues are guaranteed, attentive member servicing may not be, cultivating a frustrated and apathetic rank and file. The right-to-work environment, alternatively, stands in sharp relief. Where dues are linked to member satisfaction, leadership’s responsiveness embodies a special urgency…
In other words, if Oswalt’s former bosses at the AFL-CIO were really concerned with what is best for rank-and-file workers, they would support a National Right to Work Act.
Comments
And Now The Rest of the Story
I have read Michael’s paper in fact even contacted him regarding it (which you did not) Here is a quote from Mike Himself “I saw the NRTW blog posting yesterday.
Clearly, it misstates my personal position as well as the thrust of the paper's argument as a whole.“. If you were to include papers true intention then you could have posted an accurate editorial. I am hoping that anyone who reads posts here takes the time to research the posts then with all the info you can see the manipulation. If the Right to work were that great then you would not have to resort to misleading editorials. Right to Work is an effort to disable unions, thus eliminating them and leaving workers with no rights at all. I wish you and your supporters could be truthful. You do not care about workers you just hate unions.
Accountability
Bismarck
In my experience, when my employer gave in to the union and agreed to compel the payment of union dues as a condition of employment, the union leadership became more arrogant and less responsive to the members’ wishes. In fact, the union actually traded a wage increase for the agency shop provision. When the interests of the members are in conflict with the interests of the union leaders, the members always come in second.
Response to original post
I have read Michael's paper, in fact I even contacted him about it (I am not certain but I do not think you spoke with him) Here is a quote from Mike himself, "I saw the NRTW blog posting yesterday. Clearly, It misstates my personal position as well as the thrust of the paper's argument as a whole. " If you were to include the papers true intention then you could have posted an accurate editorial. I am hoping that anyone who reads the posts here take the time to research the accuracy of every post. I am curious about the misleading article and wonder how many others are done the same way. Can right to work stand on its own merits or is there an underlying reason for your support. Could it be that eliminating unions is the focus and supposedly supporting workers rights is the vehicle.
And now the rest of the story
These comments refer to the original post.
I have read Michael’s paper in fact even contacted him regarding it (which you did not) Here is a quote from Mike Himself “I saw the NRTW blog posting yesterday.
Clearly, it misstates my personal position as well as the thrust of the
paper's argument as a whole. “If you were to include papers true intention then you could have posted an accurate editorial. I am hoping that anyone who reads posts here takes the time to research the posts then with all the info you can see the manipulation. If the Right to work were that great then you would not have to resort to misleading editorials. Right to Work is an effort to disable unions, thus eliminating them and leaving workers with no rights at all. I wish you and your supporters could be truthful. You do not care about workers you just hate unions.