But have union leaders shown any inclination to change their destructive ways? No. Examples such as the way the Teamsters reacted in the case of Hostess remain the exception. Rather than reform to adapt to the modern economy, unions are instead trying to boost membership making it tougher for workers to avoid unionizing.
Worse, they have the full backing of the Obama administration. The president enthusiastically campaigned in favor of the “Employee Free Choice Act” -- an Orwellian title for something that would replace the current system of private ballots. Workers would be forced to cast their votes about whether or not to unionize with publicly signed cards, making it easier for union leaders to harass and pressure workers who refuse to vote the “correct” way.
The National Labor Relations Board has gotten in on the act as well. “The NLRB just changed its rules to enable unions to cherry-pick who votes in union elections,” Sherk writes. “At one New York department store, unions recently formed a unit representing only women’s shoe associates on the second and fifth floors. None of the 300 other employees in the store got to vote.”
Yet if that union’s actions take down the entire company -- as Hostess workers have now found out the hard way -- who gets hurt? Everyone, members and non-members alike.
Workers should be allowed to unionize if they like. But it should be a free and private choice, made in a non-threatening atmosphere. The government should not deprive workers of a secret-ballot vote because union leaders might not like the outcome.
Thousands of bakery workers out of a job. Hundred-dollar Twinkies on eBay. Unless today’s unions want to see more of this kind of thing, they may want to try a new recipe.
Rand Paul on NSA: “I Believe What You Do on Your Cell Phone is None of Their Damn Business” | Daniel Doherty
Devastating: 90 Percent of Uninsured Haven't Signed Up For Obamacare, Most Cite High Costs | Guy Benson