Dear EDITOR:
Thank you for the legal citations, Mr. Andrade; I always enjoy
reading up on legal history.
Dear EDITOR:
Thank you for the legal citations, Mr. Andrade; I always enjoy reading up on legal history. I checked out the Wagner Act of 1935 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 on the Net. I do not understand why you cite them as justification for your “right to organize” rhetoric since the Wagner Act does exactly what I said in my letter.
It forces employers to accept union organizers as employees, forces employees to pay union dues whether they are members or not, forces employees to join unions as a condition of employment, prohibits employers from dealing directly with employees, and forces employers to negotiate with unions. Incidentally, the section you quoted from the Taft-Hartley Act preserving the right of workers not to join unions was repealed in 1951.
Since unions existed in this country long before 1935 and have had the right to exist under English and American law for about 700 years, the Wagner Act did not bestow “the right to organize,” it gave you “the right to steal from your employers.”
Are you so blinded by loyalty to your union that you are unable to see that you are forcibly taking freedom to associate, freedom to contract, and property from your countrymen to achieve the wage advantages you are so proud of? I get the impression that you use “the right to organize” in the same way as the feminists use “choice.” It’s a deceptive facade that allows you to support and perform acts that you cannot even talk about openly.
I would like to see you try support your argument that unions are responsible for the American standard of living because I think you cannot do it. Since standard of living depends on the production and distribution of goods, you must argue that unions have increased overall productivity. While I would be the first to admit that some union workers are just as skilled and hard-working as their non-union counterparts, the combination of higher labor costs and restrictive union work rules reduce productivity and therefore reduce average standard of living.
If you do choose to reply to this letter, Mr. Andrade, would you be so kind as to include the Davis-Bacon Act in your discussion of the benefits that unions have bestowed upon society?
Thanks for the letter, Mr. Mitchell. This here moronic sociopath is always glad to hear from you. Kind of elevating, if you know what I mean. Do you ever actually win any cases with that kind of rhetoric?
I am running out of words here Mr. Mitchell, so I would just like to point out that every example that both you and Mr. Andrade gave is exactly what I said in my letter, legislation that benefitted some small group of voters at the expense of the general welfare.
Are either of you gentlemen even capable of understanding what a policy that supports the welfare of the nation and the society is?
Stuart Allen, Gilroy
Submitted Sunday, Sept. 28 to ed****@****ic.com
