It’s anti-worker, not right-to-work

Friday, June 3, 2011

In an op-ed piece in a recent New Hampshire Sunday News, Speaker of the House William O’Brien tried to make a case for the inappropriately named Right to Work law that New Hampshire Republicans, and many nationwide, have embraced. It is, of course, a union-busting law and while we would certainly agree that some unions have become too strident in their demands over recent decades, it is only a union that can protect workers who often find themselves in need of protection.

To make his case, O’Brien references Boeing which, he said, continues to attempt to put its newest factory in South Carolina, a so-called Right to Work state and claims that this demonstrates “the clear need for this law to produce jobs in New Hampshire.”

In a way, he’s right: Busting unions will attract certain industries – those that want to pay you as little as possible and give you as few benefits as they can.

Unions make a lot of mistakes. Unions can be corrupt. But for every Jimmy Hoffa there is a Walter Reuther, someone who really cares about the worker and about bringing dignity and fairness to the work place.

The onslaught against unions in places like Wisconsin and, of course, New Hampshire can sound good. Right to Work has a ring to it, after all. Gee, everybody should have a right to work. Right. But everybody has the right to a decent wage, don’t they?

Or don’t you think so?

O’Brien and his cadre don’t.

Once unions are broken, you’re on your own and back to square one, i.e., powerless.

We agree that unions need to make some concessions, particularly in how much members contribute for health care. But breaking them is not the answer.

And here’s an interesting dichotomy: As our friends in Concord are working hard to break unions, they have let another class of people off the hook:

Gamblers.

The Legislature repealed the 10 percent tax on lottery winnings of more than $600, something enacted in 2009 when Democrats had control of the House and Senate.

What’s the inherent message? That unions are bad but bucking the odds on the state lottery is good? Fewer people should get a decent wage but more people should buy lottery tickets?

Why shouldn’t someone who wins $700 on a lottery ticket pay $70 to the state? It’s found money, it’s money the gambler didn’t have to begin with, and you still walk away with $630 that you didn’t earn.

On the other hand, breaking the teachers’ union is a great idea because then we can lay off older, more experienced, more costly, teachers.

Well, maybe breaking unions will bring more industry to New Hampshire, but if its the kind of industry Jay Gould could embrace, it isn’t going to pay you enough to live in New Hampshire.

Working men and women seem to be the target.

Lottery players seem to be the favored sons and daughters.

It’s a wonderful message.