Regarding the June 19 letter, "Union dues made job unaffordable":
I am a union member, and I take offense at these types of anti-union attacks by new employees who elect to work at union shops. The writer implies that the union at QFC is an evil anti-worker organization that does not represent the best interests of its employees, and that he was unfairly forced to belong to the union at QFC.
The issue here is that Washington state is not a "right to work" state, and as such, the QFC employees had the right to elect the union to be their exclusive representative in labor matters. This has been a right afforded groups of employees under federal labor laws since Franklin Roosevelt was president.
Now comes the writer, who accepts a union job at QFC, and proceeds to complain in the press about the fairness of what the rest of the employees at QFC have agreed to, prior to his arrival on the scene. Why did the writer apply to work at a union shop? I suggest he refrain from applying for union jobs if he dislikes unions, or move to some "right to work" state like Alabama where there are state laws that have crippled the rights of employees to decide such workplace matters. I think he will find wages and benefits for similar jobs in such "right to work" states to be considerably less than in Washington -- something nonunion types like the writer typically fail to acknowledge.
