I am appalled at the potential pro-union legislation being considered. I know union/business is a hot button topic, but would the supporters of the pro-union legislation want the end to secret ballots and no pro/con arguments applied to their political voting laws also? I think not! The secret ballot is the cornerstone to free choice without fear of your choice being used against you, and an informed choice can only be made when both sides are considered. The bills being considered want to impose tactics that a strong-armed dictator from a Third World country would employ. Without a secret ballot, if you are on the wrong side of a dictator, your life could be in danger from loyal supporters. If on wrong side of a union issue your life on the job could be made miserable from union supporters.
And why can’t unions support the principle of “informed decision”? A dictator employs all tactics (i.e. Zimbabwe) to minimize any criticism of him or his policies. Why should the union endorse this same tactic? Give the workers some credit to be smart enough to hear both sides of an issue and make an informed decision. Union meetings are not going to present the negatives of union membership, and management is not going to present benefits of union membership. But the worker needs to hear both sides and decide which is the best for their situation. We just made it through months of candidates spending billions to present their position. Voters then cast secret ballots to make an informed decision on which was the best candidate. Why can’t the unions allow the same process to take place in the workplace?
Curt Young
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
