You see the union member in the video asked why he's against "right-to-work." He responds:
"...it's the freedom to freeload. They can suck all of the parasitical(?) benefits and our wages that unions have negotiated and they get it for free!"
So here's my question, to my left-leaning, union-supporting friends like that fellow:
How on earth is it that you can condemn those who don't want to join a union as "freeloaders," and support a president who reinforces freeloading by nearly half of the country when it comes to, say, Obamacare or any number of other entitlement programs?
Try this: "They can suck all of the health insurance benefits that our taxes have paid for and they get it for free!" Is the reasoning any different here?
Even liberal Mother Jones points out the dangers of "free riders":
"Right-to-work allows those nonmembers to receive union representation without paying for it—unions deride those folks 'free-riders.' The result of right-to-work laws is that unions see their treasuries diminish and membership take a hit."
But "free riders" in national entitlement programs, who get representation without paying taxes? Apparently that won't diminish our national treasury or lower the membership in the working class. Or so the left keeps saying.
I also noted that several liberal commentators used the word "fair," as in "if workers don't join a union, they should still have to pay equivalent fees, so that it's fair for all workers." It's funny how that word "fair" takes on a completely different meaning when those same commentators talk about taxation
I wish they would make up their minds.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I myself belong to a union. I think they've done some good for the workers, but in the main I resent them because I think they spent far too much time (and far too many resources) as an arm of the Democratic Party. Honestly, the workers have taken a back seat in terms of importance.