Mark Winegar of Vermillion apparently announced this past weekend that it is his intention to run as a Democrat for the South Dakota legislature.
He might be off and running for office, but a letter to the editor in today’s Argus Leader gives us a hint as to who he intends to represent if he wins. Not the citizens of his district, but the labor unions he demands dues for, whether people want to pay them or not:
The premise of the venomous Right to Work legislation is the mistaken notion that it is unfair to require a worker to join a labor union where one is present. However, non-union workers in a union shop benefit from the collective bargaining paid for by the membership dues of his/her co-workers.
Something for nothing is a seductive proposition, but there is a catch. Unions weaken as one after another worker takes advantage of free-loading. Eventually, the union is either nonexistent or too weak to negotiate.
And…
Unions have a legal obligation to fully represent all assigned bargaining unit employees, members and non-members alike. But with Fair Share, non-members pay a fair share fee in the amount of no more than regular union dues. This fair fee covers the cost of bargaining, implementing, and enforcing the contract. Fee payers are non-members so they cannot hold office in the union, but they share in the expense and benefits of collective bargaining.
“the venomous Right to Work legislation..” “the mistaken notion that it is unfair to require a worker to join a labor union where one is present.” And “Fee payers are non-members so they cannot hold office in the union.”
“The venomous…?” How far off in leftist field IS this guy? How is it a mistaken notion to require someone to pay for something they do not want? And the best part is that he wants to mandate that people pay for that thing they do not want, at full price, with no voice.
That’s not citizen or constituent representation. That’s lobbying for labor unions, and open disdain for anyone who disagrees.
And the voters in his district should take great heed.
His challenge will be that South Dakota doesn’t support forced Union membership, and Nancy Rassmussen gets that.
It’s very frustrating to be forced to pay union dues and you get nothing back as a result of membership.
It’s also frustrating to be stuck as an employer or employee with incompetent or bad employees that are very difficult to get rid due to union protection which hurts profitability for businesses, bonuses and long term job security for employees.
I understand the theory of unions and the contributions they have made but unfortunately so many are corrupt and broken these days going against their own interests.
Higher wages, better than right to work for less.
Yes, I vividly remember the union thug who stopped by my classroom to check and make sure that I was not helping any students after school hours. To do so was a violation of the union teacher contract. He advised that I close my door to make sure no students accidentally wandered in to get science help. Any student who wanted help from a teacher needed to go to detention hall. Forced dues, forced meeting attendance to hear endless self-centered whining, complete lack of concern for students, parents, and home life…yes, please bring that to South Dakota.
Winegar has an interesting perspective. This is a market place and in South Dakota unions are free to prove to workers that the union brings value. If they can prove that in the exchange of ideas in the market place, they get a member. If they can’t effectively bargain with workers and prove they provide value, they don’t get a member.
He wants the law to require workers to join, in those instances when the union is not effective in bargaining with the individual to prove the union brings value!
It might only be ironic, if his answer didn’t also mean forcing workers to give up from the wages they should be allowed to take home to their families.At that point, irony moves mean-spirited.