If Congress passed a law doing away with the right to vote by secret ballot and replaced it with a "card check" in national elections, the New York Times would be outraged, calling it a fundamental violation of human rights. Why, then, do they support this abomination?

There are many reasons for the long decline in the membership rolls for private sector unions, including powerful changes in the economy and the unionsÂ’ past corruption scandals. And there is little doubt that federal rules and regulations for union organizing have also become increasingly hostile to labor, helping to drive unionsÂ’ share of the work force down from a peak of 35 percent in the 1950s to a mere 7.4 percent today.

The House of Representatives passed a bill last week that would strengthen the rights of employees to form unions, and it drew an immediate veto threat from President Bush. But if Mr. Bush were, as he claims, truly concerned about rising income inequality and truly committed to improving the lives of AmericaÂ’s middle class, he would support the legislation and urge the Senate to approve it.

The problem here is that the New York Times, while going on about the right of employees to organize, ignores the fact that workers also have the right not to organize. But then again, since when has the New York Times really supported the right of individuals to associate or not associate freely -- or to exercise any other right -- when it gets in the way of its liberal ideology?

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.