http://disqus.com/people/46275be3edad456ebfd8199de69d4f02/enFri, 19 Sep 2008 17:02:58 -0000http://coloradoindependent.disqus.com/former_gov_bill_owens_chimes_in_on_amendment_47/#comment-2442287Well, I know good people who have differing opinions on this issue. FDR supported proportional representation, meaning different unions could represent different groups of employees, until Sen. Wagner convinced him on majority representation. However, even under the latter, it could reasonably be argued that the cost to an to individual who does not wish to be represented by the bargaining agent of their loss of individual representation cancels out the benefit of the value of such undesired representation. The fallacy is to equate post-union certification collective bargaining with self-governance. Although that was originally envisioned in the Wagner Act, we all know unions do not govern workers and that workers do not administer workplace justice or discipline through unions. Unions are bargaining agents, like lawyers or real estate agents. They just have a privileged ability to retain that status - and collect dues and "voluntary" political contributions for candidates workers may or may not support as individuals and regardless of their "clients'" preferences except under extraordinary circumstances. When it comes to unions, breaking up really is hard to do. But that doesn't mean you can't have separate checking accounts.Be FairFri, 19 Sep 2008 11:43:31 -0000http://coloradoindependent.disqus.com/labor_to_blast_mailers_aimed_at_reagan_democrats/#comment-2447097At least he got to vote. Think there is any union you would want to vote "no" on at your workplace? AFL-CIO's #1 priority - Employee-Free Choice Act - only lets those seeking union certification decide if employees can vote in a secret ballot election or not. So, if they seek certification based on signed authorization cards, you would never have that chance. Obama has promised to sign it if elected. Don't fall for it.Be FairFri, 19 Sep 2008 17:02:58 -0000