> .....going against the wishes of the majority of people.....


Rash Assumptions again? Or is that just wishful thinking?

Fact is that it was a majority of legislators in both houses, that voted for this; and each was elected by a majority of the people. As was the Governor. All three branches! It doesn't get any more plain and obvious than that. The majority expects their state government to do something to bring business and industry, and jobs back - and so they are doing just what is expected of them!

And don't be so sure that the people of California will not finally become so weary of dead industry and evaporating jobs; that they too will rise up and throw off the yoke of wanton ignorance, that is oppressing them and keeping them dependent (thus beholden) to some benevolent emperor.

So where did you get the idea that anywhere near a majority of the people anywhere, support unions. They Don't - haven't for years! Especially in states where industry has been strangled to death by intransigent self serving union thugs, pretending to have willing support from even their own members.

They don't - it is commonly coerced - sometimes with violence. And BTW, it was largely unwilling union members that got Ronald Reagan elected by a 59% margin. And that is what RTW laws are about in the first place - stopping coerced membership in highly politicized private organizations.

Fact is that every one of those who so violently oppose this, routinely assert (admit) that they must have this coercion, in order to make unions work. But if that is really so, then it plainly follows that a large number of people do not want to be in a union and must therefore be coerced.

Clearly, those outside of unions (almost 70%) are willing to work for what they can get without a union; and in many cases that amount is actually more, as it was with me. The willing tradeoff in return for a good salary; was willingness to work hard (as if what you were doing actually mattered), and the flexibility to let management do the managing. Employees that do this are almost always paid better, and they are usually happier too; than those that play victim, or become overly dependent on unions.

That is, unless such employees have to belong to a union (the union somehow owns them?). In that case they are about as likely to be victimized be the union, as by the company. Pawns all! I should know - I was a union steward for quite some time. That is, until I got sick of all the rigged votes, disinformation, and obvious corruption at the very top; not to mention the outright fascist thuggery I witnessed and was expected to participate it - or else!.


All true enough; but nevertheless a BIG FAT HAIRY SHAME ! Because it is critical to a truly free labor market, that some SORT of institution or device be established, that is able to balance out the naturally occurring concentration of economic power; in the few buyers of labor, relative to the great many sellers. And if unions can't (won't actually) do this, then who or what will? But the harsh reality for many union dependent workers, who have been spoon fed partisan B...s... for so many years now, is that in this post-industrial age; unionism IS dead, having decayed from within.

So we will just have to invent something else. One good place to start would be to reform the Federal Reserve Board, so that it stops skewing the marketplace in favor of employers. Maybe it should even skew it the other way to help balance out market forces. But that is a rant for another day.

OPB