I’m copying in two letters that appear in today’s Wall Street Journal regarding the consequences of unionization. The first letter warns that states and municipalities that allow unionization of their workers will find that it costs a great deal of money. The second letter explains that unions trample on the rights of individuals who don’t agree with the politics of the union bosses.

I’m glad the Journal ran these letter, but I object to the headline, which asserts that there is a conflict between collective and individual rights. Nope. There are only individual rights. Groups don’t have rights.

LETTERS

When Workers Collective, Individual Rights Conflict

Coming from a state where police and fire employees have had collective bargaining since the 1980s, I can certify the anticipated results from federal legislation granting such bargaining rights nationwide as predicted in your May 12 editorial “The Union Police.” Ohio has arguably one of the most pro-labor public sector bargaining laws in the country, and a tax burden to prove it.

Ohio’s system places the critical financial resources of local governments into the hands of a state-appointed “neutral” conciliator, who steps in at impasse and issues binding agreements upon the parties, overriding the will of local elected officials. Furthermore, state policy bars any comparison of public employee pay or benefits to comparable positions in the private sector — placing these employees in a protective bubble that prevents any rational alignment between public and private sector compensation schemes.

Though the dedicated men and women serving in these safety forces deserve competitive pay and benefits, Ohio law has handed over to them a blank check and tipped the scales enormously against governing bodies. Be assured that a federal law will not only nationalize and perpetuate this system, but will serve to escalate the cost of public employment across the board.

David Collinsworth
City Manager
Westerville, Ohio

Your reports on political pushes for unionization remind me how little the public knows about the civil rights consequences of forced unionization. I am the victim of a teachers union. Unlike my union’s supporters, I and others must relinquish one set of civil rights to defend another. If we don’t support the union’s political activities, we pay fees instead of dues. Our fees cover all the union’s representational expenses, yet we are denied the right to vote on labor contracts and union leaders.

We only get to vote if we are willing to subsidize someone else’s political views. When I asked my union local to give us the vote, they wanted to know my political preferences and they assured me that I ought not to feel deprived because they were “listening” to me. I’m ashamed that a Congressional majority would deprive workers of such fundamental freedoms.

Sue Holt
Santa Cruz, Calif.