One Explanation

Union busters from the NFL to the Midwest are hoping to hamstring the  funding capabilities of their political opponents. One of the primary metrics used in determining electoral success in the United States is money raising prospects. Yes, Money! Most always the candidate winning elected office is the one that builds the largest campaign "war chest" measured in $.

First ,our highest court decides that corporations are entitled to the same rights as individuals, particularly free speech. Such rights also include the right to contribute unlimited amounts of money to finance political candidates and political action committees of their choosing. Some may find such a decision a reasonable extension of "human rights". I don't! You may disagree.

Next, the political Right believes it is politically expedient to limit unions from negotiating for better and better wages and benefits.  One point:  each and  employees carries out these types of negotiations with their employer either individually or collectively. Members of  labor unions pay dues to their Union so that cash is available to compensate agents engaged in these negotiations on their behalf. Not so sure? Let's hear what you think.

Union dues are also contributed  to politicians and political action committees of their own choosing. Fine for one group, says the Supreme Court, "unaffordable" for the other say some Republican governors. Fewer union members around the country means fewer dollars for Democratic  politicians thus more electoral victories for the money interests. OK for the wealthiest "individuals", not so OK for the diminishing middle class of this nation.

Class Warfare? You bet!

Let's hear from you.