Now, I know what all of the union "brothers" are going to say right off the bat. "Oh, HERE we go. Travis is going to get up on his soap box to whine about the union that ALLOWS him to keep his job!"
Yes, and no.
The main basis of this post has little to do with my own thoughts on unions or anything to do with my piece from last year. What this post is about is freshman Sen. Jim Banks' impressive, aggressive, political moves right off the starting block. As you can read in the post below this one, Banks has already moved ahead with his effort to do away with the "death tax" here in Indiana. Now he is pushing for another very conservative ideal: the protection of union workers from...well...their union.
Excerpt borrowed from "Angry White Boy":
State Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) recently
filed legislation seeking an amendment to the Indiana Constitution guaranteeing
an individual’s right to vote by secret ballot in any election where union
representation is at stake.
So what does your run of the mill, conservative union worker think of this legislation? I think it's wonderful news. I haven't ever been able to grasp the concept that so many Democrats have proposed that "secret ballots" are not needed. Of course they are needed! It's nobody's damn business how I vote, especially my union officials' business! There have been several instances at my own place of business where I have not been exactly...ecstatic about the cases that my union has fought for (and in some cases won) and the cases which they have not given the time of day (which I thought were valid arguments and cases where union representation could have been needed).
I know, I know, "union brothers", if you don't like it, be a union griever yourself. And I would, if I had even an extra minute a week that wasn't already filled. I'd do it in a heart beat. In fact, when helping secure an endorsement from my union for a candidate's campaign that I was managing, I was offered a job in the union where I would put up the information fliers at the different shops. I almost did it, too, until the ridiculous flier about "Why Obamacare is Good For Union Workers" flier was published the following week (not only was the flier flat out inaccurate about the information put forth, it didn't in any way mention that the union deal that was fan-dangled is only temporary). You see, it's not that I'm "anti-union", or even "pro-union", at least in the sense that each faction sees themselves. I'm a union worker, but I find the union to be almost unnecessary anymore, and in some cases, even a hindrance on those of us that think that because we work harder and do extra we should have the right to at least ASK for a raise. And perhaps, just perhaps, a fellow that has worked there for 35 years and can barely tie his own shoe shouldn't be operating certain pieces of equipment. And maybe, just maybe, during contract negotiations, they shouldn't have fought like Hell to stop random drug testing. But...I am but one "brother".
The idea of this "brotherhood" runs contrary to my thoughts on being an individual person. Heck, in a more recent post, even with my politics, I won't sign on to any persons "camp" (although Banks is quickly becoming my favorite State Senator). And so yes, even though I am in a union and recognize that, at one point in time, unions were extremely important (now a days, in some cases, important still, although not nearly as important as the days of zero safety gear, unlimited hours of forced work, and little dirty coal mining minors) I still think there are important boundaries that unions cross over on a daily basis, and I think in many senses union leaders can be hypocrites. Union bosses want to donate money (in many cases union dues) to political campaigns, but want restrictions on "big businesses" contributions and lobbying efforts. They want continued raises for employees, regardless of merit or circumstances, but then whine when the results are mass lay offs. There are a hundred other little things, from my own personal place of employment that I could rattle on about, but I'm pretty sure that isn't in my best interest as a person that wants to continue to...well...work. And besides that, it wouldn't be right for me to write about the people that I work with everyday, who are themselves nine times out ten hard working people who are just trying to put food on their families plates.
What will Banks' proposal stir up? Who knows. Maybe the unions won't balk (or at least won't lash out). One political insider closely related to this case had this to say.
"This won't see the light of day unless tea partiers and conservatives force their representatives to vote. Mitch doesn't care for issues like this, he prefers fiscal measures. Northwest Indiana legislators are scared to death of upsetting the labor monster."
"Senator Banks is leading the conservative charge and forcing legislators to make their true colors known. Looking forward to the 2012 Gubernatorial campaign this kind of legislation will separate the RINO's from the conservatives. Is Mike Pence this kind of Governor?"
Now, I hate the term RINO, only because it used to describe just about EVERY conservative that doesn't fit into one cookie cutter mold. BUT I agree that there are RINO's, and I think that allowing union members their private votes is a very good indicator of a RINO laying around in the tall, tall grass. As far as where Mitch stands on this issue, I'm not sure it's really in his best interest to play in this particular ball game much, other than giving a neutral statement about supporting his team, because he has already stirred up some union pots with his polarizing educational reforms and getting into fights with more unions is not going to help his Presidential run (I'll have to uncross my fingers now so I can continue typing). Mike Pence, on the other hand, could and should be vocal about support for legislation of this kind, especially if he wants to start creating a platform for a 2012 Gubernatorial run (which is very likely).
