Skuzzy: Miko, the "Right to Work" laws in Texas simply mean an employer cannot force anyone to be union and they cannot use that as hiring criteria. I realise that. And I am against such government intervention.
The "right to work" law allows - or forces - the businesses to violate the contracts they voluntarily signed with the unions.
If I am stupid enough to voluntarily sign a contract with you that I only hire people that you approve of for my private business, why should the government interfere in my self-ruinous decision?
Government should not support unions by endorcing their monopoly but it should not oppose them either by invalidating the contracts signed with the unions.
Imagine if a man signs a prenaptual contract with his wife that forbids her to sleep around, otherwise she would have to grant him a divorce and not claim his property or support.
Then a legislature would enact a "Righ to Fornicate" law, that absolves the wife from her obligations. If someone wants to sleep with a man's wife, they should be allowed to, right? She shouldn't be restricted from sleeping with that someone regardless of whatever she voluntarily agreed to, right?
By the way, what does the US Constitution say about it?
Article I, Section 10. No state shall... pass any[/b] bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts[/b],...
You see - even if the States may pass laws forbidding certain kinds of contracts in the future, they are specifically denied the power to interfere with the existing contracts.
miko
