Skip to main content

The balkanization of Delaware and WNJ accuracy

This really should be two separate posts, but what the hell it's December 26.

First, the idea of creating "right to work zones" in Delaware makes about as much sense as the proposed legislation to allow each community to set its own firearms laws.

Delaware is far too small to be balkanized, and the ridiculous implications that would follow from either proposal are too numerous to mention, so I will content myself with one each:

1) If we enact "right to work zones," what happens to an already unionized company performing a contracted construction job in that zone, or an already unionized company that has multiple sites within the state, but only one of which falls into the zone?  You don't have to be either a fan or opponent of unions to realize that the variety of unworkable situations that could come out of such legislation are legion.

2) If we enact community-based gun laws, guess what?  You could inadvertently be engaging in illegal activity by simply traveling from Dover to Milford, or up Kirkwood Highway from Newark to Wilmington.  For example, suppose two different communities enact different laws on carrying a handgun in your vehicle.  One (ala South Carolina) says any handgun not in the trunk must be in plain sight (on the seat), while the other (ala North Carolina) says any handgun not in the trunk must be in the glove compartment or a locked container.  As I found out many years ago when I lived on the border between these two states, the implications from such legislation are both bizarre and unfortunate.

Now, to the News Journal and accuracy.  In the story regarding the "right to work zones" there is this sentence:
Current Delaware law does not allow workers in union workplaces to opt out of joining a union or paying dues.
Actually, this is not correct--not even really close.  Delaware is not a "right to work" state, but a sometimes frustrating hybrid, and the realities cannot be accurately summarized in such a sentence.

For example, the statewide teachers' union--DSEA--is an "agency shop."  As a new teacher (or even an old one) you DO NOT have to join DSEA.  But even if you elect not to join, you still have to pay an "agency fee" to cover costs of DSEA being prepared to represent you in a labor or disciplinary dispute. You CAN opt out of all the money DSEA spends on political campaigns, although in so doing you also lose the ability to vote for officers and vote on contracts.  (And, yes, I know that a new teacher without tenure would be suicidally stupid NOT to join DSEA and thereby piss off all the senior teachers in the building, but we are talking about what the law provides here.)

For another example, if the union contract with the employer is so written, union membership and dues-paying may be voluntary.  At DSU the American Association of University Professors is our union, but membership is not mandatory--we have to earn it (currently we have about an 85% buy-in).  We still represent unit members who do not pay dues if they get into trouble, but again they don't get to vote on officers or have input into contract negotiations or vote on the new contract without joining.  Still, there is absolutely no stigma attached to not joining, and I'm pretty proud of the fact that over my six years there as president we raised the membership percentage from 65% to the aforementioned 85% and held it there.

Point being:  one of the reasons that people read the newspaper is supposed to be for accuracy involved in the reporting.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...