I really F(_)cking hope it does!    

Yes indeed- at times the parasite, in moderation, is beneficial to the host.

But when the parasite steals too much from the host, it kills it. (Note I use parasite in the technical definition, not as an insult in this case)

When the drain exceeds the benefit, problems start. Thus if a PD can be run for one amount, but through waste, mismanagement and excessive union demands it ends up cost 3x as much, it becomes a drain. Same for any other government activity.

There is a reason why business is fleeing your state- it is that the parasites are sucking off way too much in relation to the benefit they provide. I remembr you saying you planned to leave NY when you retire, and that is what I see tons of public sector retirees doing. They all say it is because they can't afford to retire there. Reality slaps you in the face when you go from being the parasite to the host.

The unsustainability of the level of government spending in states like NY is evident when you see how many employed in government flee the state as soon as they retire. It is a combination of liberal voters demanding a nanny state of services and a high rate of public sector unionism resulting in wages higher that the free market rate.

I am anti forced collectivism, and pro-freedom.

Unionists are the opposite.

Unions who represent skilled labor that would be hard to just fire. Unions that represent unskileld, easily replacable labor would not be.

You are pro-freedom, but just for yourself. If you want to join a union, you should be free to. However, your employer should enjoy just as equal a freedom, so if he doesn't wish to employ a union, he should be just as free to not do so as you should be to join one.

My view is that employers and employees should have equal rights. Your view is that those who create jobs should have their freedom of choice in who they employ stifled, while those who want a job should be free to do as they please (but your view even restricts the freedom of an employee who doesn't want a union if his co-workers do).

Guess what- it was never meant to be a level playing field. That is some socialist claptrap you have bought in to.

The person who has invested his time and money, and risked his future, to start a company is not the equal of the guy he hires off the street to bolt a widget together. If the unskilled widget bolter wants to be on the same level as the owner, then he should go do all teh extra work required to start his own company.

Being free also means you deal with the consequences of your actions and life choices. Some folks make choices in life that put them in one position, and some make choices that put them in another. Don't pick a job that leaves you on the factory floor if you want to be the guy running the factory.

Don't like it? Move to a classless society. I think Cuba and North Korea still hold on to that dream.

My favorite are the hypocrites who yell and scream for higher salaries, paid by taxes, then retire and the first thing they do is move somewhere else because taxes are so high... sadly far too many come to NC when they do.

The same way they are in any other business transaction.

I just dropped off some tires and wheels to be mounted and balanced. We agreed on a price, he will do it, I will pay. If there is an issue when I go to pick them up I have the option of either learning from it and taking my business elsewhere or taking him to court if he fails to fix it to my satisfaction. Likewise, he was free to not do the work for me if he didn't like what I was willing to pay, and free to at any time stop doing work for me.

Me hiring a guy to do that job is no different than anyone else being hired for a job- it is an exchange of money for labor. People who try to make it overly complex and add all these extra hoops and hurdles only serve to screw up the marketplace and drive costs up.

When you have a gun to sell, if you don't like someones offer do you demand he sit down and mediate, forced by law, or do you just move on to the next possible customer? When you buy food at the store, would you be OK with the government mandating that you only buy from one store and forcing you to engage in bargaining with that store over price and quality, even when another store offers the price for less?

And before you start with your chicken little predictions about anarchy in the streets and the failure of civilization without public sector unions, let me intorduce you to NC General statute 95-98:

§ 95‑98.  Contracts between units of government and labor unions, trade unions or labor organizations concerning public employees declared to be illegal.

Any agreement, or contract, between the governing authority of any city, town, county, or other municipality, or between any agency, unit, or instrumentality thereof, or between any agency, instrumentality, or institution of the State of North Carolina, and any labor union, trade union, or labor organization, as bargaining agent for any public employees of such city, town, county or other municipality, or agency or instrumentality of government, is hereby declared to be against the public policy of the State, illegal, unlawful, void and of no effect. (1959, c. 742.)



That is right, all municipalities in this state are prohibited from entering into collective bargaining agreements. Public sector employees can, and do, still form unions, and that union can meet and confer with management, but they cannot force all employees to agree to any sort of collective bargaining agreement or contract, nor can they force a municipality to sign a contract.

So the workers here are still free to unionize, but the union cannot force an employees who don't want to be represented by the union to be, and can't force a municipality to recognize or negotiate with a union against its wishes. Now if all parties agree, the union and municipality can "meet and confer" and the contract with the work force can come out of that, but each side is equally free to reject the union as well. The freedom of both sides is preserved, not just of one, and special protections for the unions are eliminated. Unions that work with management in a productive fashion are heard, and unions that represent the workers well get people willing to join. Those that don't do that fail because they don't have special protections and a monopoly on labor keeping them afloat.

We still have roads we can drive on, fires still get put out, criminals still get arrested, the jails still hold inmates, the water and sewers still flow, people still work a career in government service and retire..... all without collective bargaining! And we do it so much cheaper that all those unionized public sector workers want to retire here to escape the high tax utopias they created.

Of course the socialists in the unions are all pissed and defeating this law has been a top priority for them. They have even gone to the United Nations and had them condemm the law.

Making collective bargaining illegal- a proven effective solution in NC since 1959.

Forecd collective bargaining is nefarious to freedom.

If there are 50 employees and 26 vote to for a union, forcing the other 24 to either join the union, or if they don't join still be bound by what the union negotiates, is infinging on their freedom, is it not?

Likewise forcing an employer to recognize and negotiate with a union by law, instead of leaving that employer free to accept or reject doing business with the union based on its own decision without a doubt restricts the freedom of that employer.

Northern states, yours among them, are notoriuos for deep and widespread corruption in law enforcement. Unions like yours protecting shitty cops, and unions like yours embracing and encouraging corruption via the practice of issuing courtesy cards so friends of the union get special treatment, are why.

I damm sure wouldn't brag about being in LE in a region known nationwide for such deep corruption among the ranks.