I was bouncing around the wiki links and stumbled across this gem:
(wiki - Taft-Hartley Act, 2/3rds to bottom...)
Economist Murray Rothbard opposes the Act as being an enforcement of involuntary servitude. He says: "On October 4, 1971, President Nixon invoked the Taft-Hartley Act to obtain a court injunction forcing the suspension of a dock strike for eighty days; this was the ninth time the federal government had used the Act in a dock strike. Months earlier, the head of the New York City teachers' union went to jail for several days for defying a law prohibiting public employees from striking. It is no doubt convenient for a long-suffering public to be spared the disruptions of a strike. Yet the "solution" imposed was forced labor, pure and simple; the workers were coerced, against their will, into going back to work. There is no moral excuse, in a society claiming to be opposed to slavery and in a country which has outlawed involuntary servitude, for any legal or judicial action prohibiting strikes—or jailing union leaders who fail to comply. Slavery is all too often more convenient for the slavemasters."
#######################################
Is somebody forcing them to work in a union shop? I have been born and raised in a "Right to Work" state, so I do not understand exactly why there is such furor over this... I don't think people striking in a group should be labled "slaves", I think "vagabonds" is a better term. Less Work, More Money, Guaranteed, for a fee, just like insurance...
I normally do not hold an opinion on this, but found it suprising on wiki... I know why, but i still did.