Wisconsin

Union busting? I hope so! I have been openly opposed to the activities of labor unions since I was about seven years old. At that time - the mid 1930s - my father was employed by a major oil refinery. Having experienced a period of homelessness at the onset of the depression, he was very grateful for his job. He worked hard, sometimes long hours, for a flat weekly salary. He believed the company was fulfilling it's end of the bargain and he was determined to fulfill his end.

Then, along came the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers union. They promised shorter hours, higher wages. But it concerned my father that they were totally one-sided. Every consideration was for the worker - no consideration was given the employer. No concern for the need to keep the company profitable in order to maintain its work force.

What concerned him more was the tactics of the union leaders, always a threat of force to achieve their goals. Never an approach that held fairness an objective. Only anger and a mean spirit.

The Union succeeded in organizing the work force and the shorter hours and better pay followed. But the relationship with the company was never again the same. No longer were they all on the same team. Now it was a perpetual adversarial atmosphere. Work became decidedly less pleasant.

As a footnote, the refinery where Dad was employed is no longer in operation.

I have never forgotten the way the union affected my father.

Years later, as a radio announcer, I experienced an attempt by the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists to organize the announcers at the station where I worked. One of the Union organizers spoke of breaking the legs of the station manager if he failed to grant their demands. That so angered the announcers that the attempt to organize our staff failed.

In the ensuing years I have witnessed an unending stream of corrupt activities on the part of union leaders.

Today, union supporters are claiming credit for things like the forty-hour week, overtime pay, sick leave, and so forth. They deserve no such credit.

The true credit goes to the free market and smart business practices. Once, on a talk program, our station interviewed a member of the famous DuPont family. He said his company had proven to themselves that retention of quality employees was profitable to the company. They granted many concessions toward that end, even paying for the further education of great employees who had reached the limits of their abilities, all while keeping them on the payroll.

In the 1960s, as chairman of a Chamber of Commerce committee charged with attracting new business to our community, I headed research into what inducements companies sought when considering expansion or relocation. Topping the list was a quality lifestyle in the community. Time and again, we were told that companies would have to send top leadership employees to launch a branch in a new community. Under no circumstances would they risk sending their best people to a place where they would be unhappy and possibly quit their jobs. Tax inducements and other financial perks were desired, but parks, theater, quality schools, low crime rates and affordable housing came first.

The days of the sweatshop ended long ago. So did the need for organized labor.

In the case of public employees, the employer is "the people", whereas the person negotiating with the unions on their behalf is often a politician whose election was financed by the very union with which he is to negotiate. What more evidence could you want for ending collective bargaining for public employees?