Unions and the government

Would you put a fox to guard the hen house? Of course not.
Would you put a sex offender to teach a class of young children. Of course not
Would you put a thief in charge of protecting valuable assets. Of course not
Would you put a child into an adult's job. of course not - except in China & the Philippines

So why would you allow a union in charge of raising wages for its members to pay money to a congressperson's
campaign fund (a bribe in other words) who would vote to increase taxes so a minority of union members
can live at a higher standard than 90 plus percent of all the tax payers???
Why should unions be allowed to force a negotiation
to raise their members' wages at the expense of 90 plus percent of all tax payers???
That is wrong in ever sense of the meaning and intentions.

IT IS MY OPINION THAT:

Unions can have collective bargaining when negotiating with businesses. Businesses brought that
upon themselves by their collective mis-treatment and low wages of their employees over the years.

Unions representing government employees should not have collective bargaining rights.

And in an additional opinion, no employee should be required to join a union. There should
always be a secret ballot whether a company's work force might accept a union to represent the employees.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford