111 K Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
- Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
- Local 202.783.3870
I don’t want to shock our readers but, occasionally, liberals can be inconsistent. They can be, if one dares use the term, hypocritical. This latest example came to my attention as I was researching a recent piece on the case the Supreme Court is hearing with regards to unions.
The issue, in short, is this: there are those who do not want to be forced to pay union dues, while the unions say they must. The union rationale is that a worker benefits from union negotiated wages and conditions, so it’s only right that he or she pay the dues.
The unions call this, in true liberal euphemistic fashion, the “fair share provision.” It is thought that, should dues paying become optional, there would be a disproportionate financial burden on those who choose to pay union dues. But apparently, progressive objection to subsidizing the benefits of others doesn’t translate to other situations.
Take Obamacare, for example. How does this “fairness” apply to that darling of the left? On the surface, it translates perfectly. Everyone is forced to pay for something they may or may not want, in order to finance the benefits of everyone else. This is another case of fairness above choice because our liberal overlords have decided that it is in our best interest. That, however, is as far as the correlation goes because, in reality, everyone does not pay in.
Obamacare waivers are given out like Mardi Gras beads to those who most enthusiastically flash their support in public. Ironically, this includes unions- the very groups that believe everyone should chip in for the greater good have managed to get out of doing exactly that.
Should the unions wish to be ideologically consistent, I have a a suggestion. Perhaps they should take a page from Obamacare and give waivers to those who actually love their union (and would choose to pay dues), thus only collecting dues from those who have no wish to join. Easy peasy.