Is offering workers the choice of whether or not to be in a union “anti-labor”? The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) thinks so, as seen in their Twitter feed and on their Facebook page:
States with “right-to-work” (i.e., anti-labor) laws trying to woo gun industry.
The CSGV Facebook post then provides a link to a New York Times article: “States Pitch a Lifestyle to Lure Gun Makers From Their Longtime Homes”:
But recently, states like Idaho, Alabama and Montana have presented a novel argument as part of an effort to lure the firearms industry’s high-paying jobs south and west: Gun makers would be happier and more successful among citizens who regularly use firearms than they would be remaining in states trying to limit gun rights.
Just across the river in Illinois, which despite the oppressively anti-gun political atmosphere has enough gun manufacturers to have been dubbed by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) the “land of post-ban assault weapons,” we have seen this starting to play out. Les Baer (makers of high-end 1911 model handguns and tactical rifles) escaped Illinois’ draconian climate four years ago, moving those good jobs and that tax revenue to Iowa.
Jobs and tax revenue leaving Illinois–we haven’t very recently seen Illinois losing jobs more jobs than any other state, have we? The Illinois state budget is in good shape, isn’t it?
But the NY Times article focused on some states being more attractive than others to gun manufacturers not only because of the gun laws. The article also pointed out that some states offer a more congenial environment for business in general than others–and (coincidentally?) there seems to be a fair amount of correlation between states with restrictive, regressive gun laws, and those with business-strangling tax and regulatory policies. Hence, “right-to-work” states, where employers cannot compel their employees to join a union or pay dues, are among those that are making a case to lure gun manufacturers to move.
That is what CSGV chose to object to, and the wording of that objection shows the twisted, Orwellian mentality that drives CSGV’s agenda. If offering employees the choice of whether or not to join a union is “anti-labor,” then the only way to be “pro-labor” is to force them to join. That is the “progressive” philosophy in a nutshell (and a nutshell, being designed to contain nuttiness, is a very good place for it). The same thinking can be seen in characterizing those who don’t believe in forcing citizens to buy a government-approved health insurance plan as being “anti-health care.” Of course, CSGV also believes that to be “anti-violence” one must support denying people the ability to effectively resist violent criminal predation.
To CSGV and other “progressives,” the people cannot be trusted to act in their own best interest if given the choice, and thus must be coerced by the government–using, if necessary, armed government enforcers who will, if the defiance goes far enough, kill the recalcitrant peasant. It’s all for our own good, you see.
That’s why CSGV really hates an armed citizenry, prepared to resist tyrannical diktats. Without a government monopoly on force, we the people will be free to resist what our betters know is best for us.
- The REAL reason CSGV hates the right to keep and bear arms–it works
- What’s A Few Jobs