UNIONS: Choice over coercion

I was disappointed by the Editorial on April 29, 2011. The entire "tone" of the editorial was "what's in it for me" not "how can we collaborate in an effort to benefit everyone."

Although difficult for union mentality to think along the lines of "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country," this thought could just as well be applied to a much smaller organization (business, cities or school system) as to a country. The old "guild" concept (example, Masonry) was an organization of master and journeymen masons who maintained an honorable and quality oriented trade.

The group was respected both for their integrity and skill, and maintained an apprenticeship program whereby no one would work a job without being skilled in the craft. Membership was sought after, not coerced. I have worked under union dictates and am familiar with such unsavory intimidation tactics.

In this country of "freedom," I believe that any skilled craftsman (teacher) should be able to work his/her craft without having to pay a bribe (dues) to get a job. Likewise if s/he is not "skilled" and does not perform properly, s/he should be dismissed, without any vested-interest restriction (tenure) maintaining his employment.

One statement in the editorial really stood out as a naive statement. "We're also puzzled why employees who choose not to belong to unions would be given the union benefits." If they can do the same job with the same results, why not.

LLOYD SEIBERT

Post Falls