Thursday, October 27, 2016

Virginia Ballot Questions

From Chuck Angier, forwarded by Patricia Evans:

"
Please pass this along, get the word out, and put someone in each precinct informing the voter of this critical amendment!

From Chuck Angier
Sandy Level, VA

As I travel around the state, I am amazed at how many informed and engaged friends are STILL UNAWARE that there are 2 Virginia State Constitutional Amendments on the ballot. I wish to address Question 1, a “Right-to-Work” (RTW) amendment.
Question 1 on the Virginia ballot will be:
"Question: Should Article I of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to prohibit any agreement or combination between an employer and a labor union or labor organization whereby (i) nonmembers of the union or organization are denied the right to work for the employer, (ii) membership to the union or organization is made a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer, or (iii) the union or organization acquires an employment monopoly in any such enterprise?"
Click èHERE for the full text of the legislation.
Background
Thanks to laws already on the books, Virginia has, for the most part, ALWAYS been an RTW state, but those laws can always be tampered with or retracted by any fickle General Assembly. By elevating the law to the status of a Constitutional amendment, it will be protected from such fickleness.
My take
Setting aside for a moment my opinion of unions and how they’ve decimated otherwise prosperous communities (oops, my bad), this issue is quite simply an issue of liberty. ALL have a right to negotiate gainful employment without being impeded by the state or any organization. ALL have a right to pursue new and better opportunities without hindrance. On the flip side, employers also have a right to negotiate for productive labor without fear of being impeded by the state or any organization.
To me, the simple interpretation is:
1. No employee shall be forced to join or pay dues to an organization as a condition of employment or continued employment
2. No employer shall be forced to hire union members
RTW states have consistently been more prosperous than non-RTW states.
I am offended that MANY, especially on the national level are vehemently opposed to Right-to-Work because it is so “destructive” as shown by one particularly abrasive video from Mrs. Clinton:
If you need more convincing, check out the 45 goals of Communism as read into the Congressional Record on January 10th 1963, particularly #’s 32 through 37 or so
Best – Listen to “The Naked Communist”…the audio version is updated as of early 2016
I WILL ALWAYS FAVOR LEGISLATION THAT FAVORS PERSONAL LIBERTY!
Unfortunately, as I understand it, the Federal government has terms for Federal contractors that often compromises the rights of employees and employers to come to their own terms, ALL THE MORE REASON THAT VIRGINIA NEEDS TO VOTE “YES” ON QUESTION 1!
Opposition?
In an October 15th Editorial, the Richmond Times-Dispatch claims that it has always supported RTW BUT not this time. The RTD (and organized labor) opinion provides a weak argument that the RTW amendment only addresses PART of the current legislation and excludes SS 40.1-61 which forbids employers from demanding abstention from unions. This very exclusion is sufficient to protect the employee from demands as set forth in 40.1-61 because SS 40.1-61 is still on the books! Duh!
On June 13, 2016, the Madison County Democratic Committee voted unanimously to approve the Virginia AFL-CIO‘s resolution in opposition of Virginia Republicans’ union busting “Right to Work” Amendment (2016) which are nothing more than blatant efforts to enshrine an existing law that is designed to infringe upon the rights of workers and stifle our collective voices. If passed, this amendment would continue to force hard working Virginians to accept jobs that don’t pay a living wage.
Wow, now THERE’S a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance! Gimme a break!
There is so little knowledge of this crucial question on the November ballot. Please pass this along, get the word out, and put someone in each precinct informing the voter of this critical amendment!




I will use “heroes” to describe all of the “killed in the line of duty” mentioned in the proposed amendment above.
Virginia is a Dillon rule state thus much of what localities can and can’t do is dictated by the state.
The proposed amendment grants to the localities the option of offering real property tax exemption for the survivors of fallen “heroes”
I favor any legislation that grants liberty to the localities, so I will probably vote “YES”, BUT….
If it prevails and Pittsylvania tries to implement an exemption, I would oppose it pretty strongly for the following reasons:
1) Can’t we come up with something better than this?
2) Don’t we already have systems in place to compensate survivors of fallen heroes?
3) Wouldn’t “survivor” and “line of duty” (among other terms) be subject to interpretation and or challenged by those that might feel cheated?
a. As another example, what about a hero that is permanently and expensively disabled. Might the burden on the survivor be greater than if the hero had passed?
b. What about survivors of armed services members killed in the line of duty? (maybe there’s something already on the books)
4) Won’t there be constant challenges by selfish to get the same exemption
5) Won’t there be other special interest groups vying for the same treatment?
So…As I write this, I am talking myself into a “no” vote so now here’s where I stand
An unenthused “yes” for the amendment (but it could go downhill)
A passionate “no” for Pittsylvania if they try it.
You deserve to know that I know, my position is contrary to most of those of you that I hang out with.
You’re welcome to share any or all of this in any way you wish.
Chuck Angier
Sandy Level, VA
cangier@fairpoint.net
"