Cheerio!

If you watch a commercial for Old Navy performance gear, you may start believing that their Performance fleece sweatpants will make you look exactly like the model.  Ads for shoes try to convince you that running will somehow be fun, if you have the right foot-wear.  And I can't watch people twirling their pasta on a TV set designed to look like Olive Garden without thinking I need cheesy, saucy noodles right away.  That's the way all businesses try to present their product: as can't-live-without necessities, so you'll want to spend your money with them.

My daughter started eating Cheerios a few weeks ago, and I noticed they dissolve faster than the off-brand. But that's not the selling-point General Mills is using. Years ago, they played to the consumer's nostalgic feelings toward Cheerios (think of the commercial featuring the grandmother, feeding cheerios to her toddler grandson and talking about bringing the family together for Christmas).  Now, the marketing department uses the "It's good for you!" line. And, anyone who didn't realize the producers are just a little biased might believe people who don't eat heart-healthy, whole-grain Cheerios will die of a coronary blockage.

But, what if the commercials weren't convincing enough people to buy the cereal...so General Mills decided to fire employees who didn't buy a box of Cheerios every week? Does that seems reasonable?...

Employee #1:  That's fine! I buy at least two boxes every week, anyway! I love the heart-healthy, family-friendly Cheerios brand!

Employee #2:  Um...I really prefer the cheaper Tasty-O's brand.

General Mills: Well, you can still buy Tasty-O's if you want, but we're going to take about $2.00 out of your paycheck every week, to purchase a box of Cheerios. It's important for our job security that you support the company cereal!

Employee #2:  Yeah, but if it's a good product, then people like Employee #1 will keep buying it. Why do I have to?

General Mills: Well, it's a great product. It's not too sweet. It's made with natural ingredients. And, it may lower your cholesterol! I really think you'll be glad when you have it in your pantry.

Employee #2:  I appreciate the concern for my heart but...I really don't want the Cheerios. And I don't like the idea of my boss taking money away from me to pay for something I don't want.

Employee #1:   Let me tell you something. My great-grandfather came across the ocean to America with a vision...he wanted to provide for his family with the sweat of his brow and his own two hands. And do you know what he was eating while he sailed? Cheerios.  I'm fearful when I imagine an America without Cheerios.

Employee #2: You're not touching my paycheck.

General Mills: You have no regard for your coworkers or for this company. If you won't buy our cereal every week, then you're fired.
-----

...If employees can't decide what to do with their own money, then a bit of freedom is lost. Slowly, bit by bit, we allow certain groups to tell others what to buy. Why is this okay?

Regardless of how anybody tries to spin it, the Right-To-Work bill makes it illegal for an organization to fire an employee who refuses to pay union dues. If the employee doesn't want union representation for one reason or another, can we make them buy it?

I have many public-employee friends from whom I've tried to get an answer to this question, but the only thing I've gotten is long-winded emotional responses about how necessary unions are--and how America's middle class will collapse if employees stop funding unions. I'm extremely interested in rational dialog, but it feels like I'm being fed T-shirt slogans coming straight from General Mills--er, I mean union bosses--themselves. 

"If you don't buy our product, you'll die of a coronary blockage." That's the tragedy most businesses try to present, in order to keep their consumers loyal. But, ultimately, it's still the customer's choice. Even if the support of a union is THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD for a worker....even if a teacher or librarian or policeman literally would lose all health coverage, the whole retirement fund, his or her house, and everything without union help: is it our job to make them pay for something we know they need, if they don't want it?

---
I realize employees who like their union are worried there won't be enough funding unless they require other employees to pitch in. In fact, I imagine the Right-To-Work law probably would deal a lethal blow to unions, due to much less funding. (This is because many workers find their product isn't the can't-live-without-necessity their bosses claim.)

But, are union-members willing to give up the right to refuse purchases, just to "ensure" they keep their health benefits? Am I willing to make other moms buy Cheerios, just so I know the cereal will be on the shelf next time I go to the store?  It reminds me of the statement by oft-quoted Benjamin Franklin: "They who will give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."   I'm not sure what Ben would say about those willing to give up their neighbor's liberty. In keeping with the theme of this blog, that seems a little....(prepare for impact)  selfish.

As for me, having heard the level-headed arguments from people like Peter Heck, Governor Mitch Daniels, and many teacher friends, I've decided the emotionalism-disguised-as-arguments from critics of Right-to-Work don't stand.

The only issue is: should workers have to pay for a union they don't want?

If the answer is "no," and workers choose to withdraw payments, and this results in the disbanding of unions, well then...
Cheerio!