To start with, shouldn't the question be asked.. what is a union?

To Wit:

1. An organization that has as its purpose, survival for its components and a design of profiteering from those components
   
2. An organization that hires lobbyists to convince legislation that has positive effect on its operation.
   
3. An organization that has a hierarchical structure to make decisions about whether its efforts are fruitful, or productive. It has stewards, officers, and a leader that are elected by the workers.
   
4. An organization that controls the manner in which the workers operate, placing limits on duties and assigning responsibility in as highly a segmented manner as is possible.

The union is a business.  It is a business that has "stockholders" with a valueless stock.  If they leave the union, and the job it "protects", then they receive nothing for their sale of their stake.  Any investment given in the form of submission to seniority rules, inability to independently contract to higher positions, and the inability to make a better work ethic pay, is lost.  The officers and board members get the rewards the stockholder had hoped for.

Some might argue... "the worker doesn't have to work in a union shop."

True.  But does this not make an even better argument for the lack of need for unions in the first place?  I wonder if the same considerations would be made by those who argue FOR smoking bans in private businesses as well.  Indeed, the fact remains there are some industries which are 100% closed shops, and require union membership for employment, which limits those who might have a single skill to participating in a "brotherhood" social program.  A non smoker however, can always eat, or drink.. at home.

But our marvelous manipulators of mandates and manufacturers of misguided management from Lansing continue the drumbeat of legislative force in how we live, work, and breathe, in a manner that deafens common sense.  "Arbitrary" governance that is merely highlighted by laws which exempt one institution of the same type that is otherwise well heeled by law. Minimums of compensation decided by people other than the people actually engaged in a mutual arrangement?

It seems we have already a basis for constitutional challenges, as our natural rights have not been taken (they cannot be taken), but rather have not been PROTECTED by our state appropriately.  

The Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness as mentioned in the declaration has as its defenders the bill of rights.  Yet the very people who would be charged with providing that defense against a FEDERAL usurpation of those rights, have simply added their own flavor of tyranny by imposing artificial restraint on our own ability to negotiate what is rightfully ours.

I support right to work legislation.  But I would encourage that we recognize the necessary legislation has already been passed as noted in the declaration of independence..  by our creator.

Government has its place.  Aside from being a framework for infrastructure of communities, it is a place that as a design provides limits, not upon the citizens, but itself and other intrusive entities.  It is merely a tool with which to enforce the laws given by our maker, that we are truly free. Our government's role is to serve and protect us FROM those who infringe on our freedoms, not to serve as a tool FOR them.

So what do we do?