We profess to be a nation of equal opportunity. The current debate over right to work is another example of the use of government force to favor one group of people over another. I am not opposed to the idea of someone not paying union dues. I am opposed to the free ride those individuals would get, at no cost to them, due to the efforts of union representation. If right to work is to be fair, then those not paying union dues should be on their own to negotiate their wages and benefits.

If there is competition between union and non-union companies, then the free-market system will work out the winners and losers. The workplace should have a fair and equitable balance between management and workers. If workers demand too much, the company may be forced to close. If the company is not fair in wages and benefits to its employees, then the best and brightest will leave.

Government intervention has stifled free enterprise and the economics of supply and demand. The job of the government is to maintain a fair and equal opportunity environment (not equal things) and not favoritism.

Government subsidies and grants are a form of favoritism. Supply and demand and the free-market system should determine success or failure, not government.

What is the solution for the many government unions who compete with no one? Is it fair to the taxpayer or those doing the same job in the private sector? Where is the competition? I do believe government workers should get a fair wage. Should it be based upon an average for the same work in the private sector within a county or region? Does government work require more hours or is it more difficult than the work done in the private sector? Inquiring minds would like to know.

MIKE CAMPBELL

Avilla