- “No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require any person or employer to become or remain a member of a labor organization.”
- “No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require, directly or indirectly, as a condition of employment, any person or employer, to pay or transfer any dues, fees, assessments, other charges of any kind, or anything else of value, to a labor organization, or third party in lieu of the labor organization.”
It's possible I guess. Although seeing how the last attempt at curtailing unions went down in a smoldering pile in Ohio turned out I'm not that sure.
PJmedia believes that waiting on this until 2013 might work out better in regard to the POTUS election so that there isn't a crazed union movement getting people out to vote to shoot this down and ultimately giving Obama Ohio.
While I believe that any attempt on anything reducing union power would be met with screams and alot of money in ads I'm not completely sold that this wouldn't pass. The reason is this doesn't take away the current union negotiating capability. Granted it would cost them some money in dues and we all know how they react to that concept. But I believe this falls closer along the lines of the Individual Mandate amendment that did pass in being simply about personal choice and freedom.
Of course we at The Handbook reserve the right to retract everything said here if proven to be wrong, or claim that it was completely taken out of context.