[Hoot Gibson]

You think non union people should be able to go on union jobs and work non union, with the union still being made to represent non union workers? That's exactly what happens. Why can't non union workers work on non union jobs, and union workers work on union jobs. Non union has the upper hand in that scenario anyway, non union represents about 90% of the labor force anyway. As far as construction, they' got about that same percentage of work, 90% of it. Explain to me why they should be able to come on our jobs? Isn't 90% of the work enough for them?

Because they are not your jobs - you did not create those jobs and you have no right to hold a monopoly on them. If unions can convince two people to allow them to represent them, then let the union represent them in negotiations with the company. If 60 percent want union representation, then let the union represent the 60 percent who want them. It is pretty simple. If the union can negotiate higher wages and better benefits for the people that they represent, then good for them. If the owner of the company wants to pay the people who are not represented at a different rate, then that should be fine too. If business owners want to negotiate an exclusive deal with a union to provide labor, then I am okay with that too, but the law should not grant unions monopoly power over any employer over the objections of the owner.