We support right-to-work legislation, but not with the same fervor other proponents and opponents bring to the issue.
The Missouri House last week approved legislation to prohibit unions from collecting fees from workers who choose not to join the union. Obstacles remain, including opponents in the Senate and a possible veto by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.
If the bill becomes law, Missouri will join 24 states, including a majority of its neighbors, as right-to-work states.
The origins of labor unions can be traced to the mid-19th century, but membership has been declining steadily since the mid-1950s, in part because federal laws now regulate practices - wage and hour, discrimination, workplace safety, etc. - previously address by unions.
Union supporters contend organized labor deserves credit for many of those safeguards.
That may be true - additional evidence that the most effective campaigns - quitting smoking, for example - are the ones that eventually put themselves out of business.
Right-to-work supporters argue Missouri needs the law to compete for new business on a level playing field with other states. They add workers should not be compelled to join any organization, particularly if they don't agree with its objectives, including advocacy for political issues and candidates.
Opponents say right to work will lower wages, reduce benefits for workers and make workplaces less safe.
Both sides have been known to engage in exaggeration. We're not convinced passage of right to work would reflect the boom or bust claims of either faction.
In the final analysis, we believe a worker who disagrees with the objectives of an association should not be forced into membership.
We agree with state Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, who wrote in his Perspective piece also posted today: "Second, in the recurring battle between forced-collectivism and self-determination, I choose the latter."
Workers should be free to join a labor union, but not compelled.