By EDWARD BIRNBAUMI was very disappointed to see the story in the Los Alamos Daily Post on the passage in the House of Right-To-Work legislation (HB 75).
Instead of presenting both sides of the issue, or just the fact of passage and the obstacles it will face in the Senate, the article consisted of nothing but Republican Party talking points.
How can passage of this bill be labeled as “bipartisan”, when only one Democrat voted for passage?
How can it be labeled as a “compromise”, just because the bill included 50 cent per hour raise in the minimum wage? Does anyone believe that a 50 cent per hour increase comes close to the $10 dollar per hour rate that most Democrats favor?
Why was Rep. Roch quoted regarding non-union workers having to pay for union representation, but no mention made of the fact that under RTW non-union employees will still receive union wages and benefits without having to pay union dues? Is that fair?
Why was data presented only from economic reports that favor RTW, but no mention made of data from reports that do not support RTW?
A better approach would have been to present both sides of the issue, but at the very least, the source of the report posted should have been made clear.
