Even government workers have a right to unionize
Re: “Ban government employee unions,” Editorial, Nov. 16
You must be kidding! In a free society, workers have a fundamental right to organize to place themselves on a level playing field with powerful employers such as government agencies that, as
The Examiner’s editors concede, collectively represent the population. They have just as much right to advocate for more government spending as any other group. You can ban workers from collective bargaining with a government agency, but you cannot legally ban them from organizing a union. Only a right to freely organize and bargain over terms of employment, even vis-?-vis the people’s representatives, distinguishes free labor from a modern form of slavery. However, where they cannot collectively bargain, unions are freed from having to represent perceived “slackers” and forced to seek higher pay and benefits through lobbying. When that happens, they boost their appeal to government workers and spend all their dues securing legislative outcomes, resulting in higher taxes and spending than if they were saddled with mundane worksite representational chores.
Dino Drudi
Alexandria
God didn’t make him do it
Re: “Dim bulb of the week,” Nov. 15
Nobody denies that Major Nidal Hasan is a crazy fanatic. Whether he was in touch with terrorist organizations or individuals needs to be determined quickly. But associating his murderous attacks with the words “Allahu Akbar” is uninformed. All “Allahu Akbar” means is that “God is Great” – a phrase used by millions of practicing Muslims daily to acknowledge the majesty and omnipotence of Almighty God in his creation and control of the universe. There is nothing wrong with these admirable words. It is a tragedy that they have come to be associated with deranged fanatics who are destroying Islam in a violent effort to impose their deranged views. They need to be treated as criminals all over the world.
Asif Ayub
Vienna
What’s in a name? Plenty
Re: “Redskins are still Indians,” Nov. 17
Of all the professional sports franchises in the Washington metropolitan area, the Washington Redskins are indisputably the most popular. So I get it that
The Examiner would devote front-page coverage to the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear arguments from a group of Native Americans that the team’s trademark is patently offensive. What troubles me is the meaning of the headline. Are you suggesting that the high court’s action is tantamount to saying that Redskins is an acceptable term? (Suppose the team was named the Washington Honkies. Would the headline read: “Honkies are still white people”?) Or does it mean that the current roster of players are Native Americans? And what is the point of trotting out the photograph of the buffoonish Zema Williams, the misguided negro who poses as Chief Zee and unofficial team mascot? There is perhaps a hidden meaning in an African American masquerading as an Indian for a team that had to be forced by the federal government to accept black players.
Craig Taylor
Alexandria
