A Moral Dilemma

Its odd how sometimes the actions of the Democratic Legislative majority create a moral dilemma they seem completely ignorant of.  The current bills that show this moral contradiction are the "Bullying Bill" and the "Childcare Unionization Bill".

The anti-bullying bill

Named the "Safe and Supportive Minnesota Schools Act," the legislation (HF 826 / SF 783  ) would outlaw speech interfering with a student's ability to “participate in a safe and supportive learning environment." 

Nothing like solving a perceived bullying issue with an open door to the complete negation of free speech.  How it is applied is entirely in the potentially irrational perception of those who may also have alternative agendas.  The potential for complete violation of free speech and religious freedom is almost a certainty, because it only takes one person to "feel" they have been slighted to bring down the full weight of the Minnesota Judicial system on the target of their ire.  Thus forming a perfect storm of bullying that can be unleashed on a whim.  With a complete lack of accountability.

Then follows the Childcare Unionization bill (house article ,  HF950,  SF877).  The egregious bullying that is embodied in this bill is real and made worse by the intentional violation of constitution rights to equal representation. The author claims  “It’s simply about giving a group of individuals … the ability to try and form a union.”  But only a small group of the providers affected will be allowed to vote on the formation of the union.  It is rare that the Star Tribune comes out publicly against a DFL driven legislative plan, but even they see the faults in this bill.
From the Star Tribune

The legislation also appears to stack the odds in favor of a pro-union vote by child-care providers by unfairly excluding potentially thousands [ed. an understatement at best] of licensed child-care providers from the election process.

How can supposedly reasonable people rationalize this moral ambiguity of pushing for a bill to supposedly prevent "bullying" while simultaneously pushing to bully a group of people into participating in something they do not want to?  The one thing that appears consistent is that the bill would payback major donor blocks to the Democratic Party.

Again from the Star Tribune

The legislation would provide a union membership boost and a steady stream of new dues conveniently collected from providers’ subsidies. Providers who receive subsidies but don’t want to join a union would still have to pay “fair share” fees for representation.
Given that unionization’s success involves the public paying more, it’s hard to see how this legislation — or a lesser-known proposal that would allow collective bargaining for some home health care workers — is good financial stewardship of taxpayer dollars in an era of persistent state budget challenges.

So bullying appears acceptable, when its for their constituency.  For those legislators who voted against these bills, congratulations and thank you!  You withstood the pressure, and have voted against bullying.