Reply/Comment on the two below statements

1. Assess union shops from the moral point of view. What conflicting rights and ideals are at stake? What are the positive and negative consequences of permitting union shops?

The conflicting rights and ideals of working for a union shop is it doesn't give workers an opportunity to decide if they want to work for a union or not. Which is one of the negatives of working with a permitted union as well as job stability for example, every person like Paul Robertson who is a licensed and a skilled worker with years of experience could possibly lose their job due to the fact they decided to not work with a union, you also lack union representation. The positive aspect of working with the union it is job stability as well as higher wages and benefits.

1. Presumably Paul Robertson could have joined the union, but he chose not to. What principle do you think he was fighting for? Assess the union charge that people like Paul are "free riders" who want the benefits unions provide without paying the dues required to make the unions possible.

The principals that Paul Robertson was fighting for was the right to work without being unionized. However, in reference to the free rider circumstances it seems as if you want stability, benefits, representation etc. you have to join the union and pay the dues that are in place. Which I believe is somewhat unfair especially to workers like Paul miss out on some of those opportunities.