Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


‘Right to Work’ is really the right to freeload; weakens unions

To The Daily Sun,
One of the first items on the current General Court’s list is to determine whether or not New Hampshire should have a Right to Work. This writer is against RTW. The title of this act is a misnomer. As one reads this act, there is no statement of any kind that discusses a person’s actual “right to work.”
One assumes by its title that work is a given right in this state. This would mean anyone could claim they have a right to be governor of this state; the governor would no longer be an elected position. Can one imagine some 100,000 governors of this state? But the title says we “have a right to work.”
Efficiency is the hallmark of collective bargaining. We simply cannot negotiate two groups of employees, union member or not. This would add an administrative nightmare to the bargaining process. The contents of this act actually means the “THE RIGHT TO FREELOAD,” a concept developed in a U.S. Steel newsletter. RTW means everyone can get their benefits negotiated for free. This act does NOT indicate anything related to a right to work.
This act attempts to weaken unions and destroy the rights of workers. The act does not provide for the benefits, wages, pensions, as well as health benefits for the hard-working workers/employees and their families. The purpose of the fair share contributions is sharing the costs associated with negotiations. One can then exercise their option to become a full member of the union to enjoy the multiple benefits full membership provides. No one is forced to become a member of the union! The union works hard to ensure its clients receive the best quality wages, benefits, and ensure worker safety (both physical and mental) in the workplace, as well as defend clients when their rights have been compromised.
All employees and workers of the State of New Hampshire, along with their respective supervisors that are covered by fair share to receive essential benefits, protect worker’s rights; to conserve their health, safety, and well being, in and outside the work place, and at home.
It is a known fact, that states that already of RTW laws in place do not fare well in their economies as compared to New Hampshire. Higher minimum wage rates show that these impact positively upon the local as well as state wide economies. It is also a known fact that where RTW is not in place, rates of unemployment are much lower than other states such as right here in New Hampshire (which has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in this U.S.). Arguments stating that RTW will improve the economy in this state is false. The reverse occurs.
Unions, in general significantly improved the well being of all workers. Without unions, workers will have a lower quality of life than they enjoy now. Wages would be far less, benefits would not exist. Unions help to promote the economies, not detract from them. Better benefits also draw more applicants for employment as well as a higher caliber of quality workers. Companies that consider relocation here often do not include RTW conditions. Better transportation network, physical conditions, as well as a higher grade of the workforce are what businesses seek. Businesses want a better educated work force. Unionization creates a happier workforce and a better productive environment. A productive workforce improves and not worsens the economy! Unions strengthen, along with the other variables, our economy here and nationwide. Unions also help provide a stronger and stable tax revenue as well.
Bernie Sanders has said we need to strengthen our work force. The 1 percent must provide for as well as reward its workforce that made the 1 percent wealthy. Their responsibility is reward these employees. The unions strengthen that responsibility that results in the better workforce, not worse.
Those who seek this RTW are those are supported by this 1 percent group that thrives on the backs of New Hampshire’s workers today. Our unions work hard to thwart this demeaning of labor. RTW will return our economy back to the feudal era where the rich simply control their labor force with threats, loss of pay, lowering of pay, and not providing for the families of their workforce. Please tell your legislators and senators to not approve this bill. You and your family’s worker’s rights, health, safety, and welfare are at stake.
Robert T. Joseph Jr.
Political Education Member for SEUI/SEA
New Hampton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 316

If Gilmanton meetings were taped, it would help the public

To The Daily Sun,
Written in The Gilmanton Beacon, Issue No. 9, on the official Town of Gilmanton website is this statement: “The Board of Selectmen proceeded quickly and efficiently through several items on their December 19th agenda. There were no public comments as no members of the public were present, which gives a signal that the residents have faith in their board to conduct the business of the town.”
“No members of the public were present which gives a signal that the residents have faith in their board to conduct the business of the town.” Really? Is the town employee who wrote this in desperate need of a pay raise or in desperate need of praise or favors from certain individuals? There is no need for this type of bias, unprofessional, comment on an official town document. If the board’s meetings were videotaped and posted on the Gilmanton official website then townspeople who work and otherwise unavailable to attend meetings will be able to know what goes on in these meetings. Other towns do this and the professionalism and transparency is unquestionable.
Gilmanton selectman have stated there is no need for a noise ordinance in Gilmanton. Think about this: Anoise ordinance in Alton is a major issue in the controversy of the rumble strips and the obnoxious noise they make on Route 28. What defense does Gilmanton have if the state decides to install these obnoxious noise-makers on state highways,  Route 140, Route 106 and Route 107? And in Gilford, a noise ordinance is an important factor in the agritourism issues.
Are there any members of the Gilmanton Board of Selectman or their families who would benefit from agritourism, especially when there is no noise ordinance to restrict their activities? What defense would residents have when social gatherings, such as weddings have loud music and noise into the early hours of the morning? Without a noise ordinance, Gilmanton will lose its peace and quiet.
Bill Schmidlin
Gilmanton Iron Works

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 386