I apologize, but currently, after looking through different sides of
the original discussion on the LABORER Act I'm not in favor of a repeal. Like TimTurner, I also fail to recognize the regional differences where this would be helpful (except perhaps in incredibly rich neighborhoods). Most jobs in any state or county of the South (barring perhaps WV) don't even unionize themselves currently, so the LABORER Act doesn't even affect most people. And if you don't want to join a job that is unionized, then don't join it from the start.
I gotta say though devolution does look somewhat tempting (assuming the LABORER Act is in effect by default and each state or county government would have to remove those laws consciously), but once considering how easy it'll be for lobbyists for large corporations to enact Right to Work laws, I'm not so sure I'd go through with it.
I would be open to allaying some of the concerns opponents of the LABORER Act have by doing the following:
* Increasing restrictions on unionization by making sure unionization in a currently non-unionized group is not possible without the support of 2/3, or even 75% of the workers that would be affected (maybe even higher?).
* Increasing restrictions on labor unions by making sure that unions dues are not used to donate to political candidates or just even political causes of any type (individual union members are able to do this themselves, I don't see why everyone should be forced to when they might not support the cause individually). This doesn't mean that unions shouldn't be allowed to endorse (after a vote or something) but the dues that unions receive from members shouldn't be going to things that individual union members might not want (once again people can donate individually).
* Setting harsh laws prosecuting corruption in labor unions and among labor union leaders especially.
