Right-to-Party Is Bad for Frats, Right-to-Work Is Bad for Everyone

beastie-boys-fight-for-your-right-01

Woah woah woah, hold on a second. Did I just read what I think I read? Because it sounded to me like the Inter-Fraternity Council (IFC) just passed a Right to Party Bill in some kind of backdoor gimmick without any input from the Greek community.

What the fuck, bros? If you’re going to pass legislation curbing the rights of fraternities to effectively throw mad ragers at least do it to our face through the appropriate legal channels. But it makes sense; the IFC is a bunch of resume-padding hypocrites run entirely by University-backed special interest groups.

For those uninformed frat-stars out there, here’s what’s happening on University campuses and why it matters for Greek Life:

What does “right-to-party” mean?

The term refers to laws that would prohibit fraternity brothers from having a portion of their annual dues taken out to pay social events. These statutes are broadly assumed to erode the ability of fraternities to influence the campus social scene, given that brothers on the Leadership Council have a harder time collecting money to pay for all the sick shit we do daily. Like buying 15 handles of Heaven Hill vodka and force-feeding it to our mini-horse out in the yard (which it fucking loves, by the way).

Pretty soon our frat is drained of funds and unable to throw as many 90s-theme foam parties and gain the reputation needed to get the hottest sororities over at our mixers. Not okay, bro.

“Right-to-party” laws breed free riders in the Greek System

Some members in the Greek system (read: douchebags) think that having social dues as a condition of brotherhood is a form of discrimination against brothers who don’t want to party or are unable to pay the full cost.

But if you’re in a frat you’re going to party, bro. And by opting out of social dues you’re passing those costs on to the rest of the brothers. So in essence you have bros who are paying no dues yet receiving the same benefits as more responsible brothers which gives us less money and deteriorates our frat’s ability to fraternize with hot sorostitutes.

Under “right-to-party” laws, brothers reap fewer benefits from fraternity growth

One argument for right-to-party legislation is that they’ll help attract more brothers to fraternities thereby strengthening their economic vitality. This may be true, but as an adverse effect, the laws lead to less epic parties, even with the expanded base of brothers, and thus end up hurting fraternities in the long run. Plus even if there were larger frats, most of the benefits would go directly to the University administration and IFC. Frats lose, University owners win and that’s bullshit.

All of this sounds really familiar…

Right_to_Work_Michigan-0bcb8-2035

Well hopefully it does, bro. Because right-to-party is based almost entirely on right-to-work laws passed in 24 states, with Michigan becoming the most recent on Tuesday.

Right-to-work is a little trickier to analyze than right-to-party. Obviously right-to-party is bullshit for Greek life, but what impact does right-to-work have on economies that aren’t driven by pounding brews and bitches at the same time?

Here’s what we know: right-to-work legislation makes it harder for unions to accomplish their goals of improved wages and working conditions and thus weaken the middle class. Just like right-to-frat legislation reduces the influence of Greek life and weakens our chances at scoring with hot slampieces.

Are there arguments for right-to-work legislation? Sure. Do we need to reform unions to accommodate for a more globalized economy? Absolutely. But I’ll just say this:

A preponderance of labor unions builds a strong middle class through high-wages and standards, and a strong middle class builds a strong, competitive economy.

This is not a moral or political argument; it’s an economic fact. And given that the auto-industry essentially kicked off the labor movement in America let’s end with my main bro Henry Ford, who started an industrial revolution and built America’s middle-class by, shockingly, paying his workers a livable wage.

Big Henry realized that if workers don’t earn enough to spend on consumption, the middle-class weakens, inequality rises and the entire economy suffers. He said: “Paying high wages is behind the prosperity of this country.”

And as it turns out, it was. Maybe we should start listening to such a smart bro.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s