union's free speech rights trampled by stifling the collection of $

[RoyalTea]

http://www.ibj.com/union-says-right-.../article/33718

So, unions think they should be able to force anybody who works in a particular industry to join their union, pay dues, and use a portion of those dues for political speech. Depriving a union of the right to force someone into paying for their political speech deprives the UNION of its first amendment rights.

Corporations aren't people, but unions are. Got it.

[shadowhawk2020]

I don't agree with their argument here, but i think it is BS that unions have to represent people that don't pay dues.

[jfoobar]

Originally Posted by shadowhawk2020

I don't agree with their argument here, but i think it is BS that unions have to represent people that don't pay dues.

Well, that is a matter of practicality, isn't it? They can't collectively bargain on behalf of half the machinists in a manufacturing facility just because only half pay dues. On the other hand, they can and do refuse to provide other services to non-dues paying employees.

[shadowhawk2020]

Originally Posted by jfoobar

Well, that is a matter of practicality, isn't it? They can't collectively bargain on behalf of half the machinists in a manufacturing facility just because only half pay dues. On the other hand, they can and do refuse to provide other services to non-dues paying employees.

Not at my last shop. Non members got every union benefit. Including getting represented in disputrs with management. Which was definitely required by the union contract, and I was under the impression that was part of the law.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by JasonF

No they're not. Money spent by unions on political action is separate from mandatory union dues.

"In this case, the state of Indiana restricted a channel of speech-supporting finance," the union brief maintains. "The Union legitimately utilizes dues money collected through the agency shop provisions in its collective bargaining agreements, in part, to finance political speech. The Indiana Right to Work law prohibits agency shop agreements, and that prohibition restricts a channel through which speech-supporting finance might flow."

:shocked face:

[JasonF]

But Dale Pierson, one of the attorneys representing Local 150, said workers don't have to pay for union speech with which they don't agree. Federal courts settled that issue decades ago, he said, holding that workers could only be required to pay the union the cost of representing them.

SmarmyImage.bmp
:douchey text between two colons to make a faux smiley:

[wishbone]

But Dale Pierson, one of the attorneys representing Local 150, said workers don't have to pay for union speech with which they don't agree. Federal courts settled that issue decades ago, he said, holding that workers could only be required to pay the union the cost of representing them.

Alas there is always a catch...

Employees who eventually learn of their Beck rights and want to exercise them, are routinely required by their unions to resign and become “non-members.” Because the Supreme Court Beck decision did not address whether an employee can be required to resign from his union in order to exercise his or her rights, unions impose this condition to discourage their members from pursuing Beck opportunities.

http://www.unionrefund.org/faq.asp

[DVD Polizei]

I worked under a union here in Portland, OR back in the days, paid dues, and they mostly picked their noses and sat on their fat asses when it came to employee work conditions. Basically did shit, which surprised me as other unions elsewhere have a little more teeth.

[jfoobar]

Originally Posted by shadowhawk2020

Not at my last shop. Non members got every union benefit. Including getting represented in disputrs with management. Which was definitely required by the union contract, and I was under the impression that was part of the law.

Well then I agree. Unions should be under no obligation to provide any services to non-members.

[Shoveler]

Originally Posted by jfoobar

Well then I agree. Unions should be under no obligation to provide any services to non-members.

I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, just thinking this through... if all employees were not accorded some sort of service under their union membership, regardless of whether dues were paid or not, then wouldn't it be fairly easy for "the Man" to bust the union by offering preferential treatment to non-union employees, at least in the area of collective bargaining? I'm sure it would be a huge battle, but am I completely off base?

[Venusian]

Originally Posted by Shoveler

I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, just thinking this through... if all employees were not accorded some sort of service under their union membership, regardless of whether dues were paid or not, then wouldn't it be fairly easy for "the Man" to bust the union by offering preferential treatment to non-union employees, at least in the area of collective bargaining? I'm sure it would be a huge battle, but am I completely off base?

If the goal is better benefits for the workers (and not just keeping the union alive), then the goal is still met.

of course then the company could mistreat and the workers would unionize and it would go in circles but there would be an equilibrium at some point

[Heat]

Originally Posted by wishbone

Alas there is always a catch...

Where I work, the catch is that the cost is close to the union dues. Just to toss out some numbers, it's about $30 per month for non-union members for union representation ("fair share employees"), vs. $35 per month for union employees.

The difference is that technically the union cannot use "fair share" money for political donations, and they always support candidates that I do not like, so I am a fair share employee.

That is the union's selling point - "your cost to join the union is only a few dollars more per month, why not join?"

[kvrdave]

No WAY they would use that money to support candidates. Do they allow their books to be audited?

[creekdipper]

Originally Posted by shadowhawk2020

I don't agree with their argument here, but i think it is BS that unions have to represent people that don't pay dues.

The teacher's union where I reside obviously 'represents' everyone during contract negotiations but don't have to provide legal defense or other individual benefits to non-members.

Membership used to be nearly universal; however, the more political the NEA got, the less people felt inclined to pay dues to their local teacher's unions (since some of those dues got sent on the the state & national organizations).

[Tommy Ceez]

When the NYC subway strike happened last time, a judge too away the TWU's automatic payroll deduction. Almost killed the union. It was recently reinstated.

[creekdipper]

Originally Posted by Tommy Ceez

When the NYC subway strike happened last time, a judge too away the TWU's automatic payroll deduction. Almost killed the union. It was recently reinstated.

That's the part I don't understand. If a union is doing such a good job, shouldn't the members contribute voluntarily? That should be a no-brainer.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by creekdipper

That's the part I don't understand. If a union is doing such a good job, shouldn't the members contribute voluntarily? That should be a no-brainer.

Free rider problem.