Further, if the union is really doing something that seems of value to the worker, they'll pay, if not, they won't. Why should a union be immune from the forces of a free market?
Forced dues are just another tax on workers. Why should the government levy a tax to support a private, non-governmental entity? Why should a worker have to pay anybody just to have a job? That's just insane.
Actually, Union Dues are broken down that way if you ask for it. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that union members who object to having their union dues spent on politics can get a refund for the portion of their dues.
I would be interested to know what the rules are for defining the refundable dues portion, especially for public sector unions. For the private sector, I suppose the split between lobbying the government and negotiating with the employer is a bit more clear, but how does a public sector union classify the situation when it decides that the best way to get better pay/benefits/etc. is to elect the candidate who supports those things? How does it reconcile the fact that any wages and benefits contract in the public sector requires a legislative budget appropriation that is subject to lobbying and political debate?
Per that 1988 SC ruling, public union workers cannot be forced to pay for *any* political activity. Basically, they pay for administration, worker assistance, and negotiations (possibly lobbying?).
Whether contributing to a specific candidate would be beneficial to a worker is irrelevant - it is considered political activity.
I was a member of the u.a.w. for 17 years and i witnessed guys getting fired for very legitimate reasons only to have the union get them their jobs back. So i say just for that reason alone, yes they need to pay their dues.
I'd say that guys getting their jobs back after fired for very legitimate reasons is exactly the reason unions shouldn't have the power to compel dues. No union should have that much power. And if a non-payer gets fired, why should the union come to his defense? Win-win for both union and employer in that case.
Just as corporations are not inherently evil, unions are not inherently evil. Of course, courtesy of Fox News and every single Republican since St. Ronnie, all we hear of unions are the abuses. In reality, they can protect members from abuses from management, as well as use their numbers to negotiate better wages, benefits, etc.
I was a member of the Correction Officers Union NYSCOPBA until I retired. In my 39 years, it was the Union that kept our members from being fired by arbitrary decisions made by the Administration. All Employees, Officers, and civilians are required to come to the assistance of another employee. Failure to do so is automatic grounds for termination.One glaring example of many was a use of force involving several Officers responding to an Officer being who was assaulted by an inmate with a weapon.There was a subsequent investigation.
The Officers were exonerated, except one Officer who was on probation.
The State attempted to fire him because he was on probation, and no other reason. A political patronage boss thought it was her fast track to a promotion. The Union got the Officer his job back.
Howard - "And if a non-payer gets fired, why should the union come to his defense?" -Because, Howard, that's the law. One which a lot of people don't understand when they comment on this subject. Even an employee who declines to pay dues according to the law must be provided the same protection and support by the union as those who do. Union resources, lawyers, etc. are required to act on their behalf. I know this from a friend who was the steward in a union shop with hundreds of workers. He, and the rest of the union's administration were required, by law, to step in and represent the non-paying workers, who also enjoyed the same pay scales and benefits as the paying members. So the answer isn't nearly as cut and dried as the questions appears to be.
First off if its a union shop (private sector) and you refuse to pay dues,you won't be working there! I currently work in batavia in a union shop, even the plant manager embraces the fact that it is a UAW shop. Its not a choice, new york is not a right to work state. Its in New York state's Constitution for the right to collectively bargain. This can only get over turned by opening a Constitutional Convention. Which neither dems or repub. want. So i have to put into question the motive of this poll. Why make it seem like people who make the choice to work in a union shop not have to pay dues? If a person doesn't want to pay union dues, there are plenty of lower paying non-union jobs out there. Matt Keene------- No a union rep, does not have to represent non union workers. I am a UAW rep.!!!!
Robert Bombard I guess you would know then. But I have a friend, a recently retired employee and union rep who says the exact opposite. He has told me he was required to represent, not just for bargaining purposes, but for disciplinary measures, non dues paying employees who enjoy the same pay and benefits as the ones who do. A little research shows me in a non right to work state like NY union employees can be forced to pay dues but only if a "union security clause" is included in the collectively bargained agreement - which I'm sure you have, as do I. Maybe that's the difference. Admittedly my source is second hand so I won't push this into a protracted argument. Good day to you.
I can only guess to the motives, but I believe the the poll was listed because Janus v. AFSCME was argued at the Supreme Court on Monday. The question at issue was whether those (in the public sector, at least) who object to union membership ought to be required to pay union dues: specifically, whether the Abood decision ought to be overturned. If it is, it would make the public sector right-to-work across the nation.
Mr. Keene:
You raise a good point with respect to the question not being cut and dried; there are obviously deeper consequences involved in changing the system. I think they run deeper yet: for example, as to the union being lawfully required to represent non-members, I wonder how well that idea holds when we consider that a union's political action arm is also well-positioned to try to have the law changed if it begins acting detrimentally to union interests. If enough people decide not to pay, I can see this as a possibility. Of course, that raises the issue of comparing the increased costs of exclusive representation to the marketing costs of having to attract and keep employee loyalty in a non-exclusive workplace--not to mention the employer interests in wanting to deal with as few groups at the bargaining table as possible--and probably continues from there.
They should pay the portion
They should pay the portion used to advance the workers' rights/pay/benefits. Other activity, such as donating to candidates...optional.
Dues aren't broken down that
Dues aren't broken down that way.
Further, if the union is really doing something that seems of value to the worker, they'll pay, if not, they won't. Why should a union be immune from the forces of a free market?
Forced dues are just another tax on workers. Why should the government levy a tax to support a private, non-governmental entity? Why should a worker have to pay anybody just to have a job? That's just insane.
Actually, Union Dues can and
Actually, Union Dues are broken down that way if you ask for it. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that union members who object to having their union dues spent on politics can get a refund for the portion of their dues.
https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/workers-can-opt-out-…
https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/
I would be interested to know
I would be interested to know what the rules are for defining the refundable dues portion, especially for public sector unions. For the private sector, I suppose the split between lobbying the government and negotiating with the employer is a bit more clear, but how does a public sector union classify the situation when it decides that the best way to get better pay/benefits/etc. is to elect the candidate who supports those things? How does it reconcile the fact that any wages and benefits contract in the public sector requires a legislative budget appropriation that is subject to lobbying and political debate?
Per that 1988 SC ruling,
Per that 1988 SC ruling, public union workers cannot be forced to pay for *any* political activity. Basically, they pay for administration, worker assistance, and negotiations (possibly lobbying?).
Whether contributing to a specific candidate would be beneficial to a worker is irrelevant - it is considered political activity.
I was a member of the u.a.w.
I was a member of the u.a.w. for 17 years and i witnessed guys getting fired for very legitimate reasons only to have the union get them their jobs back. So i say just for that reason alone, yes they need to pay their dues.
I'd say that guys getting
I'd say that guys getting their jobs back after fired for very legitimate reasons is exactly the reason unions shouldn't have the power to compel dues. No union should have that much power. And if a non-payer gets fired, why should the union come to his defense? Win-win for both union and employer in that case.
I was a member of the
Duplicate, please remove.
Just as corporations are not
Just as corporations are not inherently evil, unions are not inherently evil. Of course, courtesy of Fox News and every single Republican since St. Ronnie, all we hear of unions are the abuses. In reality, they can protect members from abuses from management, as well as use their numbers to negotiate better wages, benefits, etc.
I was a member of the
I was a member of the Correction Officers Union NYSCOPBA until I retired. In my 39 years, it was the Union that kept our members from being fired by arbitrary decisions made by the Administration. All Employees, Officers, and civilians are required to come to the assistance of another employee. Failure to do so is automatic grounds for termination.One glaring example of many was a use of force involving several Officers responding to an Officer being who was assaulted by an inmate with a weapon.There was a subsequent investigation.
The Officers were exonerated, except one Officer who was on probation.
The State attempted to fire him because he was on probation, and no other reason. A political patronage boss thought it was her fast track to a promotion. The Union got the Officer his job back.
Howard - "And if a non-payer
Howard - "And if a non-payer gets fired, why should the union come to his defense?" -Because, Howard, that's the law. One which a lot of people don't understand when they comment on this subject. Even an employee who declines to pay dues according to the law must be provided the same protection and support by the union as those who do. Union resources, lawyers, etc. are required to act on their behalf. I know this from a friend who was the steward in a union shop with hundreds of workers. He, and the rest of the union's administration were required, by law, to step in and represent the non-paying workers, who also enjoyed the same pay scales and benefits as the paying members. So the answer isn't nearly as cut and dried as the questions appears to be.
First off if its a union shop
First off if its a union shop (private sector) and you refuse to pay dues,you won't be working there! I currently work in batavia in a union shop, even the plant manager embraces the fact that it is a UAW shop. Its not a choice, new york is not a right to work state. Its in New York state's Constitution for the right to collectively bargain. This can only get over turned by opening a Constitutional Convention. Which neither dems or repub. want. So i have to put into question the motive of this poll. Why make it seem like people who make the choice to work in a union shop not have to pay dues? If a person doesn't want to pay union dues, there are plenty of lower paying non-union jobs out there. Matt Keene------- No a union rep, does not have to represent non union workers. I am a UAW rep.!!!!
Robert Bombard I guess you
Robert Bombard I guess you would know then. But I have a friend, a recently retired employee and union rep who says the exact opposite. He has told me he was required to represent, not just for bargaining purposes, but for disciplinary measures, non dues paying employees who enjoy the same pay and benefits as the ones who do. A little research shows me in a non right to work state like NY union employees can be forced to pay dues but only if a "union security clause" is included in the collectively bargained agreement - which I'm sure you have, as do I. Maybe that's the difference. Admittedly my source is second hand so I won't push this into a protracted argument. Good day to you.
Mr. Bombard:
Mr. Bombard:
I can only guess to the motives, but I believe the the poll was listed because Janus v. AFSCME was argued at the Supreme Court on Monday. The question at issue was whether those (in the public sector, at least) who object to union membership ought to be required to pay union dues: specifically, whether the Abood decision ought to be overturned. If it is, it would make the public sector right-to-work across the nation.
Mr. Keene:
You raise a good point with respect to the question not being cut and dried; there are obviously deeper consequences involved in changing the system. I think they run deeper yet: for example, as to the union being lawfully required to represent non-members, I wonder how well that idea holds when we consider that a union's political action arm is also well-positioned to try to have the law changed if it begins acting detrimentally to union interests. If enough people decide not to pay, I can see this as a possibility. Of course, that raises the issue of comparing the increased costs of exclusive representation to the marketing costs of having to attract and keep employee loyalty in a non-exclusive workplace--not to mention the employer interests in wanting to deal with as few groups at the bargaining table as possible--and probably continues from there.