Your source is incorrect. Union membership cannot be compelled. However, employees may be compelled to pay dues.
Right to work laws
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
Your source is incorrect. Union membership cannot be compelled. However, employees may be compelled to pay dues.
It seems it would be a violation of the first amendment and the right to assemble. You cannot force somebody to assemble with a group they do not wish to.
Which basically forces them to donate to the "Worders Wing" of the Democratic Party.
False. Employees cannot be compelled to contribute to the political efforts of unions. Non-members may only be compelled to pay for efforts relating to collective bargaining and workplace representation.
However, much like giving money to Planned Parenthood that cannot be spent on abortion, they simply put that money into the budget and specify it in a different area freeing up by replacing money that would otherwise be spent there for more of the political efforts.
It is preposterous to pretend that budget tricks make the reality any different.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Translation: "Shhhh.... ur not supposed to know that, let alone tell others about it"
There is nothing really to argue. We revert back to the fact that employees should pay for the representation they receive from the union and shouldn't be able to free ride. It doesn't matter what the union spends that money on (although it is illegal for the union to use that money for political purposes).
If you are forced to pay for it you should get the benefit of actual representation if necessary. Instead you are forced to pay for no representation at all, if you choose not to be in the union, and regardless of your excuses the money goes into what can be considered a political organization that may not follow your own political goals.
Nowadays, more than ever before, Unions are political party wonks.
False. If you pay, you get the benefit of representation. What's so fucking difficult for you to understand about that? The union represents the entire bargaining unit. Everyone. And, as I said previously, non-members cannot be compelled to pay for the political activities of a union.
Even to the extent unions are "political party wonks" (and wonk is not the word you were looking for), the political activity of unions is paid for by union member dues, not the dues of non-members.
You keep restating the same tired nonsense.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Which is bullshit again.... If you have two employees, one union and the other not that are both paying say $500 in dues each year. All the union has to do is take the $500 from the non-union employee and put that all towards the bargaining portion of their "expenses" and put the union members $500 towards political contributions. It is a fucking shell game with the money and you know it.
Also, I certainly agree the union should not be forced to legally represent the non-union employees. But the company and non-union employees also have the right to agree to their own terms. Do they not? More than likely they will create something very similar to what the union negotiated, otherwise the union would bitch and moan that their employees got shafted, threaten to strike etc...
Bottom line, in industries where there is competition, the marketplace will pay the most valued employees the best wages. In my industry, that is exactly what happens. I do think in government jobs, unions are necessary for two reasons....
1) For many, like police officers, firefighters, there is no competition and thus no market driving force to increase wages/bene's for the employees.
2) Politicians are for the most part self-centered legalized crooks that will stab the workers in the back in a heartbeat all the while proclaiming how much they support them.
If you are forced to pay when you choose not to join you do not get the benefit of representation, you just pay.
And you keep pretending that budget tricks really do make reality something other than what it is, it is just pretense.
That I keep restating it doesn't change the fact that it forces people to pay into what has become a wing of one of the major parties. Sure it is great for your political party so you don't want it to change, but in reality because of that one reality it becomes forcing people to assemble as you wish.
I don't think that's right.
If you work in a union shop, but choose not to join the union, the union still negotiates your wages and compensation. Which will most likely be better than what you could negotiate on your own as an individual.
And the union is still required to represent you if there is an employment grevience against the employer.
That representation doesn't come for free, or just fall out of the sky into your lap. Its costs time and money, which is why one is required to pay union dues if one chooses to work in a union shop. Unless its a right to work state.
They do not negotiate the wages or comensation for non-represented employees. That is a falsehood. They must negotiate and accept their own. And the union is not required to represent me as I am not a "member". I just pay because it makes it almost ridiculous not to join.
If they go on strike and I choose not to cross the line I do not get even the percentage that they get in pay from the union, and am not represented by their lawyers in a dispute.
It becomes a basic donation to the political party, and does nothing for me other than make it a pay to play, taxation with no representation.
You are forced to pay because you receive the benefit of representation. As I have said, repeatedly now, the union represents all members of the bargaining unit, non-members and members alike and is liable to every single member of the bargaining unit for a breach of the duty of fair representation. That's why non-members are required to pay. Even if you refuse to be a member, the union is required by law to represent you. That's what you pay for.
Union members, in addition to paying for that representation, pay additional dues to the union that may be used for political purposes.
I'll come back to this later.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
NO, they do not represent non-union employees. That is bullshit. The non-union workers negotiate their compensation with the employer. They do not have to have the same package the union members get. To the best of my knowledge, the union is NOT required to represent anyone by law that does not pay dues/fees. If I am wrong, please produce the law that states otherwise.
If you are in the bargaining unit, the union represents you. That's the bottom line:
"NO, they do not represent non-union employees. That is bullshit. The non-union workers negotiate their compensation with the employer."
Iowa Senate Republicans Website:
I don't know how many unions have "exclusive representation" status, but the websites suggest that most unions try to apply for this status, since it makes their position stronger at the bargaining table.