3 ms·
There's a case in front the US supreme court on this now. Basically union dues are currently split between an administrative category and a political category
by rbobby 9y ago
There's a case in front the US supreme court on this now.
Basically union dues are currently split between an administrative category and a political category (my terms, can't recall what they're actually called). Administrative covers the costs arising from actual contract negotiation and enforcement. Political covers anything dealing with lobbying or advertising etc (eg. vote Bill Murray because he supports unions).
Currently the political category fee does not have to be paid by non-union members (a free speech issue). The administrative category has to be paid by everyone covered by the contract whether union member or not.
The case in front of the court is to stop making the administrative portion mandatory... somehow because of free speech.
Personally I think it's a bit nutty. Someone that receives the benefits of collective bargaining but doesn't want to pay a cent towards the costs has got a screw lose.
If the SC decides the admin fees are not mandatory then unions are going to have a tough time. If enough idiots opt out of membership the union will not be able to afford a solid contract negotiating team or even an enforcement team. This will let companies strike contracts that are much more in their favor. And presumably the employee's will blame the union and more will opt out... until the union is no longer financially viable.
Let alone what it will do to union's lobbying and political efforts.
- snuxoll 9y ago> If the SC decides the admin fees are not mandatory then unions are going to have a tough time. If enough idiots opt out of membership the union will not be able to afford a solid contract negotiating team or even an enforcement team. This will let companies strike contracts that are much more in their favor. And presumably the employee's will blame the union and more will opt out... until the union is no longer financially viable. Right-to-work legislation in a nutshell, and it worked.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jpttsn 9y agoI see where you’re coming from with the “screw loose” comment, but think you skip past a very real desire for self governance: A “startup” that drone-feeds pigeons in the park could make the case that I enjoy the benefits of well-fed pigeons, and that I should be prepared to pay. As great as pigeons are, I might feel diminished by the startup’s posture, which betrays low esteem for my ability to allocate my resources.
- vinceguidry 9y agoGovernance fits into the space where people don't want to self-manage. The average neighborhood doesn't want to bother spending the time or effort to vet possible service providers, let alone a pigeon feeder. They're paying dues precisely for the privilege of letting other people decide. They don't always agree, but that's what the monthly meetings are for. Eventually everyone agrees on the scope of governance.
- jpttsn 9y agoBut if they don’t want to self-manage, what have you got to lose by giving them the choice? Is this the kind of want that is distinct from what they say they want?
- vinceguidry 9y agoOK, I think an example is in order. Let's say you want to not live in a neighborhood with a bunch of weirdo dicks. The kinds of weirdo dicks that will paint their house bright neon purple and erect a large statue of a dick in the front yard. But you don't want to do the actual work of coming up with a set of rules for everyone to live by. For the very good reason that that crap is hard and thankless and nobody's going to agree with every rule. So you empower a homeowner's association to do it for you. This is a form of governance empowered to set rules that the neighborhood has to follow. Residents just have to pay the dues in order to ensure that their wishes are followed. Self-management in this case is calling the cops and hoping they can sort your neighbor out. You call it governance when you have to impose rules on others. It's annoying and ugly but someone's gotta do the job of exercising the will of the many onto the few that don't feel like they should follow the rules. If you don't want to live under an HOA, you don't buy into a community that has one.