3 ms·
That's the question though: is it the worker's money? If so, shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want with it, instead of giving it to the union? It is
by jeffdavis 8y ago
That's the question though: is it the worker's money? If so, shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want with it, instead of giving it to the union?
It is a little disturbing when there is a chain of force exerted by government all the way from the original funds back to some kind of political activism.
The individual workers never have a chance to intervene in that chain. They have a collective right through their union vote, but free speech is an individual right. It would clearly be a free speech problem if you were forced to pay dues to the Republican or Democratic parties even though you have a vote within it.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoIf the worker doesn't want to join the union, they don't have to take the job. The main issue here is that the union is required to negotiate on behalf of everyone at the job, not just it's members.
- jeffdavis 8y agoThat's a disturbing job requirement for a non-political public sector job.
- sykh 8y agoNo one is required to join the union. They are required to help pay for collective bargaining, grievances, contract enforcement etc. Those who are in the union are entitled to a refund of the portion of their dues that go toward political activities. This is all the current law without Janus.
- jeffdavis 8y agoI understand the argument: they're trying to draw a line between ordinary union activity and political speech. But a lot of people don't think such a line is possible.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoA company of any decent size engages in political speech constantly, much of which many of their employees might disagree with. Why is it ok for the company to do so, but not the employees banded together?