5 ms·

Thay sounds very resonable actually. If you are not a member, how on earth does a union have a mechanism to force you to pay a member due? What if I don't agree

by hak8or 8y ago

Thay sounds very resonable actually. If you are not a member, how on earth does a union have a mechanism to force you to pay a member due? What if I don't agree with how the union runs or the goals of the union?

twblalock 8y ago
> What if I don't agree with how the union runs or the goals of the union? The argument is that you benefit from the union whether you are a member or not because you get the same benefits as union members because of the union's bargaining with the management, so you should pay. I don't really agree with it, but that's the argument.
- cup 8y ago
  What don't you agree about?
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    Benefit is in the eye of the beholder. Non-members may not actually be benefiting if the results are not really what they want.
  - nitwit005 8y ago
    Like anything else, you can run a union poorly. Sometimes they don't actually achieve anything in their barganing. No one is going to be enthused about paying for a non-existant benefit.
  - Caprinicus 8y ago
    If they could demand a fee, anyone could claim to be negotiating on behalf of you, and demand a fee as obviously you need them
- xref 8y ago
  You get the same benefits? As in non-union members would get a union rep to fight for them if they were fired?
  - rbobby 8y ago
    The biggest benefit is that non-union members get the same employment terms as union members. So they essentially get a free ride on the cost of negotiation.
  - masonic 8y ago
    Oh, yes. My union fought to reinstate somebody in my department after he hit a female co-worker in the face. The assailant was a long-time who predated the establishment of the Agency,Shop and therefore never paid dues.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article218615695.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-wo... Dated sept 19,2018 [..]California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a law that aims to give public employee unions legal cover from potentially expensive lawsuits demanding that they repay certain fees to workers that the Supreme Court in June determined were unconstitutional. The law, which takes effect immediately, says unions and public agencies cannot be held liable for fees that unions collected before the Supreme Court ruling in Janus vs. AFSCME on June 27 of this year. That 5-4 court decision ended a 41-year precedent that allowed public sector unions to collect so-called fair share fees from workers who did not choose to join a labor organization but were still represented by a union. The fees often ranged 70 percent to 99 percent of full dues. [..]
nickodell 8y ago
See Wikipedia: >In 24 U.S. states, employees who are working in a unionized shop may be required to contribute towards the cost of representation (such as at disciplinary hearings) if their fellow employees have negotiated a union security clause in their contract with management. Dues are generally 1-2% of pay. However, union members and other workers covered by collective agreements get, on average, a 5-10% wage markup over their nonunionized (or uncovered) counterparts. >Some states, especially in the south-central and south-eastern regions of the U.S., have outlawed union security clauses; this can cause controversy, as it allows some net beneficiaries of the union contract to avoid paying their portion of the costs of contract negotiation. >Regardless of state, the Supreme Court has held that the Act prevents a person's union dues from being used without consent to fund political causes that may be opposed to the individual's personal politics. Instead, in states where union security clauses are permitted, such dissenters may elect to pay only the proportion of dues which go directly toward representation of workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining#United_States_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining#United_S...
Spooky23 8y ago
The workforce democratically organizes the union and collectively bargains. In a union shop, you aren’t an at-will employee... you have a contract. They administer benefits and negotiate on your behalf whether you join or not. The unions are also obliged to defend you, even if you are a shitbird who chooses to not join. With Janus, the union that I was recently a member of lost about 1,500/55,000 members. Not a huge impact so far.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  Why would they do that unless they have something to gain from inflated union membership numbers? Perhaps the dues aren’t important but the numbers are..? Do teachers unions have affiliations with teachers pension funds? There must be some mutual back scratching going on...surely?
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    They have a contract that requires that they do so. One of the things about unions is that there's really no grand conspiracy... they are quite open about what they want, and getting it generally involves a contract between two parties.
- xref 8y ago
  I’m very curious why unions are “obliged” to defend non-members. Is it a state/federal law?
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    It’s usually a collective bargaining term or law, depending on jurisdiction.

by hak8or 8y ago

twblalock 8y ago

> What if I don't agree with how the union runs or the goals of the union? The argument is that you benefit from the union whether you are a member or not because you get the same benefits as union members because of the union's bargaining with the management, so you should pay. I don't really agree with it, but that's the argument.

cup 8y ago
What don't you agree about?
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  Benefit is in the eye of the beholder. Non-members may not actually be benefiting if the results are not really what they want.
- nitwit005 8y ago
  Like anything else, you can run a union poorly. Sometimes they don't actually achieve anything in their barganing. No one is going to be enthused about paying for a non-existant benefit.
- Caprinicus 8y ago
  If they could demand a fee, anyone could claim to be negotiating on behalf of you, and demand a fee as obviously you need them
xref 8y ago
You get the same benefits? As in non-union members would get a union rep to fight for them if they were fired?
- rbobby 8y ago
  The biggest benefit is that non-union members get the same employment terms as union members. So they essentially get a free ride on the cost of negotiation.
- masonic 8y ago
  Oh, yes. My union fought to reinstate somebody in my department after he hit a female co-worker in the face. The assailant was a long-time who predated the establishment of the Agency,Shop and therefore never paid dues.
jelliclesfarm 8y ago
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article218615695.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-wo... Dated sept 19,2018 [..]California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a law that aims to give public employee unions legal cover from potentially expensive lawsuits demanding that they repay certain fees to workers that the Supreme Court in June determined were unconstitutional. The law, which takes effect immediately, says unions and public agencies cannot be held liable for fees that unions collected before the Supreme Court ruling in Janus vs. AFSCME on June 27 of this year. That 5-4 court decision ended a 41-year precedent that allowed public sector unions to collect so-called fair share fees from workers who did not choose to join a labor organization but were still represented by a union. The fees often ranged 70 percent to 99 percent of full dues. [..]

nickodell 8y ago

See Wikipedia: >In 24 U.S. states, employees who are working in a unionized shop may be required to contribute towards the cost of representation (such as at disciplinary hearings) if their fellow employees have negotiated a union security clause in their contract with management. Dues are generally 1-2% of pay. However, union members and other workers covered by collective agreements get, on average, a 5-10% wage markup over their nonunionized (or uncovered) counterparts. >Some states, especially in the south-central and south-eastern regions of the U.S., have outlawed union security clauses; this can cause controversy, as it allows some net beneficiaries of the union contract to avoid paying their portion of the costs of contract negotiation. >Regardless of state, the Supreme Court has held that the Act prevents a person's union dues from being used without consent to fund political causes that may be opposed to the individual's personal politics. Instead, in states where union security clauses are permitted, such dissenters may elect to pay only the proportion of dues which go directly toward representation of workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining#United_States_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining#United_S...

Spooky23 8y ago

The workforce democratically organizes the union and collectively bargains. In a union shop, you aren’t an at-will employee... you have a contract. They administer benefits and negotiate on your behalf whether you join or not. The unions are also obliged to defend you, even if you are a shitbird who chooses to not join. With Janus, the union that I was recently a member of lost about 1,500/55,000 members. Not a huge impact so far.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
Why would they do that unless they have something to gain from inflated union membership numbers? Perhaps the dues aren’t important but the numbers are..? Do teachers unions have affiliations with teachers pension funds? There must be some mutual back scratching going on...surely?
- Spooky23 8y ago
  They have a contract that requires that they do so. One of the things about unions is that there's really no grand conspiracy... they are quite open about what they want, and getting it generally involves a contract between two parties.
xref 8y ago
I’m very curious why unions are “obliged” to defend non-members. Is it a state/federal law?
- Spooky23 8y ago
  It’s usually a collective bargaining term or law, depending on jurisdiction.