3 ms·

> 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 beca

> 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. [..]

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. [..]