4 ms·
It's not really that big of a problem. In an ideal situation, sure, the union could represent union members and the non-union member would be banned from receiv
by ilikehurdles 7y ago
It's not really that big of a problem. In an ideal situation, sure, the union could represent union members and the non-union member would be banned from receiving any benefits bargained for by the union. Unfortunately, if the union has to represent everyone then everyone should pay, which isn't much different than if the <1% in leadership positions at a company makes a dumb decision costing the company money and people their jobs, the entire company is forced to follow the decision and totally uninvolved workers pay the consequences for it. At least in a union, the workers have say in how it operates and what its goals are.
- wilg 7y agoDo unions have to represent everyone? Seems like its collective bargaining either way?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoThey aren't required to, but they have the legal right to insist on it and most unions do. The concern is that, if you choose not to represent everyone, the non-union employees can negotiate better deals than you and they'll still benefit from many kinds of working condition improvements you might want.
- coredog64 7y agoThere are 3 options. Non members can free ride, they can pay an agency fee, or they can pay full union dues. The Beck decision (not always well enforced) says that union members have a right not to pay for union costs outside of the agency fee.