Non Union Members Paying Union Fees

[Nam]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-deadlocks-over-public-employee-union-case-calif-teachers-must-pay-dues/2016/03/29/b99faa30-f5b7-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html

I actually disagree with this. I don't believe a person who doesn't join a Union has to pay a fee anyway. They might as well join if they have to pay. But I also believe that those that don't join a Union shouldn't get the benefit of a Union.  Why force them to pay, why not just take those rights from them?

-Nam

[jumbojak]

That's the whole point of right to work laws Nam, creating a conflict between state and federal law to drain unions of financial resources. I agree that we would be better served if unions were not forced to negotiate on behalf of and legally represnt nonmembers during disputes but so long as the GOP has any power in congress there's a slim chance of that ever happening.

[Firebird]

I've always been torn about unions. We owe a great debt to them for creating a better working environment when company owners were really abusive, but things have changed and they haven't helped their case in recent years. The Teamsters once tried to force a garbage collecting company near me to unionize by locking the front doors and protesting, even though most of the workers had no interest in joining them. However, then there's people like home health cares aides who have virtually no protections and really would benefit from unionizing. And I'm no fan of unbridled capitalism either.
Honestly not sure how I feel about this.

[joeactor]

I also disagree with the decision. She's not a member, so she shouldn't have to pay.

To further complicate matters, the US has "Financial Core" status. It doesn't come into play with many unions, but is a major factor for acting unions.

Example: Sag-Aftra rule number 1 is that you can't do any non-union work as a member. This is great if they're providing jobs like a union shop. But actors are basically independent contractors. So, being a "Fi-Core" member allows you to be in the union, but still do non-union work. Technically you're a "Dues Paying Non-Member" (like that makes sense). You pay your dues and a percent of all union work. You get the financial core benefits of contract negotiation, health, pension. But you give up your right to vote, hold office, or attend any special events.

In Right-To-Work states, you can do union jobs without joining the union. The idea is that no organization should be able to prevent you from gainful employment.

I'm glad the unions are there to protect working conditions and wages. But they've gotten a bit big for their britches, imho. Non-union work has become plentiful, and if you've got standards, it can pay as much or more than equivalent union jobs.

(steps off soap box)
JoeActor