I have a question about public union members that relates to Proposition 75 on the CA ballot.
Here’s a link to a pdf with info on prop 75. According to the information in the argument against prop 75 in that pdf, the law is unnecessary because public employees are not required to be in the union. However, a friend of mine who is a teacher at a public school in the LA area told me that he was never informed of this, nor did he explicitly join the union.
I’m sure there is a good political discussion to be had on the merits of prop 75, but it should better be had in GD. I’d like this thread to answer the specific questions of whether public employees automatically become members of the union and whether they are given information about their rights to not be part of the union. In essence, is union membership basically opt-in or opt-out?
California State workers are not required to join the union. It’s an opt-in thing. However, and it’s a big however, non-members pay a “fair share” fee that is only $1 less than union dues.
What this Prop 75 will do is make the public workers specifically opt-in to using dues money for political purposes. As it is, political uses of dues money can be refused, but only by a specific notice from the employees. The union fears that many employees will not opt-in, and the union will lose what political clout it has.
My teacher friend claims that there is a substantial difference between the collective bargaining fees (which members and non-members are required to pay) and the total union dues, the difference being used in whole or in part for political purposes. If the difference were really only $1, I can’t imagine that the union would have much political power as it is.
The numbers he offered were $200 for collective bargaining, etc. and $800 for political purposes.
When you say that the union is “opt-in” do you mean that when you are hired, they give you a union membership form and say something like “If you’d like to join the union, you can fill out this form”?
California law requires that all union members for public and non-public employee unions that are used for state purposes have consent to spend their money on political issues. All funds that are not authorized, not just $1, may not be spent for political purposes. Anybody who is getting just a dollar deducted and returned when not authorizing can get relief from a court, this has happened before, and I strongly doubt it is happening now. There was a case a while back that ruled that the dollar thing was not allowable unless the organization could prove that was the extent of their expenses.
The new measure requires unions to get permission from each member in writing on each issue and candidate that the union wants to support. The unions claim that this would create paperwork that would exceed in cost what they currently spend.
This is my understanding, and I’ll try to break it down.
The current law requires all California unions to allow their members to opt out of political participation and not pay any portion of union dues. That is done by signing a paper and sending it in. That is all there is to it.
The portion refunded must be the portion used for politics, not a token dollar. Some orgaination lost a case like that when they pretended it was only a dollar.
The proposed law would require unions (I believe only public employee unions) to require a union to get affirmative approval in writing for each ballot measure or candidate supported. It is my understanding that the unions claim that much paperwork would cost more by itself than they now spend. But figuring a first class letter for each approval of each measure for roughly a million union members, yes, I can see that.
Bob, thanks for re-explaining. I understand that union members can opt out of political contributions right now. However, is this made clear to them? My friend claims to have not heard about this option. Is union membership itself explained as optional? He also claims that he never explicitly joined the union of his own volition, but perhaps it just got lost in the paperwork when he was being hired.
If he did not fill out a membership application, then I assume he is an agency fee-payer. He can check on his status.
Yes, they can opt out when they join or later on. The membership form should contain an opt-out box which people can choose to mark–or not. There is also something called a “Hudson notice” which can be sent out. (Sorry, I Googled this for a bit but couldn’t find a good link on it.)
If someone wants to opt out, it’s a matter of putting the request in writing.
As far as my union goes (CTA), they try very hard to not tell you about the “opt-out” clause. I’m really looking forward to seeing how Prop. 75 flies. If nothing else, the attack ads before the election ought to be interesting.
To understand my motivation in wanting to know if union membership is basically opt-in or opt-out, my opinion on 75 is that, if the union is fundamentally an organization that you can choose to join, then the state shouldn’t have any say over how it allocates funds (as long as it does so in a legal manner). However, if union membership is thrust upon people without them even realizing that they don’t have to join or that they can opt out later, then the unions are getting what’s coming to them.
My friend is a decently smart guy, and he claims to have never even heard that he didn’t have to join the union. I’m looking for some corroborating evidence.
Check out National Right to Work for information about this topic. Yes, it’s good information. No, I’m not pimping for them and I have no association with them.