Oh, gotcha.
Right. We’ve had more than one poster state, either directly or not, that the policy is so obviously correct that it needs no discussion. Well, sorry, it’s not and it does.
Okay, make the case.
Suppose your employer were the one taking the money, and started deducting a few dollars each paycheck to pay for its political agenda? Or if it invited some other group to take your money?
I strongly agree that unions should have the right to charge free-loaders fees. I can understand the political exemption though.
Remember what I already said about “its political agenda” including preserving its own existence, and ability to serve its members, against political efforts to neutralize or destroy it? That’s the case you just asked for. And I remind you again that dismissing it is disingenuous.
Yes, it’s fair for a nonmember to put other priorities ahead of preserving his own job and benefits etc., and that may involve opposing a pro-union candidate, and that makes it fair to allow him not to contribute to it. No argument there. But it’s not the obvious or even default assumption to make.
But, once again, this is about people who haven’t joined the union and don’t want to. They have an interest in what the union does for them, but they have no interest in preserving it’s existence. They don’t care. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect union members only to bear that burden, since they chose to join. If the union has a good reason to exist (and I believe they do) it should be enough to convince non-members to join and support that cause.
SEIU members tend to be Democrats. The most contact Republicans have with them is by way of tipping.
And the gratuity should be included in the check when the dining party is six or more. 
New standard is five percent. Doesn’t do to coddle these people, they start getting ideas above their station.
Sure–and if you have Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance, you can’t shop around for different carriers; there’s one and only one. You made that choice when you signed up for BCBS, just like you made a choice when you accepted a job at unionized MegaCorp.
Coincidentally, it was on the same day I was compelled to accept a job at a unionized workplace.
If you don’t like the union at a particular workplace, that’s exactly like not liking the proposed salary, or not liking the dress code, or not liking the political donations the company gives, or not liking any other aspect of employment. Once you accept the job, you don’t get to say, “I like this job, but the courts should require you to pay me more/let me dress how I want/not donate to people I don’t like.” Similarly, you shouldn’t get to say, “I like this job, but the courts should require you to let me not pay union dues.”
Except they kinda do. Because with union dues, unlike dress codes etc., you do get more choice: if you don’t like the union, you can organize a decertification drive. Just get enough fellow employees to vote to leave the union/start a different union, and Boom, you’ve done it!
This whole talk about “compelled speech” is bizarre, IMO. If I create profit for MegaCorp, and they spend the profit I created on political ads, have they compelled my speech?
Hell, I’M a Democrat, and the most contact I have with SEIU Members is by way of tipping. 
Not likely.
You’d have to be able to speak Spanish first, right?
I can ask where the library is at, but if they answer me I still won’t know.