There are many public sector employees that get great contracts because they freeload off of the work of the union with collective bargaining but when asked to support the work that gets them their contract they turn into whiny little bitches and talk about freedom of association and “we shouldn’t have to pay to work” (even though you chose a profession with unions).
The problem is that unions are required by law to represent everyone in the unit, whether they are a member of the unit or not, in collective bargaining. This point seem to escape Justice Alito who compared this legally mandated obligation with groups that *voluntary *work on causes that may benefit more than their members.
I have a simple solution - if you do not want to be a member of the union, fine. BUT you are also not covered by any collective bargaining meaning you need to go and negotiate you own contract. If you come to my school district with its anti-teacher superintendent good luck getting anything remotely close to what’s in the contract.
So what say you. Should public-sector employees still get the benefits of the union’s collective bargaining work while simultaneously telling the union to “F-off, I don’t want to join.”?
Suppose that union pressure changes the law, or unions sue based on the precedent of this very case, and they manage to exclude free-riding workers from collective bargaining agreements who don’t pay their dues. Then those workers would be… cheaper for the district, no? Would there then not be an incentive to hire more of those workers, and fewer of the workers who have the union negotiating their higher wages from the collective bargaining agreement?
I don’t know all the strategic-negotiating particulars here, so I am far from sure about this, but it might still be better for the union workers to overlook free-riders, because excluding them from the contracts will start to put downward pressure on those wages, and that very fact might undermine the union for the next round of bargaining. Again, not sure about that idea, but it’s a wrinkle that might be worth consideration.
80 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt said that public employees simply cannot engage in collective bargaining. He was a strong supporter of unions for employees in the private sector, but he said:
The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
He was correct. Where they are allowed to exist, public sector unions are having a disastrous effect on government. They are sending numerous cities and states hurtling towards bankruptcy. They are pushing laws and policies that lead to less democracy, by taking important decisions away from elected politicians.
Follow FDR’s lead. Abolish public sector unions, and the problem of free-riding workers is solved.
Absolutely not. If they don’t want to pay for the union benefits, they should not get them.
I hope you can help me understand this framework a bit better.
I’m not sure what law you mean. I have a guess, though: 5 U.S. Code § 7114(a)(1):
This seems to address only those cases in which the labor organization has been accorded exclusive recognition.
Is that correct? And if it is, would it be possible to simply not seek exclusive representation, and thus avoid the yoke of mandated representation of non-union members?
And so as an employer, I am going to be more likely to hire non-union people because they will be cheaper for my business. A public sector employer will be the same since non-union people will be cheaper… and they don’t want to be part of the union anyway.
Sure. Unless, for example, the union provides employers with a sense of confidence as to training and competence that is lacking in non-union people. But if the union choices are as competent as the non-union, then sure, why not?
Why would a commodity be immune from the laws of supply and demand? Are you saying that the cost of slaves did not fluctuate with the market? What are you saying?
I am surprised; I thought from reading your previous opinions on the Dope you would be happy with this decision. Conservatives have been trying to screw unions of all stripes for decades.
“And for that matter, it is questionable whether the Constitution would permit a public-sector employer to adopt a collective-bargaining agreement that discriminates against nonmembers.”
Isn’t there an easy way around this? Just don’t allow public unions to donate to politicians. That is a clear conflict of interest, and it is indeed a conspiracy against the people when public unions have the power to choose and help elect politicians who will vote to increase the pay, benefits and power of the public unions and their employees.
I remember at the last Democratic convention one of the commentators said that so many people on the floor were teachers or teacher’s union leaders that it looked like a teacher’s convention.
Then we can throw corporations in with that, yes? And anyone that might want to help elect politicians that will decrease their tax burden or increase services?
I probably wouldn’t object to this decision if it weren’t the same court that said money is speech. This decision in tandem with several others in recent years (Citizens United notably) is the judicial branch’s official endorsement of oligarchy. Constitutional crisis is inevitable, and will probably be obvious within the next few years.