What cause of action does the lawsuit assert?
Now I am confused again.
That’s what I’m asking. (IANAL.) Their beef is that they’re getting inferior compensation for the same work, just because they won’t join the union. Discrimination? Limitation of free speech? Unfair labor practices?
So, assuming there’s some legal basis for a suit – does the GOP go beyond dictating what public employee unions can’t do (demand dues from unwilling members) to dictating what they *must *do (represent non-paying members the same way they represent members).
My thought it: if there is no basis for the suit, and I can’t think of one, then the GOP does not support it, since it’s doomed to 12(b)(6) dismissal.
They don’t sue the state. They make a complaint to to NLRB that the union has breached their duty of fair representation or they sue the union for breaching that duty. Unless of course, the GOP has amended the NLRA before this happens.
But how can the union have a duty of fair representation if these people have chosen to not be represented? And how could the (sarcasm) party of individual responsibility (/sarcasm) possibly back people who demand something they’ve gone out of their way to avoid paying for?
Wouldn’t “screw the unions some more” be enough reason? Because if unions can actually do this, why wouldn’t they? And then the Janus victory dims quite a bit.
If Janus pushes US unions in this direction, it might not be the defeat we think.
And if they didn’t? If they pretend otherwise, and vote according to that, who’s going to stop them?
You’re confused because calling these organizations “members-only unions” is confusing.
In ordinary speech, when people say “union” they don’t simply mean any organization that represents its members in any way. One wouldn’t call the National Association of Social Workers a union because they advocate for social workers generally and offer various discounts to members. By “union” people ordinarily mean an organization that negotiates pay,benefits, working conditions, grievance and disciplinary procedures etc with an employer where those negotiations result in a binding contract after they are ratified by the employees.
“Members-only unions” are not unions by that meaning. By definition, the membership is less that 50% of those in a bargaining unit* because if more than 50% joined, that union would be the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit and would have to represent members and non-members alike. If fewer than 50% join, then the employer is not obligated to recognize the union or bargain with it. Few employers are going to bargain and sign contracts with individuals or groups unless they are forced to either by law or by the market. Even a generous employer would prefer not to be bound by a contract. Since the “members only unions” generally can’t negotiate wages etc, it never gets to the point where union members get paid $X/hr while non-members are paid $X-2 per hour. And when “member-only unions” do manage to secure a benefit ( such as a day off for MLK day, as described in the article), the employer frequently extends that benefit to non-members as well, for fear that more employees will sign union cards and the employer will be forced to bargain. “Member-only unions” are more similar to the organization I described in post 23 or to a professional association than they are to a traditional union.
I’m not a lawyer, but that quote in Zoller appears seems to go back to another case,( Sweeney v. Pence 767 F.3d 654) where it seems to be referring to the idea that the union is compensated for its duty of fair representation by being the exclusive bargaining unit, rather than the idea that the union had a choice in the matter.
*I don’t think it’s been mentioned, but a bargaining unit need not include all employees. My state agency has at least four different bargaining units represented by four different unions with four different contracts in addition to those of us who cannot join a union.
That’s not correct. You could have multiple unions with some members belonging to one union and others to another union. This used to be quite common in the UK. Typically the split went along job lines. As unions amalgamated the splits tended to disappear.
Who is doing the voting, in your question?
That is my perpetual state. Eventually it became comforting and familiar.
Heh…
I have a pretty good memory, and I’m pretty good at research, but there are areas of the law that I just don’t have the grounding to really understand in detail, and when I try my head hurts. Property, for example. Life estates, contingent remainders, reversions, possibility of reverter, the rule against perpetuities. . . I can parrot back definitions but never really felt I grasped the field.
Labor law is another. I have read a half dozen cases since this question arose and I have gotten ten IQ points stupider than I was when I started.
For teachers, it’s not a “binary” choice. If a teacher doesn’t want to join a union, there are alternatives. I prefer the Association of American Educators. I get the legal protections and support of a union, but my membership fees don’t go to politicians I totally stand against.
In my experience, unions are not about supporting workers, but about gathering and maintaining power and wealth.
The only time I went to a union representative about a problem (abusive principal) I was told, “Yeah, we know she’s bad.” Union fees were forcibly removed from my paychecks. I never want to teach in that state again, but I can say it was worth it for the 2 years of misery: really, really good medical insurance. 2 weeks after life-saving brain surgery, we left the state. 
Why do you think you had good medical insurance?
Spot on.
Spot off. See Spot off. Off, Spot, off.
Probably for the same reason I do. And for the same reason the teachers in my family do. Organization that want to attract and retain talent offer competitive compensation packages that include good medical insurance.