This right here is the root of the problem. What is the purpose or justification for this law? Why can’t the union just bargain for its members, and leave non-member the choice of bargaining on their own or joining the union? That would be a wonderful example of the free market in action… except that I suspect that the people who pushed those laws through, despite their rhetoric, don’t give a damn about the free market.
Federal law requires public sector unions to represent all employees eligible to be union members, whether they join the union or not.
And again I ask, what’s the purpose or justification for that, beyond “weaken the unions because we don’t like them”?
Doesn’t that strengthen the union? If their demands weren’t applicable to workers not in the union, then management would be more inclined to hire non-union workers.
Management might want to, but who’s going to choose to work there without being in the union, if the union deal is better? And if it’s not better, then why does the union exist?
Not everyone wants to be in a union. Hence the law. If it never happened, there wouldn’t be a need for the law.
Is that why even Democratic politicians generally play hardball with unions over wages and benefits (see among others the Chicago School District). :rolleyes:
Also it is not because of unions that jobs get sent overseas-Germany has a healthy manufacturing sector despite higher unionization rates.
And perhaps they will, if you agree to give back the wages/job protections/benefits they have negotiated for you. Then you can go into your boss’ office (on your own time, of course) and see if he’ll give those back to you.
Look, I agree unions have been their own worst enemy over the past decades. There’s been tons of corruption, waste, and God knows what else. But to think they play no part in protecting the rights of labor, or to think the “free market” would give Joe Worker the same benefits they received through collective bargaining - well, enjoy your 75-hour work weeks, your nonexistent time off, and your lack of any kind of workplace rights protection. Unless you wanted to negotiate all that individually, of course.
With the bloat and corruption of unions, it’s a close call between Unions or Business having the best interests of Joe Worker at heart, but I have to say it still leans Union.
A lot of people don’t want to be in a union precisely because of silly laws and policies like that. Like me, for instance. Back when I was a grad student, there was talk of us unionizing, and I was against it, because the proposed union had no incentive to actually look out for the interests of the graduate students: All graduate students would be required to pay the union fees no matter what the union did. All it would really amount to would be another layer of management we’d need to deal with.
But aside from that, suppose that unions were still set up in a sane manner, and someone for whatever reason (“rational” or not) placed a high value on remaining independent of them. OK, that person can do so, and I’m sure employers would love to have him… but if the unions were serving a real need, then there would be precious few such individuals.
I’ve mentioned before, but the union I belong to is so inept that the contract they negotiated for us is worse than the one the township I work for offered before we formed the union (factoring in union dues). And our union rep was removed for being crooked and that still didn’t change anything with the contract.
You would think so. But, at any rate, this law strengthens unions; it does not weaken them.
The Rand formula. If the union is strong enough to negotiate collectively, then non-union workers benefit (explicitly so, in the case of U.S. public sector unions), and shouldn’t be able to benefit without paying dues. If the union isn’t strong enough to do so, it’s trivially destroyed.
Named after Ayn Rand, no doubt. 
I’m pro choice and don’t think people should be forced to pay dues if they don’t want to. As notd, if the unions can’t convince people they are wirth it then do be it. Don’t give them u ion benefits. Make the unions work for their membership dues.
In our own, special, Northern way, something like that:
Ok, maybe not that part about the communist party.
Collective bargaining has to be collective, or it fails. Unions have no leverage without solidarity, and in practice there’s an endless number of ways for management to divide and conquer, and to generally incentivize not joining the union as long as there’s a union to be joined. Unless a union can establish a closed shop by law or by contract, there really is a death spiral. And honestly, no union is in a position to sell themselves, because they can’t offer big raises or giant changes in working conditions; the days of splitting the rent with the big three automakers are long gone. What unions offer is procedure and security and wage negotiations that are less unbalanced than one guy vs. a Fortune 500. “Let the unions convince people to join them one-by-one” is a sucker’s trap where everyone tries to win the Prisoner’s dilemma and everyone loses as a result.
Now, that may be reason for some to say that unions are useless, or relics of the past… but the working conditions of the past that created unions don’t seem so far away when you hear about the labor practices of, say, Walmart.
A union doesn’t need 100% of workers to collectively bargain. If a union controls only half the workers, then there’s still a necessity to bargain.
But again, we’re talking the public sector here and the ruling would only affect public sector unions. Are the taxpayers oppressing government workers? Can they not get a fair shake without a union?
The history of labour negotiations says otherwise. And ‘necessity to bargain’ and ‘negotiates in good faith, offering a fair deal’ are not synonymous.
These are nonsense questions. The government, like any other employer, can be a good or bad employer. Is the government of British Columbia oppressing teachers in BC when they violate their own contract, lose court case after court case on it (to the point that the judge in the case rules as a finding of fact that they were negotiating in bad faith, trying to force the teachers into an illegal strike, to benefit in the upcoming election), and then hang negotations on a refusal to remove a clause that voids the Judge’s ruling? (here)
Or are you suggesting that the taxpayers cannot, by definition, oppress public sector workers?
They can, but there’s not much of that going on. If anything, public sector unions hold the whip hand because they “bargain” with one of the parties that needs them to get elected.
Do unions in other countries have a duty of fair representation for non-members? If I don’t want to join a union, it does seem odd that they are forced to represent me nonetheless.
Well, if that’s accurate, then that’s messed up and I can’t defend that in any way. But it doesn’t mean all unions are inept, or actually cause harm to the workforce. Baby with the bathwater, and all that.
Ha ha! My public sector union, at least in my local workforce, has far more conservative, Republican voters than the liberal type. Plus, our union is prohibited by law from striking, threatening to strike, or even discussing the possibility of striking. So, who has the leverage here?