NationStates Jolt Archive

I just read an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/washington/26cnd-scotus.html?hp&ex=1159329600&en=b3d52dc08544f9d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage) in the NY Times about this. I'm probably just being obtuse, as I know nothing about unions and am sleep deprived as always, but I don't understand how they can require non members to pay them fees instead of membership dues. I'm hoping someone here can clear that up for me. What do you guys think?

September 26, 2006
Supreme Court Takes Case on Union Fees
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 – The Supreme Court on Tuesday began the months-long process of filling in its calendar for the term that begins next week, selecting nine new cases from among the nearly 2,000 that accumulated over the summer recess.

The most prominent among the nine cases, which will be argued in December and January, is a constitutional dispute over anti-union measures known as “paycheck protection” laws, which restrict how labor unions can use the fees that non-members are often required to pay in lieu of union dues.

The court’s precedents make clear that non-members who object to their fees being used to advance the union’s political agenda may request a rebate of the amount spent on political activities. The question in the new case, from the state of Washington, is whether a state may go further and require affirmative consent from non-members before the union can spend any part of their fees on political activity.

From the labor unions’ point of view, the difference between permitting non-members to “opt out” and requiring them to “opt in” is substantial. They argue that it is burdensome to have to seek permission from non-members, and that non-members who do not exercise their “opt out” rights should be seen as acquiescing in the expenditures.

Washington adopted the consent requirement in a voter initiative in 1992, the first such measure to be adopted in the country. Last year, after a heated campaign, California voters narrowly defeated a similar provision that would have applied only to public employee unions.

The Washington Supreme Court, finding that the affirmative consent requirement imposed an “extremely costly” and “significant” burden on a labor union’s political activities, declared it unconstitutional in March of this year. By establishing a “presumption of dissent,” the state court ruled, the measure violated the First Amendment rights of free speech and association.

The justices on Tuesday agreed to hear two appeals from that ruling. The two were consolidated for a single argument, and so count together as one of the nine new cases. One of the appeals, Washington v. Washington Education Association, No. 05-1657, was filed by the state, which had brought an enforcement action against the union that is the exclusive bargaining agent for 70,000 teachers.

Of those teachers, some 3,500 have chosen not to join the union, and therefore pay “agency fees” rather than union dues. The state sued the Washington Education Association in response to a complaint that the union was violating the 1992 law by failing to get authorization from the nonmembers before using a portion of their fees for political activities.

The second appeal, Davenport v. Washington Education Association, No. 05-1589, was filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on behalf of five teachers who had brought a private class-action lawsuit against the union to recover fees they alleged had been improperly spent.

The foundation, which describes itself as dedicated to fighting “the abuses of compulsory unionism,” told the justices in its appeal that “while the power to persuade is protected by the First Amendment, the power to compel conformity (and financial support) is not.”

The union, on the other hand, told the justices that the rights of objecting nonmembers are “fully protected” by advising them of their right to opt out, as the union regularly did before the 1992 initiative was approved.

I don't understand how they can require non members to pay them fees instead of membership dues. I'm hoping someone here can clear that up for me.

in the united states, where there is a union it is required to represent everyone in a particular bargaining unit fairly, whether they are union members or not. and since taft-hartley outlawed closed shops, this creates a hell of a free-rider problem. basically, a worker who is not a member of the union would be able to benefit from the collective bargaining power of the union without paying a dime for it. so lots of places established this ridiculous "pay the equivalent in fees but don't join" option.

so lots of places established this ridiculous "pay the equivalent in fees but don't join" option.Actually, it's not the "equivalent"--it's always less. Thus, when you join the union, you agree to pay the agency fee PLUS membership dues.

It should be pointed out, to put things in perspective, that these things are often on the order of $10-20 per year.

Actually, it's not the "equivalent"--it's always less.

good point

in the united states, where there is a union it is required to represent everyone in a particular bargaining unit fairly, whether they are union members or not. I don't understand this part - why are people part of the bargaining unit if they're not in the union? It's the union bargaining with the employer, not all of the employees.

To require people to pay the union fees, even though they do not wish to be in the union, is absolutely absurd, from my point of view. How can a union say definitively "You get the amount of money you're paid because of us."

Furthermore, what happens if someone refuses to pay the fee?

I don't understand this part - why are people part of the bargaining unit if they're not in the union?

basically, because u.s. labor law is setup that way. beyond that sort of answer, it gets a bit murky.

Furthermore, what happens if someone refuses to pay the fee?
Typically, unions have the dues checkoff system, where dues are deducted by the employer directly from the employee's paycheck. I imagine the fees would be the same.

basically, because u.s. labor law is setup that way. beyond that sort of answer, it gets a bit murky.That seems odd; instead of changing the fees, they should change that law. The fees are fine with that law in place.

Furthermore, what happens if someone refuses to pay the fee?They can only do that by quitting. The company deducts the union fees from the paychecks like taxes.

So apparently, it's an extremely costly and significant burden to check off a box on a contract once, but not an extremely costly and significant burden to fill out an opt-out document and mail it to the union every month.

I don't understand this part - why are people part of the bargaining unit if they're not in the union? It's the union bargaining with the employer, not all of the employees.

In effect, it IS all of the employees, and the union is just their representative in the bargaining process. And as such, if the negotiations fall through, it is all of the union members that go on strike as a unit that causes the employer grief. By working together as a group (union) the employees have more power than if each person went in as individuals to negotiate for themselves.

Basically, if you are working in a union shop whether you are a member or not, you are going to be getting the same treatment as the union members, in terms of wages and benefits, which the UNION did all the work negotiating for. Since you benefit from this, even if you are not a member, it is only fair that you at least contribute to the union a fee for their negotiation services from which you have benefitted. Other than that, you would be making minimum wage while everyone around you makes more for the same job.

In effect, it IS all of the employees, and the union is just their representative in the bargaining process. And as such, if the negotiations fall through, it is all of the union members that go on strike as a unit that causes the employer grief. By working together as a group (union) the employees have more power than if each person went in as individuals to negotiate for themselves.

Basically, if you are working in a union shop whether you are a member or not, you are going to be getting the same treatment as the union members, in terms of wages and benefits, which the UNION did all the work negotiating for. Since you benefit from this, even if you are not a member, it is only fair that you at least contribute to the union a fee for their negotiation services from which you have benefitted. Other than that, you would be making minimum wage while everyone around you makes more for the same job.I agree with this, I was asking why people in the union should receive the same treatment as people not in the union. I realized, though, that they would anyway; the employer would give the non-union members the same benefits as the union members to keep the non-union members from joining.

I agree with this, I was asking why people in the union should receive the same treatment as people not in the union. I realized, though, that they would anyway; the employer would give the non-union members the same benefits as the union members to keep the non-union members from joining.

Maybe, but more likely because the agreement with the union was that ALL workers would get the same treatment, regardless of union status. Usually a union will not bargain for good stuff "only for our members" but rather "equal treatment for all employees". It is to the advantage of the union to work it that way, and in the end easier for employers to treat everyone the same. Imagine a place where one of the things the union members had fought for was air conditioning in the factory... of course THAT would benefit everyone. Yes, if the employers treated non union members worse, it would encourage them to unionize... but that would not be a huge factor in the employer choosing to treat them the same, since it would basically be a wash for the employer anyway.

I just read an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/washington/26cnd-scotus.html?hp&ex=1159329600&en=b3d52dc08544f9d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage) in the NY Times about this. I'm probably just being obtuse, as I know nothing about unions and am sleep deprived as always, but I don't understand how they can require non members to pay them fees instead of membership dues. I'm hoping someone here can clear that up for me. What do you guys think?

Where I work, it's called "fair share." The rationale given is that non-members benefit as much as members, including being able to call on Union representatives to represent them in grievances, so they need to pay for the benefit. It's only a dollar or two a month less than actual dues.

in the united states, where there is a union it is required to represent everyone in a particular bargaining unit fairly, whether they are union members or not. and since taft-hartley outlawed closed shops, this creates a hell of a free-rider problem. basically, a worker who is not a member of the union would be able to benefit from the collective bargaining power of the union without paying a dime for it. so lots of places established this ridiculous "pay the equivalent in fees but don't join" option.
Aha. There it is, the blindingly obvious piece of information that for some reason was completely eluding me yesterday. *sigh*

Next question. If employees are going to pay fees to the union either way, what are the reasons (apart from financial constraint) for a worker to not join?

Aha. There it is, the blindingly obvious piece of information that for some reason was completely eluding me yesterday. *sigh*

it's ok, usian labor law is pretty much a byzantine labyrinth. we've got ancient laws that were created to be bad, and then laws on top of those that were nominally meant to fix the old problems but actually just make things bad in other ways, and then there are laws that were written to allow the bosses to exploit those problems as if they were features, etc.

it's ok, usian labor law is pretty much a byzantine labyrinth. we've got ancient laws that were created to be bad, and then laws on top of those that were nominally meant to fix the old problems but actually just make things bad in other ways, and then there are laws that were written to allow the bosses to exploit those problems as if they were features, etc.And the worst part of this is, most unions rely on these laws as opposed to using the laws as one option when organizing.