Unions should put some energy in organizing at risk workers.
Why not unionize Disney and all its affiliates? The executive suit is populated by Progressives, and I am sure they want the rights of workers wearing Mikey outfit is in 100 F getting proper benefits (mat leave, full medical /dental, paid holiday, job security) and Pixar animators and engineers getting paid overtime for 60 hr work weeks and have proper Hr controls in the studios to keep the Harvey Weinsteins (an x-employee) away and nurture the next female director of their Marvel/Star Wars movie (oh, wait, didn't they fire the female SW head and replaced her with an old white guy because Hans Solo made only $500M), and put a stop to all that outsourcing.
But Unions rather funnel their energy into supporting a party that gave them NAFTA, TPA and sucked tens of millions of unionized jobs, continued the economic policies of the Bush Administration, advocate an immigration policy that will decimate lower end incomes - as no American wants to wear a Goofy costume in a Florida summer for $8hr.
1
...but I am still legally compelled to pay the tax loopholes for churches whose beliefs I don’t share, and for businesses that donate to political candidates I don’t support.
Of course. Both benefit Republicans more so than Democrats, so those violations of my speech rights are perfectly okay as far as Republicans are concerned.
Shameless hypocrites.
3
This won't hit unions and their ability to support workers, it will hit their power in the political realm. Unions are nothing more than a large corporation, but there is no board and now checks and balance. Everyone here hates Citizens United, but it was that very ruling that allowed unions to donate large dollars to a candidate. I agree that we need to get money out of the races. Readers and the NYTimes misrepresent unions and their power - especially public service unions. Look at Chicago, NYC, and a number of states that cannot sustain or control their excessive debts as a result of collective bargaining.
2
The irony of labor unions like AFSCME spending money to lobby against Citizens United seems to be lost on the author.
2
And yet, not a peep from the pro-Janus crowd about this:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331902-trump-eases-ban-on-pol...
When a Janus-esque lawsuit against churches is filed, the pro-Janus crowd will cheer for the same outcome as Janus.
Correct?
2
This article admits unions have illegally directed fair share funds to political activities, thus proving SCOTUS decision is correct.
7
Regarding the comments suggesting only union members receive benefits and non-members face the whims of the employer:
While this seems satisfying at the moment, it would be a mistake. It might drive a wedge between employees and hurt everyone in the long term. Maybe something similar to younger people opting out of health insurance because they feel they don't need it (in that case they do lose benefits though). But the system suffers overall.
We have to work harder to get people to vote and improve the system.
That is the point, non-union members shouldn't be forced to pay into unions that then go on and spend their money on politics, especially politics they disagree with,
11
Precisely.
1
She said the union, with about two million members, would provide a range of non monetary support, from in-kind staff assistance to help with fund-raising. Remember, you can't do that on company time. More and more are going to opt out of dues. A savings between 500-700 a year. That's more then the Trump tax cuts for some people.
6
I suspect our progressive and liberal friends out in left field would be hailing the Supreme Court decision as a great victory for social justice if public sector unions were using their ill gotten gains to support conservative agendas, contributing to Tea Party candidates and funding research that supports immigration reform. Our friends in left field might also suggest that unions like the omnipotent teachers' union spend more resources educating our students so that the US does not embarrass itself every year when we finish toward the bottom of the heap compared with advanced countries.
6
Fair wages ,fair hiring ,family leave ,safety regulation,education for all,healthcare for all ,overtime wages child labor laws 40 hour work week,are family values not promoted by conservative interest .These are the agendas of the trade union movements, they will sadly be gone from the American economy due to this decision.Funny how we call our selves”United” states of America
2
94% of all public school teachers have spent their own money on school supplies without reimbursement, according to a survey by the National Center for Education Statistics. The data was published last May and was collected from 2014 to 2016.
So really, let's not yammer on with that tired old propaganda about the teacher unions, OK? I mean, you're talking about Betsy Smith who lives two houses down. You really want to go there?
I am fed up with Mark Janus, though. He seems comfortable. Another older white guy content to let his organization do the difficult work of negotiating his salary and benefits while he makes his co-workers pick up his share. I don't think that's fair.
2
Perhaps if Mr Janus' union spent 100% of his dues on behalf of his and his colleagues' pay, benefits, and working conditions, he might have been ok with paying them.
1
The title of the article wholly explains why the court came to their decision.
6
The public sector unions brought this upon themselves. Instead of acting as independent and militant defenders of worker rights, they played snugglebunnies with the Democratic party to get a "seat at the table". Of course, they did not get one, and their preferred candidates, such as Obama, lost no time in double-crossing them (e.g. Arne Duncan). That weakened their hold on their constituency. It is notable that the biggest labor victories recently were won by teachers acting outside the union establishments.
2
It has to be wrong to force someone to contribute to a non-government agency.
Let the chips fall where they may. Unions will have to rethink their spending. Maybe Unions will no longer be able to win the favourable working conditions, soon to be enjoyed by non-contributors - at least in the short-term. This may cause the latter to sign up - voluntarily.
2
Wasn’t the case about money unions spent on negotiating their contracts, not money spent on indisputably political causes? Wasn’t unions’ argument that the money in question has nothing to do with political lobbying? So how is the latter suddenly affected?
6
Hmm, maybe a bit of irony here for Progressives? Lots of union supporters complain that non-members will gain benefits without paying dues. Shame on those free-loaders!
9
Shame on you, Bob Krantz, for claiming a false equivalence between Progressive and free loaders. Progressives are entitled to all of the freebies they demand. Free loaders are not entitled to anything. The difference is obvious to anyone who can think critically.
2
Unions have lost their way, just like the dems , if they stuck to one platform which is to help the common worker and improve their standard of living they would win every election. Instead it’s all about identity politics or helping everyone except the U.S. citizen worker who pays taxes. Stop moving left, take the party back and help the common man without barking and screaming and labeling everyone that doesn’t agree with you as fascist or a Nazi. Don’t preach , don’t look down on the common man. Appeal to the police officer, the plumber, the garbage man. We need them, we need them to believe in us again.
3
Some say that none Union members don’t want to pay dues, because it violates their First Amendment Rights. I believe, they like to have the benefits, but don’t want to pay their fair share. When National Education Association fights for pay raise, medical benefits, or smaller class sizes, they fight for everyone and not just the members. And it cost money to have an effective association, but now, Union and none union members are going to suffer as a result of Supreme Court decision.
2
Why are union funds involved in campaigning for anything other than labor rights?
11
I don't understand how these Public Workers Unions became Legal, this is a HUGE conflict of interest, these unions give money and manpower to CHOOSE who they will "Collectively Bargain" with, and in big Cities it has been Democrats for the last 50 years. Ever hear the phrase "one hand washing the other"??? In the Private sector when the Unions get too much (like GM), the Company goes Bankrupt and the Investors lose their Money, when the Public Workers get way too much they just raise your taxes. I live in Canton Michigan, 30 years ago it was all cornfields, now we have almost $100 MILLION in Debt. for Police and Fire PENSIONS ONLY. We have a Very Expensive Ambulance Service, more than 60 Employees, at Least 12 captains, 3 Battalion Commanders (can 60 people even be one Battalion???) as well. This is what you get with Public Worker Unions
10
"Other groups that register and mobilize voters may be vulnerable, too. America Votes, a group with a permanent staff in more than 20 states that turns out voters on Election Day and rallies them around causes like reproductive rights and the environment, received more than one-fifth of its nearly $10 million budget from the four biggest public-sector unions in 2016.
The major public-sector unions are also major backers of ballot-measure campaigns, having spent more than $7 million on such efforts in 2015 and 2016. Some of the measures involved increasing taxes to fund services like education and health care, and raising the minimum wage. Unions funded opposition to a measure allowing an expansion of charter schools in Massachusetts."
Wow, for decades when this subject came up of forced union dues being collected from members and non-members alike, the argument of the left was that non-members benefited from collective bargaining agreements just like members and therefore should also contribute. And now we have the NYT admitting that money went to all kinds of liberal causes and democrat candidates, including environmental issues, charter schools, minimum wage laws, tax policy and reproductive rights. Issues not in their employee agreements... but in all our laws, whether the non-member agreed with those political causes or not. I feel like this article was written in Oz and Toto just pulled back the Wizard's curtain to reveal what we all knew.
10
As a stockholder, I wonder how far I would get with objecting to corp. political spending that I disagree with.
3
I don't know, try. You have every right as a stockholder to have a say, proportional to your % ownership, in how the company is run and conducts itself. But that's because you voluntarily became a stockholder. The government didn't force you to buy stock you didn't want and then allow the company to spend your money on political speech and causes and candidates with which you disagree.
>LES
If you disagree, you can dispose of your shares and invest in corporations whose spending is more in line with your wishes.You have a choice.
On the other side what rights do employees have if their employers donate to political causes the employee doesn’t agree with. Isn’t that money spent in lieu of wages? Aren’t the lost wages supporting wires objectionable to the employee?
3
Larry, are you serious??? I'm a small business owner. Do you not see the difference of me taking my income, money left over from gross receipts AFTER paying all my expenses including payroll expenses, and spending it however I see fit... and me taking money directly out of my employees checks (agreed upon wages earned by my employee) to do the same? You do see that very different legal and moral difference don't you?
7
"The Janus decision — whose likely effect will be a loss of at least hundreds of thousands of members and tens of millions in revenue — has forced many public unions, among the most powerful in the labor movement, to fundamentally rethink their spending."
Let me make sure I understand the NY Times point of view on this: 'Hundreds of thousands' of people are in political groups they don't want to be a part of, and are forced to pay 'tens of millions in revenue' against their will, and that isn't a problem? The problem is that the Supreme Court has ruled that they can decide whether or not they wish to be members of these groups? And they can decide if they do or do not wish to give these groups money? So freedom of political association is bad? Perhaps a better article would examine why so many members of these unions want out and what unions can do to keep them.
12
This is all so ridiculous, they are going to lose hundreds of thousands of contributors...so what this is saying is that people get jobs affiliated with unions and their benefits (especially medical) and are not willing to pay dues. What does that say about these people. They should not be afforded these high quality jobs in the first place. Let them work at Wal-Mart and find out first hand what non union representation really looks like...
6
My union routinely, locally, at the state and at the national level, advocate against my interests as a teacher. Why should I be forced to pay an organization that specifically advocates against me.
Yes, my union steward said "All male teachers are perverts." Yes, she's been re-elected several times since then.
14
I am a private sector union member. Here, in New Jersey, one of the bluest states,many of our flag waving union members supported Trump. These blue collar “low information voters” are way more concerned about perceived benefits being given to minorities,gun rights and illegal immigration than their own livelihood. The unions have been so successful bringing these people solidly into the middle class, that they no longer feel that they want to be associated with anyone lower on the socioeconomic scale. They have completely forgotten where they came from ,many one or two generations from being tenement housed immigrants themselves . They feel that there success is only due to their hard work, in spite of the system in place, not because of it. Many hate Dems because of their support for social programs, forgetting the benefits they derived themselves. Republicans have done a fantastic job of dividing the workers amongst themselves. We know where that is likely to lead.
9
Reading this article, it is clear that The Supreme Court decision was more correct than I originally thought. Imagine dues collected by force of law going to these organizations which you might or might not agree with. The very antithesis of the First Amendment.
18
What the Supreme really did was not ruling that one did not have to pay unions fees that went to support political causes. The Supreme Court issued that ruling about 20 years ago. This ruling says that everything that a union does, at least in the public sector is political even collective bargaining for wages and benefits. So, someone can refuse to pay any money to a union based on their "political" beliefs and still receive the same wages and benefits of those members who actually pay the union to bargain for them. This has nothing to do with a union member's political beliefs and everything to do with destroying all unions so that the workers are again treated the way they were in the early 1900's, low pay, no medical insurance and no job security, They were as close to slaves as free people can get.
4
If it was true that "one did not have to pay union fees that went to support political causes" then this ruling would have no impact on the amount of money that the unions would have available to donate. But it wasn't true for the simple reason that money is fungible. Every dollar the union collected from members who didn't want their money spent on political causes was a dollar that they could use from a member who did. i.e. if the union collected $10,000 from five member, $2,000 from the two that didn't want their money spent on political causes and $8,000 from the three that did, and union activity cost them $3,000, that left them $7,000 to spend on politics. Now they can only collect the $8,000 and assuming union activity still costs them $3,000 they will only have $5,000 left over. Although the end result will also be in order to keep that $8,000 coming in they will probably need to spend more than the $3,000 on union activity as they will want to demonstrate to the three members they have left that the union is worth being a member of.
Requiring someone to pay dues to a union to hold a government job is extortion pure and simple and should be illegal for that reason.
1
What is the price you are charging today for your First Amendment rights? Once sold, it is difficult to get them back.
Why in the world should I be forced to subsidize an organization that works at cross-purposes to my belief system? Is that the American way? Democrats, if they are so inclined, can continue to donate to the union. Since the unions and Democrats are in lock-step, the unions only lost half their base and those are those folks that choose not to be in the union. Freedom is what fuels America and we just secured a freedom that had been taken. Celebrate the return of your freedom to not pay for someone that expresses views contrary to your own.
8
Why should union members pay the cost of collective bargaining, getting all workers decent pay, benefits and working condition but you get to have the same without paying for them? If you think that is right then Republicans are get something for nothing freeloaders.
7
Jeff, read the article, read the words of the leftist political organizations. Those are not collective bargaining organizations working for a better worker agreement between a particular company or sector and their employees. They are talking about millions of dollars taken from hundreds of thousands of workers, not to fund collective bargaining, but to fund liberal and democrat political speech. You have to agree that is wrong. Or maybe you are so sure liberal policies are right for everyone that we should just force them on everyone for their own good. If you believe that , please say so... Trump would appreciate the new supporters you would create.
1
It's difficult to understand why individuals must be forced to contribute to the advancement of political views inconsistent with theirs, when it would be easy enough to calculate the proportion spent for ordinary union activities vis political purposes, and give members the option of opting out of the latter.
4
I'm not quite clear on the distinction you're making between ordinary union activity and political advocacy. Advocating for workers in the public sphere seems central to union activities to me.
1
The main "political" purpose inherent in unions is the maintaining of the ability to collectively bargain for cost of living wages, lobbying for better worker protections and saving the concept of overtime pay which I can't understand how that would not be in the interest of every worker. However in my own union, political activity involving election campaigns and election issues is funded by voluntary contributions, not dues.
This ruling is not about political views however, it's just the first nail in the coffin of union work and dismantling of decent pay and benefits for wage earners.
4
By ordinary I mean issues related to employer/employee relations, i.e., working conditions, wages and employee protection and the like.
The notion that in order to keep a job a worker is required by law to contribute to the advancement of political views to which he or is opposed is a rejection of the most fundamental principles of our Constitutional republic.
1
There is a huge difference between Private and Public Sector Unions, but the media and democrats conflate the two.
Private Sector Unions still have a traditional allegiance to the democratic party, but many of the enlightened members have abandoned that blind allegiance. The members of the private sector unions realize many of the policies of the Democrat Party run contrary to their interests, primarily employment.
The Public Sector Employee Unions, however, are inextricably linked to the democrat party because their survival is dependent on those same democrat party policies which are hurting the private sector unions.
At the center of these policy issues is taxes. Public Sector unions are only viable because taxes are the sole source of revenue to public sector unions. Whereas private sector unions are dependent on a share of the money earned by the employees from private sector companies.
To the extent taxes are higher, private sector companies are less able to afford a higher wage to union workers, and will have a greater incentive to seek non-union labor.
The history of unions in the United States is fascinating because it shows there was a necessity for unions when private sector companies mistreated and abused labor, but now private sector unions have found ways to partner with companies and add value.
Just like the word "immigration" which the media continues to conflate the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL, they d the same with Unions, as it relates to
13
Now that collective bargaining in the public sector is constitutional guaranteed I would like to see all the restrictions to bargaining, like those in Wisconsin and Michigan, overturned. Also if public sector collective bargaining is protected every cop and firefighter can individually bargain.
Let’s see how that suits conservatives.
2
The hypocrisy of the left and the right very apparent in this matter. Left goes ballistic over Citizens United which allows corporations to spend unlimited $ via PACs but clearly left had no problem with labor unions spending tens of millions on politics. Right claims free speech as the basis for Citizens United and same claim, different construct, for last week's ruling. No principles, just want to win, whatever the issue.
4
How you can equate the two is baffling. On the one hand you are required to pay dues or lose your job. On the other hand corporations choose to donate to PACs or not. What on earth do they have in common?
3
The issue that you fail to realize is that just a few right aligned individuals have more and are willing to spend more than ALL of the unions combined. The Koch network, Sheldon Adelson , Richard Uhlein just to name a few, are able to outspend entire trade labor organizations with ease. These people are NOT doing this to help YOU. Unless you are a Centi-millionaire?
It's amazing the difference actual information makes in a discussion. Thank you.
3
I keep on saying the same thing, over and over and over, DOOMED!
5
A lot of the right-wing comments here congratulate the Times as if it has endorsed the battering that the unions are taking at the hands of corrupt politicians and now an equally corrupt, anti-labor/anti-progressive Supreme Court. It's a bogus twist. The Times' "expose" simply reports on this trend. And given the Times' general support of these causes in recent years, it's more a lamentatation than a celebration. Also, I find it odd that so many anti-labor comments are recommended by 16 or 17 "readers." Those are odd numbers to appear and reappear without coordination -- or shall we say, collusion ... or conspiracy?
2
Workers understand the critical nature of unions, at their best, that they have done and will continue to do good no other orgs do. Those individuals will do the right thing and support healthy unions as individuals, with money, time, skill. Never will court rulings that seek to diminish progress for the common good succeed in the end. #resist #bFearless #sidewithlove
3
It's now time for union members to file suit claiming a violation of their own freedom of speech for having to subsidize freeloaders who are too dumb to vote in their own economic interest. If freeloaders don't want to support the union with their dues, they shouldn't reap the benefits of union membership either.
10
Here we go again, unelected nine supreme rulers with lifetime mandates, well, just like the ayatollahs in Iran, ruling over the will of we the People.
3
This article is egregiously wrongheaded and many of the comments demonstrate ignorance about the facts of union life before and after Janus, facts totally conflated and muddied by the article.
Workers already had the right not to support a union’s political activities. The court struck down so-called agency fees that workers had to pay to fund a union’s collective bargaining activities. From another NYT article on Janus: “It was already illegal for unions to compel members to contribute funds used for politics, or for new organizing, but now they can get representation entirely free.”
It appears that the conservatives on the Supreme Court are fine with certain kinds of compelled speech—such as some states requiring physicians to show videos of fetal heartbeats—but are committed to coddling and empowering big business and the wealthy at the cost of undercutting the security and voice of the middle and lower classes.
7
You tacitly assume that the union represents all memebers. My union only represents the most senior members.
5
"Money doesn't talk it screams." said Bob Dylan. The Supreme Court in its Citizens United and this anti-union, anti-worker decision has validated the point. Unlimited money can buy anything, and in America today, everything. The political court chooses the wealthiest to rule over everyone else, as if it were a corporation rather than a constitutionally established democracy. Remember it was Mitch McConnell who pushed and pushed the idea that political money was equal to First Amendment speech. Oh, he also stole a seat on SCOTUS.
7
It seems quite reasonable to allow individuals to decide what to do with their resources.
At the same time we ought to recognize that this ruling does shift market power to the employer, and this employer is not a competitive one in many areas (e.g. NYC, which operates one comically massive school district). It would seem logical to me to couple a move toward market economics on the labor side with a similar move on the hirer side — in other words, break up the monopsony that is the NYC public schools and allow schools to operate autonomously to meet standards how they see fit, much as private schools already do.
2
If a public-sector employee is allowed to claim his 1st amendment right and is allowed to refuse to contribute union dues, then he should not be allowed to collect the benefits negotiated by the union. In a way the court is allowing him to steal the money from his fellow workers.
11
I was a forced union member. I left because I could obtain better compensation package and work conditions WITHOUT the union. Our faculty union rules mainly supported sloth and incompetence. Pay grades, work rules, promotion schedules, grievance procedures, and other practical matters severely limited reward for accomplishment.
10
A great decision. It's completely wrong to allow unions to tax employees without their specific consent.
13
To me the question is, do the non-unionized workers benefit from labor negotiations? If yes, it is only fair for them to bear their share of the cost.
Apart from that, I view the Supreme Court as a Council of Sages, that is at present split into two blocks: one, so-called conservative; the other, leftist radical. Another imbalance is the religious composition of the Court: five Roman Catholics, three Judaics (possibly of Reform Judaism), and one on the fence between being an Episcopalian and Roman Catholic.
It would be nice to see a serious study of the effects of religious affiliation -- if any -- on the work of such institutions as, for example, the Supreme Court and Federal Reserve Board.
5
Yes, they do.
Think about this argument: people required to be in unions and required to pay union dues are required to watch their mandatory dues go toward radical political movements they abhor. Few things are more blatantly antithetical to American liberty than that.
29
15+ years ago I was required to pay dues to a union when employeed in a professional position with state govt.; even then I was allowed to withhold the portion of those dues used for political purposes. But that is not where I saw my union dues (and membership) worthless in the end. Rather it was the unwillingness (or inability)of the union to take on the management of a department with documented serious mistreatment of several professionals there.
6
That was already disallowed before Janus. To quote another NYT article on the decision: “It was already illegal for unions to compel members to contribute funds used for politics, or for new organizing, but now they can get representation entirely free.” You are simply wrong, and this article doesn’t help enlightenment.
3
Michael -- that is a misleading quote. They could not compel money SPECIFICALLY for for politics or political organizing, but they could always use the general account for those purposes. (Money is fungible.) That was the whole point behind Janus. Try to take care before you accuse someone else of being "simply wrong."
I have a novel idea. How about Unions only negotiate for raises and benefits for members only. You might, say, provide a list of employees and the company can decide if they want to give the perk to everyone or if it is more cost effective only to provide it to union members. The non-members can negotiate for themselves and see how they come out.
22
Employers and governments won't allow individuals to negotiate for themselves. They insist that the union negotiate for everyone. Imagine the time it would take if every employee negotiated on their own.
2
What you get paid and the benefits you receive for what work you do is listed on the job application of every public sector position I'm aware of. If it's not to anyone's liking ... why apply for the job?
3
You know that, in the real world, individuals always negotiate for themselves, right?
The issue here is you have a regulated monopsony hirer in NYC, which is absurd. Allow the schools to operate independently and meet standards how they see fit. Not every teacher with x years of experience ought to be paid y.
3
we don't need unions - work rules - or benefits - we just need to do what we are told.
8
I see what you did there. ;-)
1
Joy in work, eh? The behavior recommended by port-fascist theorists who were actually in the Labour Party in Belgium. If you just stop being "acquisitive" for things beyond your daily bread, you can be very content just doing what you are told when you work.
2
Ironically, when you ask the union to help you on those matters they will refer you to government agencies that will do exactly that ... help with your grievances about unfair work rules and benefits.
kind of the point, really, the massive wealth of the right wing corporatists is pointed directly at any kind of left-democratic, progressive political movement. This has been a country of domination, slavery, genocide, with some grudging movement in a left direction. The good news, massive diversity will finally scupper these heinous people and massive wealth centers, the Kochs, the military industrial complex, etc
5
Very surprising that this place of "domination, genocide and slavery" should develop such a prosperous and free population, isn't it? Perhaps these qualities you cite are relatively minor in the whole scheme of things and America has actually been more characterized by freedom, equality and opportunity.
6
No, the opposite. They want diversity to better divide and conquer.
Since the GOP will now have all like minded out of touch justices we have crossed over to a dictatorship. When one party rules the senate ,congress and Supreme Court we as a Democracy have failed. The Supreme Court will not need to compromise now and there lower house members will see this and feel they can continue the bad behavior. Our system has failed and I hope other countries see this and can do better if they want to be a Democracy. You have to compromise and we are not thanks to the GOP.
4
Actually we are a republic not a democracy. I wonder if your opinion would be the same if the majority of justices were liberal and Congress controlled by the Democrats. I've not seen Democrats any more willing to compromise than GOP.
2
Taxation without representation was one of the issues that started this whole thing in the first place. The notion that public unions should be exempt from that principle is nonsensical. It was one thing to collectively bargain for rights DECADES AGO and an entirely different thing to use, essentially, extorted funds to advance their agenda ... particularly when that agenda is not to "serve the public" or their members, but to serve themselves.
One public union in California, of all states, told my friend when he asked for advice on a simple work related issue, "we can't help you, take his problem to the state Labor Relations Board" ... if they can't/won't help their member do the one thing he pays them to do, why should he, or anyone, even be paying them? If the government already has a mechanism to address worker rights why pay the unions million$ just to tell members to use what they already get for free?
The pretense that public unions have been anything other than self-serving interest groups for quite some time is specious.
25
This article confirms the fraud that the Agency Fee scam was. While purported to be limited to an employee's fair share to represent them in the workplace it was in effect an indirect support to Union funding of political activities.
14
Thanks for shining a light on just how much Union money flows to activism.
Not all of their causes, however, are universally supported by their members -- yet their spending seems to suggest that it is.
20
I for one find the decision of not requiring contributions from nonmembers to be wrong. The Public sector unions represent all the public sector workers in their fields and since all benefit from the services of the union then all should contribute.
Better that it be illegal for public sector unions to be allowed to make lobbying, direct political or in any other way a political contribution. By their political contributions they are in part becoming their own employers and negotiating with themselves. This is a sure way to a bad result for the taxpayer who funds the government.
If a radio station or TV program puts on a contest, its employees and affiliates are not allowed to participate because of the risk of collusion and inequity in the process. This should apply even more so to public sector employees. While the worker's right to vote should not be curtailed, their are very good reasons for limiting the political participation of the union.
This is not Anti Union as I believe the restrictions on political contributions by non public sector unions is too restrictive under current law.
4
Glad NYTimes put the truth out in open. It is clear that unions were by force taking members money to elect liberal politicians, and then negotiating with the same politicians for benefits at the cost of taxpayer.
20
I have had people who should know better complain about union dues. I pointed out that we got breaks, lunch and decent work hours even though we were not a union shop because in the past many people took to the street - some got killed - so that we could have those rights. I ask myself why people are willing to turn on their fellow middle-class workers and bring them down. I have finally decided it's laziness and a form of cowardice. Instead of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with their fellow workers, they would rather complain and take away their fellow workers benefits, because they simply don't have the courage to be involved in a fight. We have child labor laws, decent working hours, or used to, lunch breaks, pensions, and other benefits because people fought for them. Shame on all of you who vilify the people who fought for you because you would rather take the easy way out and to kiss your boss' boots.
18
It’s a shame that the article repeatedly frames the union’s activism as supporting a “liberal” agenda, when the details of that agenda reveal that the work they are doing is more closely aligned with a human rights agenda.
9
Don't be silly, Conservatives would never join a union. It's like wearing a Mets jersey at Yankee stadium.
2
Why should union be giving to any other group? Perhaps if they had kept dues and fees low by just financing their own operations, they would not have been taken to the Supreme Court.
7
Agreed - it wasn't just a loss for unions, it was a profound victory against compelled speech.
It also disinfect the corrupt practice of Democratic politicians funneling taxpayer monies to unions (via compensation) to get kickback (via campaign contributions).
That should be illegal in the first place.
14
Untrue:
It was a loss for support by employees for groups which favor their causes beyond thrir union.
But it continues the ability of corporate executives to make use of profits that might otherwise go to stockholders for political speech. If I own a share of (the imaginary) Kleen Coal Mines, why am I forced to allow corporate directors to spend money supporting candidates and politics I oppose.
Similarly, as a taxpayer, why do I have to pay for the costs of Donald Trump’s re-election bid, formally started almost simultaneously with his swearing in. Trump has shown no ability to divide his government and campaign activities, and the cost of logistics for every Trump rally is money out of my pocket. I voted against him, and, would not be paying as much of the RNC’s expenses were he not s registered candidate. Similarly, incumbent elected officials everywhere receive campaign aid - and have much more freedom to go “off topic” once declared candidates.
Most have the decency not to start officially seeking another term until a year or so before their re-election year.
As one can argue both corporation and union money, which despite our ailing court system is not synonymous with speech, is spent supporting organizations that fight for their causes,
I want fractions of cents more corporate dividend for every dollar spent by companies I own, either directly, or through investment funds given to me - for the most part, I find the organizations and candidates evil,
5
As a shareholder you are free to sell the stock if you don't like what the company is doing with it's money. As a teacher or other municipal employee you had no choice but to keep paying union dues regardless of what you thought of the union leadership's politics prior to Janus.
Had the unions stuck to union work, there never would have been a Janus case. This article articulates precisely why mandatory "agency fees" had to end. They became a source of political speech coerced from people who did not support left-wing causes.
Flip the script ... imagine if your pay docked by a union that used a portion of your money to help fund the NRA, National Right to Life, Focus on the Family. and ALEC?
20
Your remark to "flip the script" is the reason why taxpayer money used to fund partisan politics should never have been allowed. If this money had been used for the last 50 years to fund the Republican agenda, the Democrats would have not rested until they got the SCOTUS to declare the funding unconstitutional.
It is, prima facile, unconstitutional and I am at a loss to see how the courts have allowed this for public employee unions for so long.
12
Had this article been written before the decision, it could have be entered as an amicus brief in support of Janus. Union fees that support political parties, candidates, and other political initiatives should not be compulsory. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
15
I get that part. but my teachers union collects political money separately from regular dues and that's voluntary. all unions should do that
on the flip side, anyone who pays no dues of any kind should not be part of any union contract.
12
Agreed. Now try to enact it with the conservatives, the courts and the Trump. SCOTUS just made his 2020 reelection easier.
If that's the case then the ruling in Janus should have no impact on unions' ability to fund political causes. The clear implication of this article, however, is that the amount union's were charging members to cover the cost of negotiating benefits far exceeded the actual cost of doing so and the difference was being funneled into political speech.
1
Unions counted on filching from non-union employees' paychecks to finance themselves and help their Democrat enablers for a long time. They should now stop complaining and think how lucky they are that the Supreme Court didn't chide law enforcement agencies for not prosecuting them under the RICO statutes as an organized scam and naming the Democrats as co-conspirators.
5
Simply stated, without any way to organize and have some input, the working class will continue to get poorer, and the rich richer.
We will eventually become like a 3rd world country where most will be destitute while a very few will have 99% of the wealth.
Glad that I won't be around to see it. Sad thing is, we did it to ourselves.
7
I have always liked the German model of worker representation. They protect their benefits, and receive training to stay competitive. In the US, you are on your to sink or swim .
What the article is saying is that union support was a quid-pro-quo issue for Democrats: we give you jobs and cushy packages, and you give us your votes and campaign contributions.
How quaint.
16
This decision is also a big blow to the workers. Those who do not pay dues will not be entitled to union benefits like certain medical plans (in my case, my dental, eye and hearing insurance), life insurance provided by the union, representation in salary negotiations, and representation in management disputes, and probably a few other items I have not thought of.
3
sadly, your wrong. Fed law says that even if you don't pay union days where you work you are still entitled to union benefits
4
It was a loss for everything this country once stood for.
And an omen of what's it's becoming.
10
It will be fine. The SC decision does not prevent people from joining unions. It does not prevent citizens from donating to political parties or politicians.
The Democrats have a winning platform. Free education- paid for by other people. Free healthcare- paid for by other people. Open borders with citizenship to anyone with the courage to get here.
And once the Democratic Party gets a majority in both chambers of Congress they will be able to grant citizenship, and the vote, to 20 million illegal (for now!) economic migrants. With that many voters their majority will be set in stone- forever!
They will be able to write any laws they want. They will be able to raise taxes on anyone they want- to seize the assets and property of whomever they want. They will be able to re-write the rules and increase the size of the Supreme Court to however many members as they want!
It will be ok. The Democrats just need to win the House and the Senate now and legalize all those immigrants.
5
@Will:
Our nation is aging and birth rates are on the decline. In fact, due to medical advances and wide use of birth control, the global population is aging.
As such, we should be making immigration much, much easier so we can have able-bodied younger workers pay into the social safety net and otherwise contribute. We have a ready-made set of people south of us willing to do just that, and we ignore them at our own peril.
Enough of the right wing nonsense already. If even a scintilla of it were true, your party wouldn't be a majority by such razor-thin margins. On that note, it's endlessly amusing when taker red states smugly lecture everyone else about free stuff.
1
@Sondryne,
I am not a Republican. Nice try!
Global warming Sondryne. We don't need more people. There will be another 1,000,000,000 people on this planet in the next twelve years. There will be 11-12 billion people by 2050.
We should be thankful that our population is naturally decreasing- not importing millions of people.
You are in Florida- how can you not understand?
Shouldn’t this ruling also apply to publicly traded corporations where a shareholder does not want any part of their investment spent on political activities that violate his or her morality and conscience?
15
Shareholder can sell the stock at the click of button, or get other likeminded shareholders to force a change of policy. Ultimately a company stock depends upon the ability to generate positive return. Comparing public sector unions which loot taxpayers with the connivance of their kept and paid for politicians to profit driven public corporations is misguided.
8
I wonder if there are any companies disavowing political contributions. Would be interesting to research the issue.
1
Barbarika, one has the option to work elsewhere too to avoid freeloading on the working contract and benefits negotiated by a union. The can easily work for a "right to fire" employer.
As for looting tax payers, have you been paying attention? Did you miss the $1.5 trillion looting of the actual tax payers on behalf of the tax dodgers this year alone? Let's be clear who is looting from who! Misguided indeed.
As a 42 year union building trades member I’ve learned our very existence is on the ropes .I don’t understand that being only 11%of industry is unionized why the right want to kill it completely out of existence .America needs organized labor now more then ever but mor and more hurdles are in placed .
11
Whatever you may think, left or right, about unions and their political activity, this article highlights why the Supreme Court got this one right.<br><br>
Many union members nationwide do not support the types of organisations or issues listed here and should not be forced to bankroll such causes. Rest assured, if the roles were reversed, these people would be incensed at having to support conservative groups and issues.<br><br>
In fact, if unions are giving that much money away, they can certainly still afford the "expenses" of collective bargaining. Sitting down at a table and negotiating simply isn't ~that~ expensive.
19
When you are forced to hire an attorney to negotiate for you, it is very expensive. When the other side delays meetings, strings out weeks between sessions and refuses to disclose info that should be public, it's very expensive.
2
So it is OK take money from millionaires and billionaires who ultimately determine the direction of public policy through bribing politicians as opposed to government employees, who certainly aren't rich, yet, are trying to have decent salaries and benefits?
America, you certainly have backward priorities.
18
It's interesting, yet not surprising, that when Wisconsin abolished collective bargaining, it exempted the police and firefighter unions. Those predominantly republican voting members can still engage in collective bargaining. However, the media and other democrats were silent about this exemption during the fight. I never understood why this glaring exemption was never scrutinized and challenged.
10
ICE
No ICE
Union Dues
No Union Dues
The Democratic Coalition is breaking apart at breakneck speed.
5
My guess is that in the end there will not be a dramatic reduction in dues paying members. I believe that the peer pressure among fellow workers to toe the line and pay dues will be quite intense.
2
exactly the problem. Taking $$ from everyone, but supporting political causes that not everyone agrees with. Do that with your own money.
14
Actually, I think most people would want to belong to an organization that fights for a living wage.....
2
Corporations do it all the time with shareholder money and employee pension fund money. Even with tax break refunds paid for by the rest of us. Get real.
3
Typical right wing logic. If I buy something produced by the Koch brothers, or any other ideological troglodyte, my money generates a profit via a non-political transaction, that the troglodyte then uses to finance causes I detest. If you can explain why that's different to unions financing causes they endorse, please explain.
2
Public unions are a scourge on the people. They take, take, take with no bounds for their desires and greed as they are not held in check by profits or a market, but only by how much they can bribe the elected officials to vote their way. They have long since lost their value for workers rights and instead are pushing more and more municipalities into bankruptcy to meet their ever increasing demands. CA has the highest local taxes in history and yet the unions want more and more and more... Their time has come and gone. Public employee unions have indebted countless future generations so they can enrich themselves. An appalling situation and one that is about as depressing as possible for any young American looking forward to a decent opportunity at a decent life.
14
Well, I have to disagree with you there, because the union I belong to has protected my pension, helped finally procure a pay increase after a 5 year freeze, fought for market-equal pay adjustments and cost of living increases, and are protecting the rights of current and future employees. Without them, none of this would have happened and workers would be treated like chattel, or worse.
4
And who is paying for your raise and increased benefits Jo? The tax payers via debt, new taxes, fees, costs, tolls, etc. In many municipalities across the country, the debt is so large that your great, great, great grand children will be paying for today's expenses. How is that fair or equal or good for the whole?
1
Why not stop obscene tax breaks for billionaires and use that money to ensure a living wage, medical care and decent public services such as good schools and adequate transportation resources. It turns out, doing that creates jobs and improves the economy and your great great great grandchildren can live in a country with no deficits. What's not to like?
1
When I was a professor in a public University in PA, it was standard AAUP activity to hire a lobbyist to speak on behalf of its members to the State legislature to affect how its budget to Higher Education would be allocated. Traditionally, State legislatures like to allocate money to building and athletic programs such as Football, but not on the hiring of educators.
And the AAUP negotiator can only negotiate how the pool of money would be allocated to one time increase, versus increase in the salary base, merit increase, etc.
Political expenditures by unions and professional organizations come out of a separate PAC or Foundation that these organization set up. These expenditures do not come out directly from union dues. The union may well spend money of political activities by hiring a lobbyist etc., as public unions are wont to do. The donation to the PAC is strictly voluntary and it is not part of the dues.
9
Finally! Individuals, always a problem for Democrats, will be able to control the money they contribute. No longer will public unions use coerced money to fund the unholy relationship between government employees and the elected officials they support.
Imagine, a system which uses mandatory fees to maintain the elected officials who then serve those unions. Talk about conflict of interest. The system is corrupt and morally wrong.
Use your own money if you want to influence public policy. Too many Democrats use public funds to extract ever more from the public.
11
Let's look at it from a different perspective....
Imagine, just try, that I am a hard working, tax paying employee who just happens to believe in the wisdom of small government and selfishly wants to legally pay the least amount of income taxes possible. [I know: horror!! I want to reduce the amount of my "contributions"!!!]
Now, imagine that I am forced, through government regulation, to pay dues to my union, even though I do not want to.
Now, imagine that that union uses its dues to support progressive causes and political PACs which advocate for big government, new entitlements and increased income taxes.
Now imagine how glad I am that that union scam has finally been found to be illegal. By the swing vote, no less!
I expect that the so-called "democratic-socialists" will never understand my point of view, or like comrade Joseph Stalin, won't care, but, as somebody once said: "don't tread on me."
15
Wait a minute. Liberals bemoan wealthy conservative big money donors giving money to the GOP, and want the SCOTUS to rule un-coerced large dollar political donations from both businesses and individuals to be illegal, but Democrats cry foul when SCOTUS rules FORCED political donations are not legal?? Hypocrisy.
17
No, liberals bemoan a Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to give the amount of money they do to influence elections.
2
Even as a devout liberal, I'm mildly giddy about this decision. Public sector unions have crippled the administrative gears of government. There are some nasty tradeoffs, but any lefty who cares about good government will hopefully see a silver lining here.
18
I have mixed feelings also. As a member of a public service union, I got benefits through the union for which I am grateful. But as a citizen of the state, I am concerned about the effect of pension obligations on the state's ability to repair infrastructure and provide other state services. I also worry about the value of my home, and whether it will hold value as the property taxes become unaffordable.
I can only imagine what a struggling homeowner who doesn't happen to benefit from a union feels.
I'm scared to be without the union, but I can understand the harm unions do to our state budget
2
I feel like it's time to sue the churches I'm forced to support with my tax money, which violates my first amendment rights by requiring me to support religions I don't agree with.
15
What church does the government support?
Tax exemption equals support.
All of them. Since churches pay no taxes, they get free police, fire protection, use of all manner of public infrastructure. No other business gets them for free.
My late father, a life long Teamster, fought against scabs during national strikes. Today, truckers are reaping the benefits: no pay for hours and hours of wait time to unload trailers. So-called 'Independent Truckers' make less than minimum wage. Their take home pay is less than a greasy spoon diner waitress. The economic trend began long before the current administration.
Highway motorists especially bikers beware. The next time you see a tire piece, or watch one blow off an 18-wheeler, try to remember Teamsters are taught to watch the pressure on all their tires to keep themselves and the motoring public safe. Those who don't belong to a union don't really care.
9
This is sloppy journalism. The questions that begged for answers are the source of the funds that "unions" provided to the varied political activities and whether activities such as get out the vote campaigns also included partisan politics. This article made it seem that all of the union political actions were funded from representation fees assessed against employees rather than from separate and voluntarily funded union PACs, but without stating that as a fact. The article discussed legal get out the vote activities along side other partisan activities without saying whether there was co-mingling of funding. That conservative readers see this article as vindication of their anti-union message is not surprising. I think I know what should have been happening under the court decisions on labor union political activity, but I have no idea based on this article whether these activities followed those decisions.
9
In my 30 plus years as a public service employee in New York State, those who chose not to belong to the union were still required to pay the agency shop fee (same amount as everyone else). However the number was so small as to preclude any doomsday scenario. The vast majority of the employees understood the value of the union - indeed the proof was in the pudding so to speak as every few years a new contract would be bargained. Not forcing someone to pay union dues is by no means the same as expecting a mass or even minor exodus. I think that there will be very little change on the ground due to this ruling moving forward.
2
I believe the estimate ranges from 10 to 30 % loss of dues paying members based on states where right-to-work laws were passed. Not catastrophic, but not minimal either. Enough to weaken them at a time when I can't think of anything supporting them. This ruling is akin to a long held dream of the corporate class - a national right-to-work law. They likely already have a plan for such a law for the private unions next. Care to wager?
1
I hope someone will craft a legal strategy to address the actual problem of tens of millions of taxpayers - largely in blue states - forced to subsidize obscene governmental expenditures on wars, corporate welfare, anti-environmental policies, and tax subsidies for the wealthiest. Public employees’ unions have done a great job improving workers’ lives, members and non-members. Those who choose not to be members receive the same wages and benefits as those who will continue to pay their fair share. Like the Republican Party, its supporters and certainly Trump these employees who do not want to pay dues demand the “right” to be free riders. Millions of us are sick and tired of subsidizing the selfishness dictated by Republicans. We need the best legal minds to be creative in crafting a legal strategy that will let progressive taxpayers see our taxes work for the good of society, not just corporations and their toadies.
6
Still waiting on a Times' expose of this decades-old outrage.
Does this mean that when I buy a product, that the company cannot make donations to political campaigns? This loss is yet one more gift to corporations and one more way working people will not be able to affect what happens in politics.
I guess demonstrations will be the only way for working people to express their opposition. And we all know where that leads -- physical struggle.
European workers are allowed to have unions and collective bargaining. Corporations have limited union rights in the US to the point where workers have little or no voice in politics.
This will not end well.
7
The ruling had nothing to do with limiting an employee's right to join a union. The ruling only had to do with if a union can force a non-member to pay dues and the answer was no, as it should be. If anything it helps a person's ability to affect politics. They will have more money to support the causes they so choose.
Your example is completely off base. When you buy a product, you are making a choice to buy from a corporation. It is not mandatory that you buy from X and support their beliefs. If you don't like chik-fil-a's religious beliefs, go to Popeye's.
1
So only people who pay dues should get benefits, otherwise you're a free rider. What about people who pay little or no taxes? What are they?
5
They are the Koch brothers along with the majority of politicians including the President who said not paying taxes made him smart.
8
Steve, according to the Internal Revenue Service 40 plus percent of all income taxes are paid by the top 1% of earners in the US. Thank goodness for the Koch brothers and their successful and wealth colleagues or the US would be broke.
Billionaires like trump and poor people?
Time to look more to the private sector and the individual to fund liberal and progressive causes and less to a fickle government.
This might even help Democrats deal with their failures in the electoral college.
Bottom line for Democrats if you want to win: Learn how to honestly take care of people and honestly pay for it at the same time.
MB
11
'They who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat history.'
Will the illuminated progressive forces of truth, freedom and justice succumb to the dark repressive forces of lies, deceit and oppression...or is there still enough of that American exceptionalism to pull back from the edge of the abyss?
3
Gee, on the one hand you report how retirees will be giving to democrat causes and yet on the other you talk of hundreds of thousands leaving the unions. What does that say? Does it say that these hundreds of thousands had no voice in how their money was spent? Does it say unions are democratic or simply run by bosses that collude with politicians to feather each other’s best while throwing bones to the rank and file? One look at Illinois shows you what happens when the unions own the politicians
24
Right-to-work laws were meant to open union work up to more people, but never was intended to allow them to not pay dues into the organization or even be a non-member. Unions have been successfully demonized by corporate right wing groups who want to take all negotiation power away from their employees. The Corporate/Employers want to pay them less, give them less say about their working contracts, deprive them of benefits to suit their own bottom line. In the public sector, they also want to reduce taxes that will mostly benefits the well off and high end property owners. The loss of union negotiating power will mean stagnating wages, erosion of pension and health benefits, while slow marching to the lower end of the income class scale. And Conservatives have set this up in the public eye to foster jealousy and anger at the wages/benefits public employees have been able to achieve through years of bargaining rights, while non-union private sector wages have fallen in real terms over the last few decades. In light of this sorry decision, the public sector unions need to educate their members as well as those covered by the contract non-members about what dropping their dues paying responsibility will do to their own bottom line. And they should also develope a PAC for voluntary contributions above and beyond dues to deal with the anti-worker climate in government and electing pro-worker rights candidates to Congress and state governments.
6
For your information RandyJ It is because Unions got involved in Politics Workers today have an 8hour day and 40 hour work week, Time and half pay for over 40 hours. If it were not for Unions most Corporations would not have offered sick days, health benefits i can go on and on, I love when people bash Unions but have No clue why they have what they have.
8
I think you should reread your history books because it was none other than the uber-capitalist himself, Henry Ford that instituted many of these benefits that you ascribe to unions. Other businesses added these benefits to try an keep their employees from jumping ship.
7
Brian - were there no unions in Ford plants?
A popular myth. Ford made minor concessions to head off union organizing. Even so, he was notably alone in this policy for the next 20 years, resulting in insufficient consumer spending and the Great Depression. it wasn't until wartime that demands for skilled labor forced other corporate poobahs to offer workers better working conditions. wages, and bargaining power.
1
So the "agency fees" limitation on mandatory dues was just a charade.
5
All one must do is listen to some of the rare interviews with big money conservative campaign donors (there are a couple in the HBO documentary "Meet the Donors") to appreciate that they are waging war on democracy. They want a government where money, rather than votes, controls the government. While that may be the reality more often than not, it is not the design of the United States Constitution.
9
If unions had kept out of politics and focused on workers, this would not have happened.
13
politics and worker rights are not separate, just as big corporations are intertwined with their political issues.
7
As a small business owner today I choose from several associations to join to benefit my business and my skill sets. The ones I join are managed with a small staff, small budgets and dues ( less then $300) spent only on our agreed upon goals and needs directly related to growing the business. Every year membership is renewable with the simple task of mailing (or NOT) in a check.
As a former member of two public workers unions I "chose" from ONE union to benefit my profession and skill sets. If I choose not to join I still had to pay 95% of the dues (ranging from $740 - $1250) for a union with by far too many paid stewards and executive staffs. office space, travel, meals and perks.
Although not strictly political, checks were written to support local causes with links to members. Our money was being used by union management to benefit their network of family and friends; many with political ties.
I and others did make an effort to bring about changes, but too many of our co-workers only cared that they get their raise and keep their jobs. Therefore, change was met with the mantra from the leadership as a threat to the status quo.
Public worker unions do need a wake up call to refocus on their members' needs, not the what leadership wants.
21
Public sector unions are funded by taxpayers. All the programs cited here were funded by extorting money from public sector workers, many of whom do not agree with those uses of their money. Using taxpayer money to fund "progressive" democrats is a conflict of interest.
24
and when corporations make donations to politicians, they are taking money out of the pay of their workers and the dividends to their stockholders.
5
Workers? Don't think so. Stockholders and dividends? Not sure but if the shareholder doesn't like it he/she can sell.
Wait a minute. In many organizations, union dues pay the costs of bargaining and representing employees. There is a special Political Action Committee fund for political action and union internal business. That's how federal employee unions work.
and the money is not fungible. you can't spend dues on the legislative agenda.
What the right wants is a court that promotes unlimited corporate money in politics, just not for working people.
19
That isn't true and if you had read the article carefully, the author concedes that the defendants in the case admit that there were funds that were comingled. Obviously, sending donations to a senate campaign is clear; what about supporting a group that does charitable work but also supports a political party? Or sending money to a PAC that engages in "outreach". it is impossible to differentiate between organizations that have multiple rolls.
5
ending mandatory union dues was phase one of the plan , now comes phase 2 which is for employees who have been paying those dues for years without being actual union members to bring suit against unions with the goal to recover the payments they made , at the very least this will cost unions millions in legal fees trying to fend of the challenge money that is tied up even if the suit is not sucessfull , if the unions lose however it will knock a even bigger hole in their coffers
8
This was the right decision. Imagine if it were the opposite and union funds were donated to conservative political causes, it would have already been changed.
16
Thank you NY Times for confirming the argument of the conservative majority on the court. With this much angst among the lefty groups who depend upon the public sector unions for their sustenance the judges who disallowed forcing "members" to contribute are obviously correct.
Trump should issue an executive order rescinding the Kennedy order allowing public secotr unions completely for any organization or political sub division that receives federal money. It is inherently corrupt to allow the union members (public employees) to buy off their bosses (politicians) to ratchet up wages and benefits. The Democrats and the left have made a corrupt bargain that was universally recognized as "a devil's bargain" by earlier Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt.
26
...unlike the devil's bargain that corporations have made with the right to suppress wages and reduce competition, to the detriment of their workers.
4
With all this "suppression" going on how did the US ever become the world's richest country with the largest middle class in history? Why did not the " devil's bargain" result in a smaller or no middle class in the US? In point of fact the US middle class as a percentage of total population is shrinking but only because large numbers are moving into the upper class! This would be impossible if the rich and the corporations are "suppressing" wages.
1
The Democratic Party must now ask Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg (like Sheldon Adelson does for Republicans) to make up the shortfall. They should have some extra cash to protect the country, our democracy and in an oblique way, capitalism as they know it.
2
Michael Bloomberg recently announced his $80 Million contribution to the Democratic party to support candidates in this Fall's midterm elections. I'd say that's a nice start.
4
You're right, an oligarchy is much simpler to arrange than a democracy. Down with the people!
The diminished power of labor unions is a terrible loss for workers. Without organized workers who have the power to bargain for wages and benefits corporations, and now state and local governments, have little reason to listen to the voices of workers about their wage and working conditions. If this shift in power continues, and there is little reason to think it will not, middle class and low wage workers will face even tougher times. They'll be more angry and more susceptible to the lies and distortions of the President .
16
If unions really were using dues to protect the rights of thier workers you would be right however it seems that they are using the funds instead to to finance left wing causes and organizations that many of their members do not support.
28
Look at the states, counties and cities that are bankrupt due to unfunded public pensions. Politicians sold out the public to secure public sector union support (voting and financial). Public unions should never have been allowed to be formed for these reasons.
5
yes, they were spending that money in support of politicians that oppose increasing the rights of corporations and government agencies at the expense of labor, and those politicians hold other liberal positions.
1
Let's thank the NYT for pointing out exactly why the Supreme Court decision was absolutely correct.
Once upon a time, labor unions were designed to engage in collective bargaining on behalf of workers. Somewhere along the line, and in large part because of mandatory dues structures, labor unions just became large repositories of money. That money has been abused in various ways -- as a bank for organized crime, as a featherbedding scheme for union leaders, and now as a funding machine for the American left. As things stand today, traditional union activities are incidental to what unions actually spend there time doing. Moreover, they could not do many of the things they do -- particularly in the political arena -- without the legal "cover" of union status.
When you tell me I have to pay mandatory union dues to support the Democrat Party and progressive organizations favored by union leaders, I am being compelled to support causes I don't believe.
The irony of all this is that if workers truly supported all these union activities, the unions would not need legal compulsion to collect their dues.
36
Not all union members are liberal. This is why this was the correct decision. Liberals need to understand they can't keep spending other peoples' money.
24
Not all corporate employees or stockholders are conservative yet the Citizens United decision allowed that spending.
4
If the insensitive side wants to be called "right", then the label "correct" should be used for the Dems, not the term "liberal" with it's implied negative connotations. Is there any reason to stifle the political voice of a union, when a corporation has been allowed full political power?
8
When corporation require their employees to fund a particular political party in order to be employed, they will be in violation of the law. Using shareholder money to fund political action isn't coercion. Don't like the way Microsoft uses it's money? Sell your stock.
3
Corporations do this all the time. Shall we require them to give away their profits, products, and services? Good deal!
So, if I am a union member and lean away from the democratic platform my dues were still used to support democratic candidates and “progressive” political issues even if I disagreed. Seems to me the unions should have separated dues, necessary for the union to function, from political contributions and made those voluntary.
10
Charlie, you have been misinformed, probably intentionally, by groups such as National Right to Work. What you say should be happening is in fact what has been happening for some time now as a result of court decisions interpreting federal labor laws. In order to engage in political activities, unions must have a separate PAC and solicit voluntary funding from members. Dues can only be used to negotiate labor-management agreements and manage union activities under those agreements such as grievances.
9
Unions did separate dues for those who did not agree politically. That's what was just overturned in Janus. Union members, who were fair share payers, paid about 20% less dues that full members, with the 20% being any money that may have been used for politically related activity. What Janus just did, was say that fair share payers can now be non-members who still get all the protections and rights of a union member, even though they pay nothing.
6
The court also held that it is impossible to separate political and non-political spending. That's why the previous decision was overturned.
Let's be very clear. Before the Janus decision, people who did not support a unions politics could pay a smaller fee for the service of negotiating a contract, things like working conditions, pay and benefits. People were not required to pay for the political stuff. Now the people who opt out of unions get this work on their contract for free. The right has tried, for many years now, to demonize unions and they have been effective. People forget that vacation pay, company insurance, weekends off, 8 hour work days and child labor laws are all thanks to unions, which help build America's middle class. When you consider the cost to businesses to have to obey these pesky norms it makes sense they oppose unions. What I don't understand is why so many working people oppose them. It seems unlikely that they like working longer hours for less money.
22
Trying to answer your question, the right has successfully been demonizing unions for years and has worked to diminish union power through right to work laws, laws prohibiting public sector strikes, absurd organizing limitations, the PAC money rule you cite, etc. The Democratic Party during this time has done little to expose the right's lies about union corruption. So, I am not surprised about Janus. One result of the case will be the ability of unions to deny assistance to a non-dues paying worker who needs to fIle a grievance. Another will be denial of union benefits like job training to workers who don't pay dues. These are well known benefits of union membership. If unions play their cards right they might not lose as much money as predicted.
3
The Republicans have been trying to get ride of unions for years and years l The corporations have won and the CEO's
are flying hig. Be aware, though: pendulums swing back!
Crucial that non-Union workers be cut off from all Union benefits. Don't want to pay? Don't get to play!
23
Now we have a majority Supreme Court that like almost all Republicans can't think straight, logic and reason are dispensed with. How ironic that our countries leading arbiter of justice is corrupt. But even more disturbing are our middle of the road Democrats inability to, (I don't know what ) understand what is happening to our country. All you Bernie Sanders haters better put your thinking caps on because the upper echelons of the establishment Democrats are not effectively representing you. Need a clue, look at the last ten years of screaming election losses and the countries rightward tilt, not to mention everything else, are you even paying attention? Just look at them, Pelosi, Schumer, and company. Did we even get a one minute speech on the floor over the last several momentous political events? What, they never heard of a press conference? Lately they and the political class including the press had to stop pretending that Democrats have a messaging problem so we hear from elected officials a little bit more but they are still ceding the national conversation to the Republicans.
8
Public sector unions have bankrupted cities and states. Public employees have leverage that private sector employees do not. Public employees can vote for the people who approve their pay contracts. The Supreme Court decision leveled the playing field.
27
I believe Will Rogers said "I am not a member of an organized political party. I'm a democrat."
I am a union member and get involved in political campaigns with the union. My local is smallish, but we work hard in our area to make positive changes for the working class. It's not easy. Most of my union brothers and sisters are too busy or uninterested to give up their time. But the few that do can be effective.
I am often surprised though, at the strength of turnout in larger state or national issues. Busloads of people, printed signs, organizers, lists of speakers etc. I have come to realize that this is where the unions' strength matters. In mobilizing large numbers of people to act.
This is what the corporate right wing hates and are using all their powers to end. The unions are one of the few ORGANIZED groups that will fight for policies that benefit the working class. That's why I quoted Will Rogers. There are not many other groups that can bring institutional strength to these fights. And they are fights.
I don't see a level playing field. Since citizens united, corporate cash floods every level of politics. Those on the right decry the distorting effect of union money on the political process. But what other group can speak powerfully for workers? This ruling will limit unions to bringing a knife to the gun fight. What I think the right wing wants next will be to replaxe the knife with a begging cup.
12
You are correct! Supremes please apply your Janus logic to Citizens United!
The sad thing is that these Progressive groups have a sense of entitlement with respect to these funds.
15
This column completely validates the argument of the plaintiff and the decision of the Court majority in the Janus case--thanks for this breath of clarity.
14
If as the article states, this decision will make it difficult for liberal causes to finance their efforts then perhaps this is the time to hear from the ultra rich like Buffet, Gates, Bezos to join Bloomberg in helping fund democracy in opposition to the Kochs.
5
I think that the unions should respond by removing coverage and benefits from non-dues paying members. The problem for NYC municipal unions is that coverage is by Civil Service title. If an employee is hired from a Civil Service list into a union covered title they automatically get covered by the union representing that title. Before Janus the employee was required to pay the union dues. Post Janus they can opt of the dues while continuing to get union representation. I believe that this link may need to be broken. Only dues paying members should get union representation. Employees not paying the dues should in effect become non-union employees including the lack of grievance rights in the event the employer attempts to terminate the employee. This approach would create an incentive for the "free riders" encouraged by Janus to join the union and pay the dues.
9
As a young man in my early 20’s teaching in NYC in the 1960’s, and later as a Nyc school psychologist, my only choice was to join the union and agree to dues check off, and checking off other boxes as advised by my elder colleagues, never realizing its significance decades later, nor ever thinking that the distant future would arrive and a lifetime pension and lifetime healthcare would make my golden years comfortable as they are now . I’m glad I didn’t have a choice way back then. I didn’t know any better anyway and I was forced to prepare for my future.
The UFT’s early leader was Al Shankar whose rhetoric made sense and whom I grew to respect, and our benefits and the ability to collectively bargain enabled us to feel valued as young educators which improved our effectiveness . I and thousands more retirees are grateful, and lament the plight of current teachers struggling in “ right to work” states with weak unions and lack of dues check off , effectively “right to work for low wages” states.
Voluntary contributions won’t cut it, and It looks like SCOTUS has now ended future security for most of the public sector.
15
Who is paying for all that economic security?
5
Why should I fund your comfortable retirement at the expense of crumbling cities and sub par schools?
6
The SCOTUS (and republicans) want serfs. We are going backwards to another era, where there will be no future for our children.
My understanding, as a retired union member, is that non-members do not pay that portion of the union fees that support political candidates, etc., but they certainly get the benefits accrued by union negotiations. It is so unfair that non-members don't have to pay their fair share of getting the work conditions, hours, insurance, etc. - benefits provided to them by union activities.
9
Why has the American Federation of Teachers endorsed so many conservative Democrats over the years when business as usual is not working in American politics? Why has the AFT allowed many thousands of its adjunct professors to be treated like field hands and paid half as much for the same work as full time professors do? Why are adjuncts rarely given medical benefits even when they have worked at the same colleges for decades. I urge those adjuncts to withhold their dues until they get equal pay and benefits for equal work. Wake up. AFT!
5
I agree, AFT is a fine example of how union leadership has failed most of its own members. AFT leadership and many other public worker unions are coasting on the false premise that they represent all members.
3
If this is how the Court wants things to work vis-à-vis public sector unions and dues, then why not make it mandatory that corporations offer consumers two prices for goods and services: One price that includes a premium that can be used by corporations to fund efforts to roll back regulation, make political contributions, lobby for tax breaks, etc. A second schedule of prices should be available to consumers who oppose corporate welfare activities on philosophical grounds. What’s fair is fair, right?
10
Hmmm. Wait a minute ...
I thought American workers were required to pay unions in order to work for the government, to reimburse the union for the collective bargaining it performed on behalf of that worker.
But now, the New York Times says that the TRUE reason for the fees was to financially enable & empower that union to fund other private, political organizations.
Well, now, let's just suppose that the unions gave their money to the American Conservative Union, the Family Research Council, and the National Rifle Association ...
Hmmm. Suddenly, we have a problem, don't we?
In the abstract, one can see the Supreme Court was right in this decision.
35
"Liberal activists argue that closing that pipeline was a crucial goal of the conservative groups that helped bring the case..."
In other breaking news:
Fire burns.
Water is wet.
Fat meat is greasy.
And the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.
What are we going to do about it that we didn't do in 2016?
6
If there's enough money sloshing around in union coffers to finance all these causes unrelated to pay and conditions, then the Supreme Court's decision was eminently just.
26
Doesn't this story conclusively prove Janus' point ( i.e., that "fair share" fees were being used for inherently political purposes)?
35
Union members can get reimbursed for fees that are directed towards political activity. These nonpaying members will now become freeloaders who will benefit from collective bargaining. My taxes support some causes which I do not support. But I benefit from other services that are provided through tax funding.
If paying union dues violate free speech then as an AT&T stock holder I want a larger dividend payout so that I don't have to pay for AT&T lobbying and PR related advertisements. I do hold my AT&T shares voluntarily same as a worker chooses to work at a union shop.
16
The First amendment constrains the government from limiting free speech, not AT&T. You are certainly able to go to a stockholders meeting and make your case to your fellow AT&T stockholders but this has nothing to do with a state government forcing a state employee to make payments to a union, that the union, as stated in this column, uses to promote political speech that the employee disagrees with.
6
Labor unions are indispensable for any systematic effort to seek justice across the lines of class inequality. In some cases individual rights trump the aim and effort to secure justice. But these are exceptions. Indeed, any honest analysis of economic rights would have to involve considerations of justice, bringing us back to issues of class.
2
Wow and all this time, by reading the papers, I thought only the Koch Brothers were donating to far right organizations.
Who was to know!
5
The irony is that this decision is the result of the Democrats abandoning their role as "the party of the people" as followed by great president such as FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ. Instead of nominating a candidate that these Presidents would have been proud of, they abandoned workers. It was left to candidate Trump to focus on "bread and butter" issues such as jobs and wage inequality.
While it was Candidate Trump (and Sanders) who protested for labor when vociferously criticizing Carrier's closing of an Indiana plant and sending the 2,000 jobs to Mexico, Clinton remained silent.
Instead she took $675,000 for 3 talks from Goldman, the icon of the 2008 financial crisis.
Our own NY Senator Schumer is one of the "Gang of Eigth" Senators that wants to increase immigration and dramatically increase the number of H1-B STEM Visas, moves which result in lower wages and more job competition for both working class and STEM science and engineering professional Americans but benefit wealth company owners and thus creating greater wage inequality.
Trump the billionaire became the candidate for the non-billionaires by focusing on bread and butter issues that in fairness Sanders also focused on.
Thus, it is precisely because the Democratic Party including Schumer forgot the lessons of the wonderful Presidents FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ and lost sight of workers and "bread and butter" issues of jobs and employment allowing Trump to resume that role that labor unions are now losing out.
6
It's certainly true that "billionaire" (ha ha) Trump talked a lot about "bread and butter" issues -- though offering not realistic solutions but rather a litany of "others" allegedly conspiring to deprive American workers of their just rewards, "others" whom he promised to bully into submission. That bullying (see tariffs) will not have the promised effect.
You do know that those Carrier jobs Trump "saved" have in fact mostly vanished?
1100 of the 2000 jobs were saved.
'The Carrier plant in Indianapolis will have a work force of 1,100 people after about 215 workers depart Thursday, “completing the final phase of the previously announced plan to relocate fan coil manufacturing production lines,”...'
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/carrier-plant-layoffs-worker-though...
Assuming 2 children per family, that is 2,200 children whose will remain in family with jobs that pay a working wage. While much has been made of illegal alien children at the border, little has been said of the number of American children who will suffer because of Democratic (and typical Republic) policies that deprive their parents of Jobs that earn a working wage.
Try to think of every job Trump saves as 2 children whose parents retain a working wage and are not thrown into poverty.
Democratic (and typical non-Trump Republican) policy is like Scrooge depriving Tiny Tim's father Bob Cratchit of a decent wage. Trump (and Sanders) are different. They want Bob Cratchit and others like him to retain a decent paying job.
It is shocking how much the Democrats have drifted from the thinking of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ and how Trump (and Sanders) had to assume this role.
Tariffs on strategic goods such as steel and aluminum are not bad things.
By lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% Trump is also encouraging investment which will result in more jobs.
The payment of dues should be optional for the workers and not required. The Supreme Court ruled justly. However, the workers must now understand that without voice, they will have an uphill battle for better work conditions. No dues means no benefits and no voice. Let's hope they learn the value of dues early before they get to a point of no return.
3
Why no benefits? They can agree with their employer, for example, to be promoted on merit, rather than seniority.
11
Employees need to learn how best to represent themselves. Even those wanting to join a union need to learn how bets to demand their dues go just for protecting their employment benefits.
1
Unions should stick to matters pertaining to their specific industrial relations issues faced by their members in their particular workplace. Nothing more. True grass roots organizations do not need the funding or support of labor unions. It is only the labor elite's favorite projects that will suffer. Not the membership's. If the membership truly supports these causes, they will open their wallets directly and bypass the union middlemen.
7
Justice Kennedy has been doing Trump's bidding ever since Kennedy's son got into business with Trump. Corruption on the supreme court.
9
In a very short period of time, Americans will have to fight the same battles that were fought for 25-50 years, for workers' rights, at the beginning of the 20th century. If only Americans would commit themselves to constant oversight of their democracy, knowing that it is fragile, improve public education, and make it equal and available to all, it would become regarded as a built-in civic duty to learn from history. Then, maybe we wouldn't have to keep fighting the same battles over and over, again. I despair of our general citizenry.
6
It’s simple........no dues no benefits. I doubt Supreme Court justices will come to work if they were not paid. This particular decision should have been “don’t have to be the part of an union and free to manage your own benefits.”
7
Every educated Democratic voter in the country knew this would happen if Trumpo won.
Purity of the Turf is very expensive for a long, long time.
3
SCOTUS has just created a Hydra Monster that will eventually land at the footsteps of the Supreme Court. By their logic, taxes should be voluntary.
If money is political speech, and I disagree with all the policies of our present government, then I should be able to stop paying my Federal taxes till the policies of the Federal Government concur with my world view.
Isn’t this what caused the Boston Tea Party Revolt?
5
The Supreme Court said that government workers who choose not to join unions are not required to help pay for collective bargaining. It struck down "mandatory" union fees for government workers.
This ruling is a far cry from "union dues are forbidden". What it does is allow skinflint union members, and Republican union members, to reap the union benefits that others pay dues for.
But also of note is the fact that voluntary union dues are not struck down. If workers appreciate their union's work, they should keep on paying their dues voluntarily.
Also, the Supreme Court allowed, in Citizens United, that a corporation could be a person, because their money "spoke" for them, as if it had a tongue, and only people can speak. It took some convoluted logic, but now it's law.
Likewise, using the Citizens United ruling, unions can be considered people. Both corporations and unions "speak" with their money. Both are employed by others. Voluntary payment of union dues is no different than voluntary corporate investment.
Unions should flip Citizens United on its head and and demand personhood, like any corporation.
The Supreme Court should consider unions as people, just as they have with corporations, and not limit their "free speech".
2
Lilou: Citizens United applies to unions in the same way it applies to corporations. It's already the law.
3
To Rikki, thanks. So the ruckus is about mandatory versus voluntary dues paying?
Lilou: The existing Supreme Court precedent said that government employees could be required to pay unions money that was supposed to reimburse the unions for the cost of the unions acting as a union - negotiating, defending workers, administering benefits and membership - but that government employees could not be required to pay money to unions which the union would use for political purposes. The new case overruled this and says that government employees can't be required to pay any amounts to unions, whether for union activities or political activities. The rationale is that any required payment is "compelled speech" in essence requiring an employee to support a union when they may not want to.
It seems like there actually WAS a problem with forced union contributions if the loss of them guts the coffers of liberal causes. I'm not seeing the problem here. Find willing donors instead of siphoning from workers' paychecks
23
OK, let's take a deep breath here and collectively acknowledge that if we were all relying on "donations" that were, for all intents and purposes, forcibly obtained, it may be time to consider diversification.
10
It wasn't a savings plan. There is no other way to earn money in order to complete their mission - to support federal workers.
Well let's hope Democrats turn out to get rid of GOP so we can get our freedoms back. The GOP is not about freedom they are about control. Nothing they do is about protecting anyone's rights or freedoms other than guns.
This is a call to those with the cash. Soros, Stier, Buffett to step up to replace the potential losses.
It's also time for any public union member to understand what this means to THEIR rights and futures and pay the dues anyway.
This ruling does not mean they can't pay dues it just means they cannot be required to pay them. Since those unions negotiate their pay and benefits as well, it is morally right to pay those dues to protect their own futures and not to accept the "welfare" of those members who choose to pay.
7
I would wager that strangling union campaign contributions was a feature, not a bug. The right wing is doing all it can to tilt the playing field to their advantage as fast as possible. They want to make sure the growing numerical advantage of the Democrats is countered before it takes effect. The supreme court is supreme in its partisanship. We know how they will rule before a word is said at the opening argument.
10
"The supreme court is supreme in its partisanship."
Well said.
2
This entire article validates the reasoning behind the Janus decision. If Unions' political activities are impaired as a result of the loss of non-member dues, that implies that non-members were de facto giving financial support to Unions' political activities. In other words, they were being compelled to support political speech, in violation of their First Amendment rights.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that non-member dues do not support political activities while also claiming that political activities are dependent on non-member dues.
30
The money was to support bargaining activities. I hope they can find a way to exclude the free loaders from any bargain they obtain.
5
TG--Guess we'll have to start taxing churches, then won't we? Just to be fair about "political activities and donations."
6
Kearm--Yup, only the members will receive the benefits. that's very fair. Republicans don't want to pay for anything, if they can sneak it for free.
Lost in the argument but spotlighted in the article is the plight of moderate and conservative workers whose compulsory donations are funneled to causes they disagree with or find abhorrent. This is and should be, the crux of the matter.
The public sector worker who Hillary found deplorable (yes, they exist), has been forced to contribute to unions (yes money, i.e. dues, is fungible) that in turn fund politicians they find fault with. Imagine the shoe on the other foot with the dues of a liberal union member being used to support the far right agenda of the Republicans and its standard bearer.
Unionism is on its last legs with few than 10% of all workers enrolled, nearly all of those public sector employees.
A hearty thank you to those early union warriors who did so much to better working conditions throughout the nation, at the expense of their personal safety and often their lives.
A dismissive wave goodbye to what the movement morphed into.
13
I know that some did morph into something that wasn't always helpful. However, the primary mission is going to be obliterated now. And, the workers will have no recourse. Unions will come back in vogue when things get really bad again (they are certainly heading that way already) they unions will be popular again.
5
If the primary mission was to negotiate better working conditions, why will this ruling be obliterative? Unions have not been banned, forced contributions to participate in its political work, has been ruled out by SCOTUS. Big difference. If, on the other hand, forcing contributions to one member of the duopoly was the primary mission, yes that has been affected. But there is no ruling saying a union member can't go on- line or pick up a checkbook and make a personal contribution as preferences dictate. Bernie Sanders received millions in contributions - $27 a shot. Contributing was very easy for many of us who don't belong to a union.
The gist of the dissent is that states should be just as free to want public sector labor unions (for the benefit of labor peace), as to not want public sector labor unions. 22 states want them; 28 don't. That's democracy.
For the states that want labor unions, a mandatory 'fair-share' fee to cover non-political spending has long been the compromise. But now, the 'fair-share' fee is no longer mandatory. Selfish, narrow-minded public employees can elect be free-riders on the labor union dues of their co-workers, spent for collective bargaining and grievance representation.
Isn't one solution for these 22 states to simply cut out the middleman? Instead of paying wages which are subject to union dues, why not have the state simply pay the union directly, and build the expense into the next wage agreement? This solution would be cost-neutral, and eliminate free riders.
4
I grew up in Union town. My father was a manager of a engineer group in a large corporation. Most of my friends parents worked in the same plant.
My memories of the good ole union days.
Sneaking up the stairs and listening to my dad consoling one of his engineers calling at 2 in the morning shaken after getting an anonymous phone call telling him that his wife and newborn baby would be dead by the time he got home after work the next day. My father calmly telling him it was okay and to stay home with his family. My father always worked even more overtime during strikes so his people who were afraid could stay home.
Being over at my buddy's house when his father answered the phone and after listening shouted "Yeah, well I just took out a fire policy on my house, so go ahead and burn it down. I'm going to work tomorrow." and the slamming down the phone.
Driving my dad to the plant after getting my learners permit because with six kids to raise he couldn't afford to replace his slashed tires during strikes. Watching the stickers walk in front of our very used family car and dropping nails out of their hands while I waited for them to let me leave the parking lot.
Oh yeah. Great times.
15
Wherever you find a country with weak or no unions, you will find authoritarian/fascist regimes. Where you find strong unions, you find democracies that work; yes, this is a case where correlation is a major part of causation. The 5 to 4 bundling of SCOTUS is not yet complete, but almost so. First Trump gains control of businesses and trade:Trump's ignorant economics is focused on ruining trade agreements, intimidating private industries and businesses, and sucking up to authoritarian governments in the hope of establishing a fascist triumvirate, US, Russia and China. Deplorable, because ignored and thus becoming mentally and morally arrested in their development, working underclass class people succumb to deranged right wing propaganda and manipulations. Meanwhile, Trump and his right wing collaborators continue to subvert and gain control of, or eliminate, unions, while hoping to continue to rid the country of any hope for a viable public education system and a free press. Finally he elevates his military buddies, charging them with using their might to manage immigration and concentration centers where minorities (victims of American historical and current racism and misogyny) can be got rid of by brutal deportation or indoctrination through the use of “New” educational systems.Voila! Trumpism!
8
AND that is because labor unions are incompatible with totalitarian, Fascist total control.
It's as though the Koch broz are afraid of competition.
2
Union members need to decide for themselves whether or not to support the unions that support them by making a voluntary payment each month. If they decide not to support their union financially and they lose something in the bargain, than too bad for them! So much winning?
2
The problem, as economists will tell you, is that the non-union workers are getting a free ride. The get the benefits of union negotiations without paying dues.
The Koch brothers are funding a very wide-ranging and well-financed anti-union campaign to convince workers that they should leave unions. They are behind the so-called Right to Work laws that have sprung up in red states. They have about 50,000 employees and tell them how to vote and indoctrinate them into their libertarian worldview. They were the driver behind the appointment of Gorsuch to the supreme court.
These men and their "friends" are a danger to democracy, as well as truth. They fund climate change denial to enable themselves to continue to pollute, and their industries are major polluters. Unsurprisingly, they backed the appointment of Pruitt to the EPA. When someone tries to tell you that unions are bad and you should leave, stop and ask yourself "Who benefits?" The answer will not be "you".
5
I don't think many economists will agree that an 85% participation fee is required to combat free-ridership here. If unions had unable to help themselves, and charged 25% of the dues (making clear the union would only offer assistance to non-members if doing so was in the union's interests), that would have been fair. And there would've been less slush money left over too fund these external projects which run contrary to the views of a sizable chunk of union membership. The unions decided they wanted it all, and now they have nothing.
...Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
I do sometimes wonder if Trump's cultists understand how their own jobs and economic status are connected to the broader economy. Do they all believe that are somehow immune from the inexorable push towards outsourcing and labor reduction in the name of the ultra-wealthy?
13
This article seems to give a false impression. I'm the secretary of a union at a community college. What we call agency fees--the payroll deductions collected from all bargaining unit members--are used only for representation of the bargaining unit members on contract-related issues. Members can make voluntary contributions to a fund for political purposes. I think this is standard practice throughout NYSUT. The author makes no representation that the contributions made by unions to political causes are funded by agency fees and shows no sign of having researched that. The Janus decision, which makes agency fees unconstitutional, will hurt our ability to represent bargaining unit members in the workplace. Political contributions will go on on a voluntary basis as before.
8
The author makes no representation that the contributions made by unions to political causes are funded by agency fees and shows no sign of having researched that.
oK, Then something else:
WHY wasn't this made clear, or argued, at any lower courts?
$500 to $1000 take home pay.
Workers will be rushing to stop it.
Only question is how quickly the unions are going to be reduced to half their size.
5
They have already been reduced. The libertarian owners of the Republican party have been working on that for quite awhile. They have been very effective in getting people to act against their own best interest.
6
Readers should recall that one of the premises of Justice Kennedy's Citizens United opinion is that unions would contribute to political campaigns just as corporations and the wealthy do, and that union contributions would counterbalance donations from the latter two. (The opinion also seemed to assume that there could be legislation mandating transparency as to donors, something unlikely to happen).
6
Exactly, and thank God! Why should I be forced to pay for organizations/causes that I do not want to contribute to, no matter how "noble" or "progressive" their ideas and programs.
In no other instance would liberals be in favor of this. I may think that a church does good to all people and needs to be supported financially. Imagine the outcry if liberals were forced to give money to Christian organizations.Talk about hypocrisy!
Being forced to fund leftist groups via dues-paying to SEIU as I was, violated every basic right I have as an American. I am over the moon that this coercive practice has at last been stopped.
Think of a group you despise. Then imagine being forced to give it money.
13
My wife is a retired teacher and was a union member. We experienced the benefit of union representation in an issue of equal pay for equal work. Who is against that? So you do not want to pay union dues, OK. Why then should be getting what the union won in negotiation? If a job action is registered against you by law, the union, who you did not financially support, is obligated to represent you. I guess this is free (Speech) in action!
4
But WHY WOULD YOU work for said organization / cause in the FIRST place?
3
I agree, and asked to be allowed to function "on my own," without receiving the "benefits" the union negotiated. The union would not allow it.
Public employee unions are the worst form of racketeering. Even FDR opposed them.
11
Democrats must not be distracted by this decision. They must remain laser focused on what's important...
Advocating for low-wage illegal immigrants.
13
Most all private sector jobs do not provide pensions and the employees have to personally fund 90% of their 401K .
When are public sector pensions going to be replaced by 401Ks ?
8
So called “progressives”-especially of the academic ilk-have been slamming unions for years. This development serves them right.
2
When I worked for the Feds (late 2000 - early 2008) under a special presidential disability appointment initiative, living in a right-to-work state, I chose not to join the union as my starting salary was $25k/yr.
Seven and one-half years later when I resigned, my salary was ~$39k/yr. Joining the union would have hampered my advancement and earning potential since I went above and beyond my job duties as an Assistant Investigator to two other Federal Investigators who have disabilities.
4
The union would not have held you back. They don't determine the outcome of your annual review and that is what prompted the advancement. The rules union and non-union contributing employees have are the same. Someone feed you misinformation. Please don't pass it on.
5
My work ethic is to always exceed my position description. Because my brain injury doesn't allow me to sleep more than several hours a night, I'm in the hobby of researching various topics of interest via search engine and newspapers around the country.
While working for this agency, I began searching the business sections of 40-50 online papers EARLY each morning, in addition to the email search engines I received and compiling a brief summary of the articles to myself at the office and, when I got to the office at 5:45-6A CS/DT, then send them to the office of Communications in DC where they posted articles and press release on the agency Intranet site.
After 6-years or so years, the top Union person in the office got word of this and I got in trouble for not getting paid for a HOBBY...
That just reinforces one of my issues with paying money to protect my job. If I'm NOT doing the job I was hired to do, firing is appropriate after a warning, not transferring.
FDR warned us about public sector unions -- as they will insist on laws that work in the interest of them alone.
Has this not happened?
When a union became nothing but a group of individuals (with free speech right) how is it any jump for a corporation to have the same rights. Can't I have a collective voice ??
You can't keep doing something that we all know is inherently wrong before the nuances get you.
This was an individual fighting a union with greater ramifications -- but, there was really no other way to rule.
Kagan is great .. but, she was political on this one.
2
Kagan is clearly political on all of them. She belongs in one of the progressive think tanks named in the article, not on the Supreme Court.
2
Why wouldn't anyone insist on laws that work?
Management is always going to force you to do things, even things you know you're not bound to do. Your option: Do it or hit the road.
You can always protest. See where that gets you in your current job.
Your boss is not your friend.
3
Unions aren't corporations.
Unions ORGANIZE labor forces. That means WORKERS.
Corporations produce things, or at least they should. Otherwise what's the point of the corporation?
I think you know that but are reluctant to admit it.
The UAW is not mutually inclusive of FORD, or GM.
FORD is the corporation.
UAW is the union.
See the difference??????
3
At some point, working folks will realize that anti-union, "business-friendly" politicians are really only interested in increasing profits at the expense of workers. It will materialize in stagnant wages, increasing cost sharing for health care, and diminished job security. Oh wait! That stuff is already happening /ed! When working folks finally realize this, hopefully they will stop voting against their own interests, and elect candidates that support the middle class and working men and women over millionaires, billionaires, and corporations!
8
The fees in question are agency fees, which are supposed to be used only for contract negotiations. Fees for political actions were already not required. If removing forced agency fees will lead to a reduction in political activity, it has to make you think that whole premise of the existing setup is a fraud.
10
this article anecdotally appears to reinforce the claims behind the Janus case; that union actions, both directly and indirectly, are inherently political. Strictly speaking, the rules may allow individuals to reclaim a percentage of their dues, but difference between right to work and non-right to work states speak to what we already know from behavioral experiments in retirement savings (see: Thaler et al.): opt in and opt out are not at all the same. Moreover, how one defines the appropriate percentage of dues and activities that qualify as agency fees becomes very dicey. This is unquestionably a set back. But as the economy grows and the labor market tightens, combined with an increasing focus on income equality, worker rights may well return to the fore. unions were always a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. Union corruption is itself a legitimate problem in some instances. this article also suggests an entire ecosystem of players and activities to help protect worker rights. Just as candidates have exploited new technologies to go directly to voters for financial and electoral support (see: New York House race), so to can Labor now speak directly to the electorate. if anything, this is a spur to innovate.
6
Why should workers be forced to pay for political support they don't agree with? Good decision, Supreme Court got this one right.
7
Th e suit was about workers paying fees to reimburse the union for costs incurred for wage/benefit negotiations not for political actions. The Supreme Court go it wrong. It now allows non union workers to reap the benefit of the union wage negotiations without paying for it.
8
So it goes like this.... We will increase your salary and then reduce it ourselves? Sounds fishy.
The Janus ruling is not preventing people from giving money to unions; the ruling simply stops the forced giving of such money.
This article is effectively saying that members of unions don't see the value in giving away their hard earned money to union leaders to treat as their own piggy bank.
If unionize workers want to continue to contribute, no one is stopping them.
I would think defenders of the little guy would applaud this ruling.
8
"I would think defenders of the little guy would applaud this ruling"
Really? If the union folds because of this ruling then the little guy is on his own. Don't you think he'll be crushed? It will no longer be a collective working together for, (most of) the same goals. Divided they will certainly be weakened and their rights will suffer as a result.
7
This ruling is about public sector unions, not about unions as a whole. In the Private sector Unions do play the role of protector and helper. In the public sector the benefit to society as a whole is much more difficult to quantify, as it is hard to imagine a scenario where public sector employees need protection from oppression.
The deep hostility to organized labor evident in these comments is one thing; more appalling is the sheer, vindictive delight these commenters take at the prospect of labor’s decline, as if it is only political organizations affected, and not ordinary men and women across the country, trying to make a living when the deck is stacked in their employers’ favor.
Say what you will about unions getting too strong, but without them workers have few ways to shift the balance of power in the workplace.
After this decision, I certainly hope I never hear another MAGA-hat wearer decrying the loss of good blue-collar manufacturing jobs in this country- those were good jobs because they were union jobs.
8
I think you might want to reread the article. "this decision" is about public sector unions only. To quote the decision directly:
"The State’s extraction of agency fees from non-consenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment."
The government is not providing a lot of public sector "blue-collar manufacturing jobs in this country" ...well not until the emerging wave of Democratic Party socialists take over.
3
This article is proof that American Politics is about nothing but money.
Ninety percent of the time in an American election, the side that spends the most money wins. This cancer, which is due to a massive failure of the human thought system - brought on by the Television Virus - has rotted out both the left and the right.
Vapid minds do the Devil's thinking.
7
Union dues cannot be used for political causes. The article does nothing to communicate that fact and ignorance of it permeates the comments here, even among some pro-union comments.
I belong to a union of university faculty and professionals and happily pay my dues, which come back to me in many union-negotiated benefits. I pay my union to negotiate for all of us and the benefit is that my colleagues and I have protection against arbitrary dismissal, the best salary possible, good health benefits, and retirement benefits.
During the Great Recession, faculty at many non-unionized colleges faced layoffs and salary reductions. We also lost some faculty because the administration de-activated three departments. But the de-activation was phased gradually, which buffered the damage. Overall, we came out of the recession much better than colleges without unions.
No one is required to join our union, but everyone is required to contribute the same salary percentage (1%) and everyone receives the benefits. The few non-members who are currently fee-payers will likely stop paying fees, but that won't kill our union.
I grew up in an anti-union household, but I have learned the value of unions. The benefits also spread out to non-union establishments because they have to offer their employees comparable salary and benefits. Most people don't recognize that at all. To those who want unions to disappear, I can only say,
"You don't miss your water 'till your well runs dry."
10
"I belong to a union of university faculty and professionals..."
Meanwhile, the cost of college is rising many times faster than the consumer price index, and the student loan burden (such as students leaving college $200,000 in debt) has become a national crisis.
Could there be a relationship here? Please discuss.
@Robert Orban,
Thank you for asking. I teach at a public undergraduate college, and I can assure you that rising costs are not due to faculty salaries. Here's an article to look up from the Chronicle of Higher Education, November 7, 2008: "Despite What Many Think, Faculty Pay Isn't the Big Drive of College Costs".
The article demonstrates that faculty salaries were basically flat in inflation-adjusted numbers from 1986 to 2005. That includes public and private schools.
So what's driving the cost increases? Part of it is the increased student demand for services, which colleges accommodate as they competitively recruit students, but those services get tacked onto the bill. My school keeps hiring non-teaching administrators and service staff (counselors of various sorts, etc) but we rarely get a new faculty line, even as student numbers rise. Across the US, the number of administrative positions in colleges grew about 60% from 1993 to 2009, according to data from the Department of Education.
The other, hidden driver of tuition increases at public schools is that state legislatures keep reducing the funding of higher education. The percentage of our campus budget covered by state allocations declines each year. As that funding shrinks, the only way to make it up is by tuition increases. New York state is no exception.
Legislatures and governors just don't seem to value education very highly any more.
But please, don't blame the faculty.
Why do we all keep pointing at someone or something else for this nation’s descent into political and social chaos. Corporation, Oligarchs, politicians and political strategists would not have achieved this goal without our cooperation as the acceptably ignorant, intolerant, lazy and uniformed citizenship, and our choice to cling to the unsustainably exploitive System’s of human exploitation, manipulation of truth, lies and injustice, and willful divisions that weaken the power of the people who are the foundation and future of this nation.
All this pointing makes this the new Era of Scapegoating that leads to nothing but increasing errors in perception, paralyzation, and distraction from the cause and the solutions to the chaos that public neglect, 4th Estate bias favoring corporations and the investor class, and political/social/economic predators have created in our name.
5
Politicians in robes, pure and simple. This is about political power, not free speech, and everyone knows it.
8
Yes, and the Supreme Court politicians are part of the march toward a totalitarianism that is wrapped in the trappings of an dead democracy. In the end, the US Constitution will be used and strictly interpreted, as is Bible, to justify whatever the controlling leadership wants to see happen. The sheep faithfully follow the pastor's path.
3
None of the liberal media outlets are talking about Kagan's dissent opinion:
"“The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation’s law—and in its economic life—for over 40 years. "
Huh? It's either right or wrong. It doesn't matter how long it's been a law. Good Grief!
"unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.”"
Huh? That is what they did when they allowed unions to steal money from it's non-members. They intervened.
"The First Amendment was meant for better things."
Huh? This is exactly what the First Amendment is for. If you take my money, I can't use it to support candidates I like. You are restricting my speech.
Kagan is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.
7
The decisions is not primarily about having to pay for union political action. There is already a Supreme Court decision that says that employees who do not agree with a unions's political stand do not have to pay that portion of union dues that is spent on politics. What this decision is doing is allowing workers who opposed the very existence of unions to not pay union dues but still get the wage, hour and worker benefits that the union negotiates for. The First Amendment has nothing t to do with negotiations for wages and benefits. Pure and simple this is a union busting decision. An anti-union workers now does not have to pay for the Union's costs in negotiation for their wages and benefits.
5
Kill the unions you kill the Democrat party. Let's not be children and pretend this about anything other than that. No matter what the words of the lawsuit or of the ruling. Break the unions you keep control of power.
5
Kill the unions and you kill decent wages, benefits and working condition for the workers. Just read the history of worker's wages and working conditions before the rise of unions.
7
This article is the best support for the Supreme Court's Janus decision that I have seen to date. Public employee unions are political organizations. There is nothing wrong with that, but employees who don't share their political views should not be required to support them.
7
Know your laws. Employees are NOT required to pay dues that go towards political purposes.
3
But the rules make it extremely difficult to 'opt out' of paying!
WHEN THE LABOR UNIONS Start to be forced into contracts that end job security, decent working conditions, good benefits and pensions, because they don't participate in the politics that are the lifeblood of unions and good US jobs, it will be too late. The time is now for the Unions to fight back against the censorship of the current ruling of the Supreme Court by having an opt out format for union dues. That they will be deducted unless a employee opts out. Otherwise, the Unions, one of the remaining strongholds for workers' rights, are going to be killed off by the GOPpers.
8
The citizens United case said money is speech so corporations and union could spend as much as they want on free speech. Now the Republican Supreme Court has taken the the ability of the unions to speak away.
Democratic Leadership gave this ruling to you. Their cowardice while the Supreme court was stolen. Republicans just do what the do. Steal,cheat and lie to make their donors happy. What do you get from the Democrat leadership?
2
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that Unions provide legal, health and retirement benefits to all members paying dues. It is not just about politics.
Going forward, the Unions will simply stop providing those benefits to those who opt out. And, those who opt out will find out the hard way that they were getting a lot more from the Unions than they were led to believe. Those who opt out will also loose their bargaining power during contract negotiations.
To be clear, it is also a huge win for those who see any form of organized labor as anathema to their goal of privatization of every endeavor of human activity.
It is a catastrophic long term blow to working class employees and the ability of teachers to earn a living wage, as well as the survival of public education as we know it.
It is insidious capitalism that will eventually convince us that it is a good thing for us to have to pay for the air we breathe.
7
Health and retirement benefits are not funded by union dues (or agency fees) under any arrangement of which I am aware. They are funded by employer (and sometimes employee) contributions required by the collective bargaining agreement or (in the case of public employee unions) applicable law. Nothing in Janus affects that.
3
You have to wonder….is it the principle of union dues supporting a particular political agenda that most disagree with or is it the principle of the money, the weekly/ monthly union dues being collected that is resented and reducing income? The same people that complain about these dues will be the first to reach out to the Union should they experience work related issues. How about the company these people work for contributing to a political party they may object to? Would they turn around and voice their resentment and ask their employers to cease making the contributions and instead increase their salaries, or maybe take them to court?
Ironically and sadly, how about the tax dollars we pay to support a government for not doing their respective jobs; a government that supports their own constituency and Wall Street and not all the people; a government which creates wars while depriving millions of services, decent health care, living and education. Why doesn’t the broken and dysfunctional Supreme Court rule on that one?
3
Unions exist to protect workers against unscrupulous employers. In the public sector, the employer is our government. Is our government an unscrupulous employer? Why do public sector unions exist in the first place?
7
Doesn’t this just prove the court’s point?
10
So many people don't see what is happening here:
Republicans made sure more money from the very rich - and that means the very few - goes into politics.
Now they have reached the goal of less money from organized labor - and that means the very many - in politics.
This is atomization of democratic participation.
As is intended.
5
Can't the Democrat millionaires and billionaires fund this? Hillary got a billion in overseas donations to her "foundation". You've got the CEOs of Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon - all multi-billionaires. And Buffet. Maxine Waters somehow became a multi-millionaire, and she's certainly not housing any illegal immigrant families on her front lawn. What about all of the Hollywood millionaires? New York's Wall Street and its bankers? Seems like the Democrat party of the rich doesn't require 10% of every working person's salary, but it is a great extortion scheme.
2
Less money in Democratic coffers and maybe states can get out from under crushing public employee pension debt. Win/win.
5
Public pensions, bargained by the unions (which prevented their replacement by 401Ks) are still alive and well. And no union haters are turning them down.
6
Nowadays federal law protects workers more than sufficiently. The need for public sector unions has morphed into the "need" for big throbbing leftie organizations that guzzle money and seem to promote a "too much red tape to hold poor performance accountable" paradigm, see e.g., any Teacher's Union. This is supposed to be a free country but the unions seem to want to force people to pay big money for things they don't want. Kind of like any leftie big government approach. Basically its another important loss for the lefties is the takeaway.
6
So 60% of union members are wrong?
1
Strong unions are terrible - the only thing worse is weak or non-existing unions.
There is in most cases a fundamental power asymmetry between employers and employees which unions counterbalance. If the policy in the US continues to be fundamentally anti-employees you get worse inequality, low(er) political participation, frustations and fertile ground for anti-democratic forces.
5
Does this mean that those who don't like what the government does or stands for shouldn't be required to contribute toward the benefit that they receive from public roads, courts, police, fire fighters, military, or other public services? Our nation is essentially a "union" of the populace, at least for now, and we all need to contribute collectively for those things that benefit us all.
For those who oppose unions, remember, as you enjoy a paid holiday, a 40-hour work week - and overtime pay for working longer hours, a decent wage and benefits, labor unions paved the way for those things. It is easy to find something to disagree with about unions but, by and large, they have elevated the lives of all workers and their families.
This Supreme Court matter was funded by conservative business interests - not mom-and-pop shops, but those like the Koch brothers. Unfortunately our judiciary has been auctioned off to the highest bidders and American workers are no longer able to compete.
8
"we all need to contribute collectively for those things that benefit us all."
And now everyone can contribute collectively to the organizations that they believe represent them. Contribute by choice, not force. How can that be a bad thing?
1
What I found especially egregious were the home health care and child care unions in Illinois and Michigan who forced the parents of handicapped children to pay union dues from the child's state support checks. Even worse, the state actually deducted the dues from disability checks. In Illinois, the SIEU actually sued to continue the practice.
Why is it that public sector union workers are according to research, paid substantially more than their private citizen counterparts, and are widely viewed as unanswerable to the public, and immune from termination even for cause? Because it's true.
13
And on the other end of the argument chain, we have 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair.
4
Home health care WORKERS pay union dues, not those receiving home health care.
Your comment about public sector union workers being "immune from termination" is also nonsense.
5
Dave C - Are you upset that the home health workers in unions get paid more? Or that some of that extra pay is put toward the union's political action to make sure workers have decent pay and job protection? It sounds to me like the private health care workers would be wise to get a union also!
2
Political contributions were already divorced from union dues. The dues were only to be used to bargain collectively.
This is clearly a win for corporations and Republicans based on the politics of the court and not on jurisprudence. Labor is a commodity in the US and that is a sad state of affairs.
6
"Political contributions were already divorced from union dues."
That is simply not true. Unions are donate HUGE amounts of money. Far more than the vilified NRA.
3
You are absolutely wrong. Unions are NOT allowed to spend union dues for political campaigning. For that, they have to establish PACs and those contributions are NOT tax-deductible.
A new bargaining chip should be union members shall have better benefits and pay than the freeloaders, especially retirement. Let the freeloaders take whatever their employers offer, no questions asked. You're on your own.
4
Exactly! I asked for this when I was forced to pay SEIU. They would not allow it.
1
Then you should accept whatever your employer offers that's less than what unions bargain.
Labor unions have strong organizational capabilities that would be difficult to replicate. The unions should set up a crowd funding website to allow concerned citizens to help make up for the loss of union member revenue.
3
and not just crowd funding. this is very much an opportunity and a spur to innovate. unions, like all other organizations, can (have) grown tired and stale and complacent (with regards to the directionality of their business model). this is an opportunity.
1
As a former dues union paying member, I was frustrated by the use of my dues to fund the political campaigns of candidates whose political beliefs and policies I disagreed with. The militant members of the union, more interested in power within the union and the desire to create a confrontational relationship with business management, forced members into silence who opposed their decisions. Harassment at work, vandalized vehicles, annoying phone calls, being shunned, were all part of the playbook to get compliance or silence from members. This decision hopefully reign in the militancy of many unions and get them to refocus on spending dues on improving work conditions and better wage and benefits.
23
Agency fee payers DON'T pay for a union's political work.
4
Right. And abortions don't pay for Planned Parenthood's political work. And they only recoup their costs from cutting open a baby's face and extracting the brains for sale. There's no profit, because, well, they spend it all.
Until seeing this article, I thought agency shop fees were justified. Being that so many organizations have been dependent on involuntarily given union member dollars, perhaps the Supreme Court made the right call. Who knew?
12
Who said that these contributions were coming from mandatory fees?
I am surprised at the reaction to this ruling. I worked for the federal government and I was in the union. I quit because I thought the union president was saying untrue things about my agency, no way close the untruths said by our country's president about my agency. But I was in the minority after I quit. I think most people join the union to protect themselves against bad managers. There is no upward review of managers in the federal govt. Until managers are adequately reviewed and held accountable, there will be a demand for unions in the federal government whether mandatory enrollment or not.
1
(1) A public union cannot force non-members to pay agency fees because the actions that the union takes on behalf of the employees itself constitutes political speech of how to raise & spend money. Private unions can still, in principle, collect agency fees. (2) The case turns on First Amendment rights, which an employee cannot waive freely and a waiver must be demonstrated by clear and compelling evidence. Therefore it is now illegal for the union to implement a system under which that the fee will be deducted unless the employee objects. By implication, it is also illegal to pressure employees to consent or to make it procedurally virtually impossible to leave a union or withdraw consent once given. If unions (even pursuant to state law allowing them to do so) already engage in such shenanigans, they may face punitive damages or perhaps even criminal prosecution for violating a clear constitutional right. (3) It was clear that the Justices (at least those in the majority) have little tolerance for over-reach. They noted that a non-member from whom agency fees were being deducted had no real way of auditing whether the amount was truly reflective of the cost of collective bargaining. Private unions had better be prepared to give a full accounting at to charge no more than the average cost (or perhaps no more than the marginal cost) or else they will find themselves barred from collecting agency fees in case after case going forward.
3
Funny, I thought the nib of unions was to represent their workers in negotiations with employers, not funnel a cut of the worker's paycheck to progressive special interest groups. Tens of millions of dollars, really?
13
The retrograde forces now in power know exactly what they are doing.
This has been their goal for 5 decades.
5
In Canada too, Big Corporation perfectly understand that the unions are big contributors to social causes which in your country are called "liberal" cause. And we have our Mark Janus. His name was Merv Lavigne and he was backed by a right wing group the National Citizens Coalition which was formed to fight against public health care and other left causes or policies. In 1991, the Supreme Court role ruled against Lavigne who wanted not paying union dues for political causes or activities. That was a closed call.
And I will concluded with a personal story. In 1976 a ran in a provincial election as a candidate of a left wing coalition (Coalition NPD-RMS). Our program was the workers demands, much of them adopted in labor conventions and the need of a working class party to defend and implement them. I participated in a an all-candidates debate. Guest what was the line of attack of the two candidates (Liberal and Union nationale) of the Big Business parties? Unions finances. They were talking about the necessities for the government to control the way the unions spend their money. They understood that the threat to the monopoly of Big Business on politics was not us (I got only 78 votes on a total of 26 826) but the unions. One year later in 1977 the Parti québécois government adopted a law forbidden corporations and unions to finance a political party. Liberal party and Union national supported the legislation. After all CEOs has other means to control political parties.
2
So employers who oppose Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage, maximum hour, or family leave or paid leave legislation that requires them to post notices in the workplace notifying employees of their rights simply have say they are being forced to speak on matters they disagree with now have a first amendment right not to comply with the posting requirements of the law. They are being forced to speak every bit as much as the non-union members of the bargaining unit who had to pay for what they were getting. Law professors at Yale and the University of Chicago law schools in the 1960's would laugh at the Supreme Court's decision and tell us it contradicts the accepted power of legislatures to enact minimum standards economic legislation for the common good.
4
Unions will have to learn from local and national public broadcasting companies: how to generate donations to support continued programming from people who can watch and listen for free, or how to inspire members to join for their long-term benefits, say higher wages or better retirement packages.
3
The interesting thing about this article is that it actually supports the Court's ruling. If the "agency fee" was used solely for bargaining costs, than removing it would not have any effect on the donations to any causes, since those would be supported by those members who paid full dues. It seems obvious from the figures contained herein that this was not the case.
21
The admission, ‘It will also hit hard at a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates’ clearly indicates that the unions spend the dues, coercively collected from the workers, in support of causes that most workers would not contribute to left on their own or if they have a choice.
23
Union workers may well give up their membership, not because they disagree with their unions political positions. They were already free from paying that portion of dues that went towards political activity. Since all workers benefit from gains made by the union, whether they are members or not, many workers will figurwe they can now get those benefits for free. A victory for the schnorrers.
3
This article seems to affirm the basic point of Janus: agency fees taken from union non-members were being used -- evidently to a substantial degree -- to fund political programs and initiatives.
In the overruled Abood case, a far-differently populated Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment rights were violated by demands that non-members pay dues, where those dues were used to fund political programs. The premise of Abood -- and evidently its fiction -- was that a First Amendment balance was struck by compelling non-members to pay agency fees yet forbidding unions from using those fees to fund political programs.
But the resulting problem is obvious enough. Money is fungible, and the nature of its allocation can be vague and subjective. What exactly constitutes political spending? Donating to a political candidate or party obviously counts. But that is easy. What about more ambiguous expenditures? And in the case of public unions, certain of their efforts seem inherently political in nature since they make demands on how public monies are spent and how public policies are shaped. Even supporters of Abood in the amicus briefs acknowledged that money gained from agency fees over several decades had, in fact, financed programs that reasonable people would deem political.
And this article seems to confirm that. After all, if agency fees really only funded core union activities, why does their prohibition take away, in the words of this article, a "Liberal Money Base"?
27
So Sen. Susan Collins (R, Me) as usual attempts to sound moderate by announcing that she will not support any nominee who shows "hostility" toward Roe v. Wade. Very "reasonable" sounding, but we have seen this movie before, with her votes on healthcare and the tax cut for the 1%. And, of course, any nominee who is not a complete outlier will have the sense not to show "hostility," and in the end she will cast her vote for confirmation. And then, after this Kabuki Dance, the SC will use their new conservative majority to get down to the business of dismantling Roe v. Wade, if not outright overturning it.
3
I'm curious, Dan. What effect would not having an abortion have on you? I'm guessing more child-support payments?
I have difficulty understanding what is wrong with the Court decision.
Mandatory union fees do make a lot of sense for non-public sector unions though.
7
This is part of the on going GOP War on Women. Union, especially teachers' unions are big Democratic contributors. Diminishing their power ( i.e. Wisconsin) is part of their on going strategy. The majority of teachers in the US are still women. Yet another attempt to limit the power of women to control their own lives.
2
Workers that refuse to support a union at their workplace should also be willing to forgo all pay raises and benefits negotiated by that union.
9
This is fantastic! Of the most recent 20 or so comments I just read, the majority either see the logic of this Court ruling or are outright delighted by it. Not only are these government employees no longer going to be forced to pay for their fat-cat bosses' political donations if they don't agree with them, but the NY Times' readers are showing signs of rebellion as well. Good on youse!
32
Public Sector unions were nothing more than a gigantic slush fund for the democratic party. A superb decision by SCOTUS.
31
I totally agree with this decision as well. You can try and bring up all the peripheral fluffy things but this was organised theft and had to be stopped.
15
Could it be that workers' unions supported the Democratic party *because it supported workers*, while the Republican party did everything it could to undermine and crush workers?
7
"Republican party did everything it could to undermine and crush workers? "
Do you mean lower their taxes and create a better economic climate which created more and better jobs?
1
I was hired as a consultant for a large metropolitan housing authority and although I was not an employee, my paychecks showed deductions for Union Dues. Not only was I not a union member, I was told that as a consultant I could not join their ranks although they'd be happy to take my money. I protested and was told it is the way it is. The unfairness of it was quite pointed when new wage or benefit increases for the union did not impact my compensation package. And of course the union would not intervene on my behalf in an employee / employer dispute. There is a word for taking my money without my permission and without any benefit: It's called thievery. At long last, I can now stop the unions from stealing money out of my paycheck. I'll gladly donate to progressive causes, just not by force and against my will.
27
“Liberal activists argue that closing that pipeline was a crucial goal of the conservative groups that helped bring the case, known as Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.” “Conservatives have acknowledged as much.”
Of course, such matters simply can’t be a concern of the Citizens United Supreme Court. Their job is to run cover for billionaires under the guise of “rights” for the little man. Yeah.
7
It's clear from the list of causes that will no longer be receiving cash - forcibly taken from (non union) government workers - that the Supreme Court got this one right.
These were not groups representing the government workers in their contract negotiations... they were political causes that government employees may not wish to support and have nothing to do with their job conditions or contracts.
Hard to fault this ruling unless you believe it's fair to take hard earned dollars from workers who do not even belong to a union against their will to fund left-of-center political groups.
40
And only fair if those workers have to negotiate for themselves with employers. No union negotiated benefits, period.
2
John -
No doubt, workers may benefit from union representation. While I respect your perspective (period.) we're talking about employees of our own government - not some for-profit corporation.
This NYT article clearly highlights how leftist political groups are now suffering from reduced union $$$ ... so, if these forced "agency" fees from unwilling public servants weren't making their way into the hands of these political groups, why will there now a funding crisis for such activists?
Thanks, NYTimes, for proving the union scam was not imagined.
Every American should applaud this decision. Forcing government workers to support political causes they may oppose is outrageous. Defunding leftists is a wonderful bonus.
36
And forcing unions to negotiate for those who aren't paying dues is also outrageous. Would the Supreme Court also force a corporation to provide a service to a group of people that refused to pay for it? Unlike the baker and the wedding cake, unions can't refuse to negotiate for those not paying dues or agency fees. Unions are forced to represent freeloaders.
5
The decision in a vacuum seems reasonable. The Supreme Court's conservatives haven't done this in a vacuum. They are responsible for citizens United.
I find this tilting of the playing by the Supreme Court extremely dangerous.
We have already seen how our Republican form of government has devalued some voters while overvaluing other voters. It's a nice temporary win for the right but that could well change down the road.
Most Conservatives who claim to be "Originalist" remember the battle cry of our founders. "No taxation without representation."
When the guns are lined up don't be surprised if the Republic that elected Conservatives has less guns and less people to defend their views...Without fairness we are doomed to another disastrous civil war.
5
I hate the decision. I also hate that it takes organizations to get people to actually vote in this country.
If you need organizations to gin up people to actually vote that says something terrible about the citizens of this country. Maybe we deserve a dictator to tell us what's good for us?
3
Exactly. Which is why this case was easy. No one should be able to compel a worker to subsidize offensive political views. Perhaps if unions should have stuck to representing their members in collective bargaining, rather than joining the dark web of leftist groups tearing our country apart.
24
Public employee unions should be abolished. They facilitate bribery of public officials, who corruptly trade lavish employee wages and benefits in exchange for union votes and political contributions. The end result is inevitable bankruptcy of state and local governments.
45
Unions heavily fund candidate A. Candidate get elected, buys continued union support by voting to approve pay raises and overgenerous but underfunded pension liabilities. Also police contracts which shield officers from interrogation after police homicides. Politician retires. City teeters near bankruptcy due to underfunded pension liabilities, then learns union backed state laws prohibit cities from modifying union contracts even in bankruptcy.
You can trace our national public sector pension liability nightmare directly to unions massive political contributions to compliant politicians who know theu will be retired in Florida before their Ponzi scheme blows up.
3
Corporations bribe politicians to keep workers wages and benefits and "welfare" lower than what citizens believe they ought to be...unless you are wealthy you shouldn't be in such a hurry to right one wrong without righting the other first.
3
Oh, so you prefer that public officials be corrupted by campaign financing and backscratching from corporations and billionaires! Tell me, which do you think has more money in the game. If you don't know how the plutocrats fund politicians, your innocence is both breath-taking and unconsciouable.
1
What union workers get paid "trickles down" to everyone, unlike the super high pay for executives. However, Americans actually like their executives getting lots while getting only cost of living raises. Americans must like it. They keep voting for it over and over since Reagan.
9
What is the difference between union dues being used to support candidates or issues even though some members might disagree with them and company funds being used to support candidates or issues that stockholders might disagree with?
6
A stockholder can sell his or her stock. Union "Agency Fees" are an employment requirement. There are many other differences, but this is the most obvious.
6
But you could also leave your job - as conservatives are always quick to say when someone has complaints about their workplace.
Gee, I wonder why conservatives aren't embracing their usually beloved free market solution for this one issue?
Stockholders can easily sell their stock.
1
I also support this ruling in essence.
What we also need are strong campaign finance rules, and to jettison the absurd notion that corporations are people.
Surely the commenters on this article who are sore about union agendas and lobbying would be equally sore about corporate political speech. Right?
18
Please! Corporations are legal persons. This is a general principle of international constitutional law. Period.
But this doesn´t matter in effect when it comes to the issue of campaign funding you have raised.
You are right: Clear campaign finance rules enshrined in Constitution and, to put it mildly, legally robust in regard to very "individual" High Court judges thinking of some remote amendments are required. But it must always prevail when the finance matter is thematically relevant no matter whether it is a natural person or a corporation.
To make a difference would be the biggest mistake you can make in this matter. It´s not the "basic legal capacity of a legal person" - to use the international term to adress the problem you have mentioned - that has led to the "Citizens United" problem but the absence of "Strong campaign (party) financing rules" for all kind of legal or natural persons.
If only your proposal was to apply the funding would be made by a "person" - in practise a billionaire - instead of a corporation. This would create the same efffect as perfect circumvention. When it comes to the funding issue there is no big difference whether, say, Mr. Koch, a legal entity called "Freedom X" or a Koch-owned corporation is paying the money. If I were adviser of billionaires I would tell them "First take the money out of your company, give it to a person and let this person pay the donation directly to the party. Legal!"
Your proposal is right but too short.
Corporations have been legal "people" since they were created in Venice centuries ago. Besides, corporate politic donations barely hold a candle to massive union contributions.
Commenters are saying that this ruling takes away the workers' right to representation. That's not so. It has given the individual worker the right not to join the union. We are going away from the social contract and toward individual rights, it seems, and this might, in the long run, be a good thing. The unions are not going away tomorrow. If they actually protect workers rather than lining their own pockets, these organizations will survive. Or maybe I'm ridiculously optimistic . . .
18
It's amazing how well the moneyed Republicans have co-opted working class Republicans to support the corporate assault on their own rights. They frame the unions as supporting "liberal causes" an "liberal candidates" and since nothing is more of a red flag than "liberal" the rank and file will support the demise of unions and their liberal causes. Just read the comments from those who are much more likely to benefit from "liberal causes" or "liberal candidates" through protections of the workers, their rights, and freedoms in lieu of big moneyed interests that conspire against them.
8
This is so weak. They "frame the unions as supporting liberal causes"? No one needs to "frame" the unions as supporting liberal causes. It's all they ever have done. Just thinking of the unions supporting conservative causes made me laugh out loud. And I love the sort of tag line about moneyed interests conspiring against them. These are the same moneyed interests that gave 5 million workers a bonus when the tax act was passed?
7
RE: "It's all they ever have done."
Unions are supposed to represent the workers. So why would they support the conservative causes that are arrayed against the working person?
You say 5 million got bonuses, Trump (how never exaggerates) says 3 million. The truth is out there somewhere. But even accepting 5 M that is a stunning 4%, 4% of the working population getting tax related bonus. Better than 0% but not exactly overly generous especially when many of those bonuses were in lieu of long term wage increases.
And left unmentioned, is that while some number got some bonuses totaling somewhere around $6 Billion these self-same corporations gave themselves some $170 Billion in stock buy backs. (Almost $100 billion more than the year before).
And just how much of that corporate/wealthiest tax cut giveaway passed by the GOP and signed by Trump will be plowed back into helping Republican candidates in coming elections? Oh, I'm guessing quite a lot.
In effect, the tax breaks that are used by corporations and billionaires for political contributions to support (mostly) Republicans and conservative causes are partially subsidized by the "mandatory fees" (aka taxes) the rest of us pay.
Sounds like a case for the Supreme Court.
8
Perhaps it was unintended but this article clearly explains why the Supreme Curt ruled as it did. What do donations to Washington think tanks or Latina voter groups have to do with representing workers negotiating employment terms? That is what workers expect and need from a union. And they can make their own political donations individually to what ever organization they wish!
54
Why do they need workers dues? Because it helps them recruit members, improve members' benefits, and help more people join the union to enhance their quality of work life. I'm sure you and others will finally remember, when unions are gone, why they were formed in the first place. If you have children or grandchildren, wish them luck with no workplace protections, all in the name of "free speech." Free to leave a job when you are treated poorly, free to pay your own health bills, and free to be exploited. Enjoy the new reality.
7
When unions were originally created, there were no labor laws. Today, everything that unions were created to provide is now incorporated in state and federal labor laws. If unions stop being Democrat political machines and spend their money actually doing something for workers, then, workers will be happy to join and pay dues. This ruling will cause unions to actually do things that their members want or they will perish. Righteous. Free market at work again.
1
CarolSon, you are correct. However, you didn't answer Danna Gray's question: "What do donations to Washington think tanks or Latina voter groups have to do with representing workers negotiating employment terms?"
The great things Unions did in the past are very different than most of those listed in this article. Which is where Unions went off track. They strayed from Workers Rights to Everyone's Rights. Because of that, they lost.
At last the nexus between democratic politicians and labor unions has been dealt a blow. At the state and local level this arrangement resulted in outsized salary and benefits for 'public service employees' upending budgets and causing cities to go into bankruptcy all to the detriment of taxpayers.
21
You missed an essential point here. Unionized workers are already free to opt out of fees to the parent union (like AFSCME). But in many states, they were nevertheless required to pay a much lower fee to the local - called an agency fee. This fee is not used to fund political activity, but to cover the costs of collective bargaining: negotiating contracts and monitoring contract compliance. The Janus decision knocks down the mandate that workers pay an agency fee. The most direct impact won’t be on the budgets of big parent unions, but on the ability of small, non-political locals to carry out the basic business of the union. We can expect to see employers violate contracts with impunity, since the local can’t afford staff to do anything about it. Employers will drag out bargaining and push for cuts, knowing that the union representatives are a revolving cast of volunteers who can’t afford to attend marathon meetings.
Janus is a direct attack on public sector workers. Yes, as members realize they don’t have to pay any fees, some who already contribute to the big parent unions (even though they were never obligated to) will stop and the activities these groups support will lose funding. But the real impact and intent of Janus is to gradually wipe away the middle class benefits that public workers in many states now enjoy- pensions, good health insurance, low but decent wages, job security.
68
AS these benefits decline for union workers, so will they for all workers. Non-union jobs have these benefits, including better wages, because union jobs do. It was the only way to make non-union jobs attractive. As unions ability to gain better wages, working conditions, and benefits have been declining, non union workers wages and benefits have declined as well. Before demonizing organized labor, people should educate themselves on the history of the evolvement of unions. Without them, all who work could end up with the sixty hour, six day work week, no benefits, and bad management mistreating their employees.
5
two points in Janus that I think you missed:
1. workers have the "right" to opt out, but as the Court noted, unions pragmatically make it all but impossible to do so. members must explicitly opt out every year, within narrow time windows that are often not publicized, by means that are difficult to process. if we think that Republican efforts to suppress minority voters are real, take a look at those measures; unions use similar strategies with respect to "opt out" provisions. unions do good things; but they can become complacent and corrupt like any other organization.
2. as originally noted in Abood, drawing a line between permissible and impermissible spending is difficult. moreover, because money is fungible, perhaps juggling spending priorities enables your agency fees to be spent on wholly political causes because my agency fees are cross subsidizing. finally, Abood acknowledged that defining agency expenses is also difficult. funding a think tank that studies labor issues is debatable related because it provides evidence to support union positions when bargaining. is that an agency expense? Janus revisited the same question and came to a different balance point in arguably an appropriate fashion. the Court tried to strike a balance, allowed the "market" to play out over time, revisited the issue in light of new evidence, and came to a new conclusion.
3
" Yes, as members realize they don’t have to pay any fees, some who already contribute to the big parent unions (even though they were never obligated to) will stop."
I have witnessed this first hand with the local to which I belong. An employee near retirement quit because she said she could no longer afford the nominal fee (even though it was I'm sure less than what she spent monthly on fancy coffee drinks in the cafeteria). I knew her to be quite liberal in her thinking, so I doubt quitting the union was due to any philosophical issue. I think it was simply the case of someone choosing to be a free rider because there were really no consequences to her doing otherwise.
I was faculty at UC, Berkeley, and while the campus staff were represented, we were not. I could understand someone not wanting to pay union dues in one of the few remaining fair workplaces, and the new American conservative has adopted the disdain for unions through Fox News brainwashing. I've often wondered if unions could re-structure in the workplaces and those that did not want to participate would not get representation when the employer, as they often do, discriminate. Don't like unions, don't join, but don't come running when you get screwed by the boss. In the long term that will have to be the way it works. Still, the anti-union employees will always benefit from the pluses unions provide. That's not fair as if fairness existed in America anymore.
8
As I pointed out above, most people will give up having the union, at high cost, represent them, for the right to be promoted on merit, rather than seniority, as the unions insist.
6
If there was any doubt that union dues benefit a particular political view, then this article should dispel the doubt. The Supreme Court was 100% correct that people who wish to hold public sector jobs shouldn't have to support a political position they may disagree with.
27
If Citizens United conservative ruling was the first major blow to the free and fair elections and democracy, the latest public union case ruling that does away with the mandatory fee requirement virtually takes away the worker's right to unite and bargain for better wage and working conditions. Depriving the progressives, fighting for the working class interests, of funds is simply a conspitarial move to prevent the liberal advocacy groups from taking up the cause of the working class.
7
The unions can start separate PAC organizations that are not funded by union dues money. Some already have.
5
What this actually does is to force the unions to show potential members that their dues will make a positive difference in their lives. Workers are not prohibited from joining a union, they are just not required to do so.
If the union cannot show how they benefit the workers, either because they do no or because they are ineffective at communicating, they deserve to not be funded. If they can show this, the money will continue to flow in (and out).
2
How do you square your idea with of Citizens United giving a "blow to the free and fair elections and democracy" with Trumps victory of Hillary who spent almost DOUBLE what he spent?
As we saw in NY this past week, NOTHING beats a good message and a good campaign. So for all Hillary's Citizens United money, she didn't campaign in Wisconsin.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/campaign-spending-donald-...
2
This is fantastic news, no longer will I that taxpayer be forced to subsidize political efforts that I find reprehensible, as is the case with almost all of the positions the despicable national democratic party takes today.
I do not work for a public union, but believe they have no right to exist, period. This was a good decision by the SC, and not solely because I agree with it, but because this is just another example of the corruption of the dem party; that it needs to import huge numbers of illegals and impoverished legal immigrants all wholly dependent on its largesse paid for by my tax dollars - because citizens don't support its awful policies - is a sign of its cancerous nature.
Don't abolish ICE, abolish the national democratic party.
9
Please explain why public unions have no right to exist.
4
FDR STATED:
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."
"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."
Let’s talk about the reps and citizens united with it’s wealthy donors who practically fund republican candidates by themselves. Many unions do not extract money from dues, but rely on small, seperate, individual donations in support of their political beliefs, from their members. They don’t sit on their wallets, expecting some wealthy donor to pay for them. If you have weekends (or two days a week off), paid vacations, and any benefits, it’s thanks to the workers who fought in the early twentieth century, and sometimes lost their lives, to organize and create a better life for all of us.. If you don’t, thank the group of politicians (mostly Rs) who have fought to take these things away.
3
I am very confused. If what we've been told is that previously, dues associated with political speech were already optional, how is it that union dues for representation would impact the ability of unions to contribute? Unless, of course, perhaps the unions were in fact using some of this money for political purposes. If that is in fact the case, then the fact that it was only 5-4 in the Supreme Court is even more troubling.
12
Excuse me, but I believe that was the intention of taking this case to the Court and the intention of the five Conservative justices. This decision is not about fairness. In fact, it is about exactly the opposite. The GOP wants the Democrats and Liberals in the weakest position possible over the next six years to guarantee Trump and the Republican Party the best chance of keeping the White House and Congress. What better way to do that than to take away a power base for the Democrats. It is not rocket science, but Americans have gotten dense and accepting of way too many lies. I wonder why...
7
You know, with the labels changed around a bit, siphoning money from the public sector for political purposes can be (and has been) subject to prosecution. Just sayin'
6
No offense but why should Republican or Independent Union members have their dues spent on liberalism? Liberals have many top tier 1% rich donors to supply them with cash. Microsoft and Google's top people are worth well over 100 billion, plus many, many others who could cough up if they weren't so greedy..... if Republican or Independent members want to volunteer to give money, then fine....... Personally I would never ask a known liberal to donate for a Republican cause, it borders on being insane. No offense.
4
Maybe now that the spigot of taxpayer's dollars won't be automatically channelled back to left-leaning big government candidates, we will soon see the democrat backing of unions also dry up.
12
A much needed rebuke of the dem’s and union heads use of millions against the wishes in the age of trump who keeps putting union workers back on the job. Unlike the construction unions as dem’s keep fighting the wall that would give jobs for several thousand for years! A blaring example of millions of wasted money from there dues and the corruption of it’s head like trumka!
4
Look on the bright side Dems. The decision should take the money out of politics, one of your party’s core values.
12
Conservatives are no longer being forced to financially support leftists? That's not fair! Compulsion is as American as apple pie and corrupt labor unions. Trump!
8
So many 5-4 decisions. From what I have been seeing though it is the conservative judges that have been following the rule of law. The liberal judges are looking at the law and trying to interpret it to their wanting. The travel ban is a perfect example. Morally it may be wrong but legally it isn’t. The liberal judges sited the case of US citizens of Japanese descent being taken from their homes and but into camps in WW11. It isn’t even close to the same thing.
5
Our corporate overlords keep their large goals and the bigger picture in crystal clear focus while wage earners are distracted by petty red herrings like "you disagree with this union political position" or "this union boss is incompetent." The oligarchs are weakening worker protections, not just union protections, but environmental - health - safety - voting access - political rights - economic opportunity equality - public education - and on and on. In the large picture, they consistently and aggressively are creating an uneducated and politically manipulated worker underclass. Welcome to the new feudal age.
16
Today’s right wing radical extremist Supreme Court majority allow the ultra rich to bribe politicians with unlimited “donations”, support killing unions by starving them of funds, allow the GOP to aggressively gerrymander states, and enact voter restrictions. These radicals, who are on the verge of being fortified by a younger extremist, seek to lock in GOP minority rule permanently.
Unless Americans actually get out and vote in massive numbers, we will permanently lose our country to this oligarchy.
VOTE!
9
Emergency! Call the bored Maytag repairman.
The giant union/government money laundering machine has broken. Governments forced employees to join unions and pay union dues and fees; unions took some of that and “returned” it to Democrat politicians – who, in turn, enforced union strangleholds.
Now, even liberals admit that unions are threatened when employees are no longer forced to join and contribute. More and more it will be up to unions to reform themselves and serve their members first so they can survive without relying upon government coercion.
10
"The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees for government workers was not only a blow to unions. It will also hit hard at a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates". Were sweeter words ever written?
15
First I did belong to a union and negotiated several contracts for that union. Having said that, later in my career as a manager, I watched these same unions bargain benefits that I knew the public could not support. I do blame governmental bargainers for their weak response to these union contracts, but, now, many municipalities are feeling the pain of pensions in particular that no state or local government can sustain and work rules which make it all but impossible to dismiss incompetent workers. I do take issue with the dubious rational for this Supreme Court decision, but, also am sympathetic to governmental bodies attempt to check the power of these unions to such all the monies out of the public till.
4
This article clearly explains why the Supreme Court ruled that making nonmembers to make union payments violated the nonmembers' First Amendment rights: unions carry out political activities that are odd with many members' (and nonmembers') beliefs.
Given the long list of beneficiaries of unions' donations (Democratic Party and candidates, numerous liberal and progressive causes), we will have to redouble our individual efforts to ensure that Democrats and liberal causes continue to receive the support they need and deserve.
5
On a small scale, this decision does make sense in many ways, as several commentators have pointed out. But in the big picture, it is just part of the continued assault on the American worker and middle class by the tyranny of the Republican oligarchy. In combination with the awful Citizens United decision, there will be no counterweight to the propaganda funded by the Kochs (Americans for Prosperity). Murdochs (Fox News), and their brethren, since only those rich families can buy the media messaging needed to manipulate the electorate.
14
People can still join Unions. Citizens can still give donations.
Why are people so scared of this? Democrats have a winning message. Free education. Free healthcare. Open borders.
Once Democrats have won a majority in Congress they can legalize and grant citizenship to 20 million illegal economic migrants. They can open the borders and take in another 20 million.
That is a permanent majority right there. Democrats will control the government forever. Case closed.
7
The commenter's words: "Free education. Free healthcare. Open borders. Democrats have a winning message." This is socialism pure and simple, not the Democrats' platform, at least not yet.
If open borders becomes a plank in the Democrats' platform we can kiss the mid-terms and 2020 elections goodbye.
I think that this story does not make enough of the fact that so many government employees would choose not to support a liberal agenda if not forced to do so.
18
The Court's decision was on a case involving unions, but unions are just one of a class of organizations allowed to do things people do, such as contribute to elections. It could turn out to be a double-edged sword. A legally similar class is corporations. Corporate contributions are net much larger than unions'.
Since, like unions, corporations contribute directly and through PACs, both employees and shareholders are represented by such contributions of corporate funds - whether they wish to be or not!
Why, as a shareholder (owner) should I see funds I co-own be given to candidates I oppose just because they are pals with the CEO? Why should a young. executive be arm-twisted to put salary into the PAC because "It's expected. We built that 10% into your salary." Why should an Enron company jet be loaned to W Bush for the primary campaign? Why, as a worker, should I have my salary and benefits reduced and my plant falling apart while politicians get company funds? These are real examples from my experiences as an employee and Enron shareholder.
If we cannot be forced to contribute to union political activity for free speech reasons, why is our company allowed to use its funds and name in ways that misrepresent the views of many employees and shareholders?
24
Because, assuming its a public company, you are free to have ownership via purchasing stock or sell it if you do not like the direction and priorities of how management/Board spend your money. In this case these union workers had no choice. See the difference?
10
But you didn't address the point about the employees of said company.
RJPOST Workers paying fair share to a union for representing them in collective bargaining could leave and find another job if they disagreed with union positions just like shareholders are able to sell stock in a company using revenue to support political causes they disagree with. See the similarities?
I am sure those who don't want to join the right would give up the right to have the union represent them in grievances in exchange for the right to be promoted on merit, not seniority. How many will stay with the union if non-union members have side deals for merit promotion?
7
The republican assault on unions has been an essential component of their agenda for decades. Trump has provided a windfall to republicans that was unexpected and time limited.
They know that Trumps time on the stage is approaching the end and they are feverishly attempting to clear as many items on their wish list as possible before they enter the zones of uncertainty in the 2018 and 2020 elections.
The republicans are unsure when the "Great Awakening" will take place, but the time when Trumps base will come to realize they have been taken for a ride by Trump & Co. is inevitable.
How much time the Trump voters waste lying to themselves after the awakening is uncertain.
In the interim the democrats need to examine their old alliances and become the deal makers that Trump never really was.
They need to sit down with the unions and secure a path forward which includes some 21st century thinking, some common sense concessions, some relief for employers which includes the problem of toxic employees.
Not the ones who do their jobs and share a vision for the future of both their union and employer, but the ones who persistently flout the rules and hide behind their seniority and the union lawyers. The ones who have another, often personal, agenda that has more to do with mean spirited entitlement.
Solve that problem and union representation in this country will become the norm rather than exception.
4
I respectfully see two flaws in your argument: First, you assume that the prior Dem/Repub administrations were doing anything for the "Trump base" .. they were not. They both were equally lousy in exporting jobs and ignoring the needs of these people to have productive opportunities vs. handouts. Second, the "Trump base" is considerably smarter than you think .. they don't trust him any further than they do you Dem's .. the difference is he does listen and at least makes a show of trying to help. Can you and your party really say the same for this constituency over the past 30 years? I think not
4
"Second, the "Trump base" is considerably smarter than you think .. they don't trust him any further than they do you Dem's .. the difference is he does listen and at least makes a show of trying to help."
Point taken.
public unions only make sense when they can not buy off politicians i.e. obscene public pensions are the best example
10
Wow, buying politicians. It's a good thing that corporations don't do that.
4
If I don't want to join a union why should I be forced to do so? Socialism is out the window in this regard.
On the other hand, prospective employers will now be empowered to deal with individuals who are not union members individually and offer them contracts which may be less lucrative than those offered to union members or they may offer incentives to people to not join a union where the union has been a thorne in the side of the employer.
5
Well I have been required to be part of a Union that relegated my category of workers to the expendable group and so did little to protect us. We changed that by forming our own union. We now coordinate with the other union when appropriate but fight for our needs, because the other larger union had no interest in doing so. That said even without the union, working conditions would have been even worse, as non-union positions were horrible.
I am tired of people bellyaching about how bad their union is when they are unwilling to organize and fight for what they need. American's need for the illusion of autonomy is what has killed American wages.
10
I'm a retiree, but still a union member. And I donate and I vote. Progressives like Bernie Sanders demonstrated the power of small donors like me. The blue wave is coming to Congress and new pro-labor laws will be written. Young people, many who work two or three jobs, know the harsh economic truth that "the deck is stacked against them" by a pro-corporate Supreme Court and the conservative oligarch in The White House and his allies in Congress. The anti-union ruling is only the latest action attempting to solidify economic and political inequality. But, the day of reckoning is coming this November.
19
" But, the day of reckoning is coming this November."
I could swear I read this same sentence in 2016.
The winner of this US SC decision is the US Taxpayer. Hopefully, public sector unions can no longer fund local politicians to get their unrealistic pensions and other benefits passed without regard to cost to the US Taxpayer. I think this is good news.
24
Like Citizens United!Ending Citizens United would mean the winner is the US taxpayer.Hopefully, Citizens United can no longer fund local politicians to get their unrealistic policies passed without regard to the US taxpayer.I think that would be good news.
5
I am a union member and proud of it. Union members pay taxes too. I do not understand why anyone would begrudge hard working citizens a fair wage and retirement when this economy is so stacked against most working families. What person who works to provide for a family and live with some dignity would not appreciate the benefits a union can secure for them? Or is the "gig economy" just so attractive?
Money, it is said, makes the world go round. No money? The world can be pretty stagnant.
7
Whether unintentionally or not, the Times has laid out a strong case for why the SCOTUS decision was correct. Involuntary union dues were earmarked overwhelmingly for Liberal causes, which in distinction to how corporations behave - for the benefit of shareholders- were causes that did not necessarily reflect the views of union members. Democrats are upset for all the wrong reasons.
27
You can't have it both ways. The New York Times and supporters of mandatory union dues have argued that those fees are not used to support political parties or movements and thus do not violate the free speech of workers. Based on this article, I fully support the Supreme Court decision.
61
Will unions be forced to defend the rights of workers who refuse to pay fees?
7
Unions are like lobbyists. They try to influence the politicians in control on the state level regardless of the paper. Their aim is to get the best benefits for their members. Pensions, health care, other benefits benefit all members. Here in NYC some members of unions--like the police who are not known to be liberals--can rack up their overtime hours which would count toward their retirement instead of their base pay. In order to pull that off you need politicians on your side. Some years ago a number of people went to prison who allegedly retired on disability with high monthly checks but were caught playing golf and engaging in other activities genuine disabled people can't perform. The people who brought that lawsuit are strict ideologues. They were not thinking of the longer term goal that benefits all members of unions. I believe there were several articles written about municipalities that find it difficult to pay some of these outrageous public sector pensions politicians supported by unions agreed to who have long since left office. The less influence unions have on their local politicians the less outrageous pensions and benefits should be. A loss for members who cut off their own nose to spite their own face.
2
As Justice Alito said, unions got billions in money from people they had no reason to get. It is time to stop it.
Maybe unions ought to take what they have and be thankful. Their reputation was always one of gangsters, thugs, and enforcers, there is truth to stereotypes.
And no, unions are a product of our rich society not the generator of those riches.
11
Wrong on all counts. There is not one modern economy where broad based middle class prosperity is not tied to union strength. Of all the modern industrialized economies, the US is the worse in terms of worker pay, benefits, and overall condition precisely because we are the one with the weakest unions.
I've belonged to two different unions and I always believed in "solidarity". There is no way I'd ever take the benefits of a union without paying the dues. As long as the union was doing its job, everyone I knew would feel the same. If union dues felt like it was going down the drain, however, that would be another thing.
I would expect a whole lot of loyalty to a union that was effective. Free riders would be outcasts and would be frozen out or worse by those who paid up. You wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of a lot of unionized industries. You might find that your chair always has a broken leg. I'm surprised that making dues voluntary is so traumatic to unions across the board.
1
Free riders would be outcasts and would be frozen out or worse by those who paid up.
How would anyone know who wasn't paying?
1
So people are just naturally not freeloaders huh? How many people would pay their taxes if they are voluntary? Sure, a lot of people gripe that they don't get their tax dollars worth form the government now, but their tune really changes when they really need help. The problem is, people take their benefits for granted (most Republicans can't even acknowledge how much they benefit from government programs). The same with unions, the hardworking they do for their members is often unacknowledged. In my union, a small group of us does most of the hard work of bargaining and contract maintenance. Unfortunately, plenty of people will freeload off of good unions, and only when the unions are gone will they realize what they lost.
I was required to join a union as a condition of my employment. Initially, I found that my health insurance cost was higher than that of my non-union colleagues. Later, when my job was eliminated "due to severe budgetary shortfall", not only did the union NOT help me at all, but I actually received a significantly reduced severance package as compared to the non-union one. I paid dues and lost twice. Leaving me to wonder... what is the purpose of the union???
26
This may hurt the Democrats' fund raising, but they long ago stopped paying attention to workers' needs and started taking their votes and support for granted. Will those workers who don't pay union dues still get the benefits of union bargaining? They shouldn't. Will unions (and Democrats) pay more attention to the needs of their membership? They should. Making Democrats work for people's votes can only be a good thing.
13
The dems got lots of outside money from groups like unions who coerced money from non-members, and also donations from recipients of our federal largesse, like Planned Parenthood, and then indirectly from the millions of kept scientists who prostituted themselves to the government for a living.
Ever wonder how much money they would have to support their positions if the ultimate source of that money was not the government in some form or fashion?
4
Because Republicans do such a good job of taking care of people’s needs.
5
It's too late to change this decision. It's done and there are plenty of valid reasons on which it is based. Unions have become their own entity with an agenda that may not represent the needs of all its members. No one should be forced to join any organization. If you get no benefit from the union don't join. If you benefit whether it be by the results of collective bargaining or health insurance cough it up. And speak up.
Republicans muster their resources behind individual and specific goals and beat the drum loudly and persistently. Democrats are scattered, sprinkling their resources haphazardly. Republicans are focused and press a limited agenda, all of it bad for most individuals. They prevail by methodically convincing a frightened base that what they're doing will assuage their fears. Democrats have no focus and are reactionary. They are disorganized and hysterical. They are always behind the curve whining about what the big bad Republicans have already done. Democrats get out there. Bang the drum loudly BEFORE it's a done deal. Pay attention to those of us who represent the majority of citizens who support working people and not the corporations who bleed us. FOCUS!
3
In other words, The Supreme Court made the right call.
70
Republicans detest the poor.
So how are employees at law and Wall Street firms protected from having to write checks against their will for candidates they do not support? Where's the court case that protects their free speech rights?
12
What??? They legally can't be forced to write checks to candidates or causes they don't support..... Please provide an example.
2
“The union bosses would use that money to advance their big-government agenda,” Substitute "working persons interests" for "big-government agenda" and you are a lot closer to the truth. But conservatives "truth" is what they make it.
Step 1. Citizens United allows corporations unlimited spending on political campaigns.
Step 2. Janus requires Unions to work for those who don't pay dues.
The right wing conservatives have provided an unlimited pipeline to promote their viewpoints while limiting union ability to do the same. Calculated? Of course it was.
Of course they will facetiously argue that Citizen's United allows unions unlimited spending on campaign contributions while cutting off income and disingenuously comparing dues to corporate income streams.
51
Liberal dominated Silicon Valley is worth hundreds of billions and they are companies that donate to liberals, Bill Gates/Paul Allen, George Soros, Tom Steyer is spending 10 million to impeach Trump, all these people themselves are worth well over 200 billion if not more, could well afford to replace Union spending 10 fold......and not feel a loss........ Stop mooching off Republican/Independent union members to elect liberals.
4
Whenever a worker complains about conditions on the job, wages, or whatever, conservatives tell them to get another job. Suddenly, when a worker claims his "free speech" rights are violated because their union fights for workers rights, voter enfranchisement, etc, and even though that worker can exempt themselves from paying for those political activities, conservatives suddenly get all concerned about that workers freedoms. I say, you don't want to be represented by a union? Get a non-union job! They are 90% percent of the labor market now!
Citizens United allows unions unlimited spending on political campaigns as well.
2
This is about more than money - why bring it all down to the GOP value standard. Ideas, Justice, economic security are just as important.
2
"The major public-sector unions are also major backers of ballot-measure campaigns, having spent more than $7 million on such efforts in 2015 and 2016. Some of the measures involved increasing taxes..."
And there in a sentence is why this SCOTUS decision was so very right. Once unions started lobbying they were now political, not worker representatives. It was incestuous and had to be stopped. SCOTUS finally did.
67
Really, just unions? How about tax free religious organizations that tell their parishioners how to vote or back specific candidates that are in line with their religious beliefs. If it's all going to be "fair" then let's start taxing taxing religious organizations that get involved with politics.
297
And our taxes go to support Trump business investments, his nepotistic family, the pleasure of his cabinet. What is the party doing with our taxes that we don't know about except to understand that it will benefit them not us.
24
Nobody ever said unions can't tell their members how to vote. SCOTUS just said you can't force workers to be paying members of an organization they don't believe in.
2
Seems like this article validates the rationale for the SCOTUS decision that union dues go to support political speech.
78
I agree, the article validates the rationale for the Supreme Court decision. Public-sector unions have gone well beyond advocating for better pay and working conditions. They have become a political arm of the Democratic Party.
31
But... it was based on either incorrect information or, more likely, a deliberate misinterpretation of the available information. They "stopped" what was not allowed to happen in the first place. They get no credit for that.
2
You are right. However the political speech is necessary to represent the workers in this free-for all.
In think this will hurt the unions in the short run but make them more effective in the long run by making them more responsive to union member goals. Also, it provides freedom for workers, who will hopefully continue to participate in unions who are listening and acting in their needs. I think predictions of horror underestimate the American worker. I think, in the near term, it will be painful, but in the long term, only the relatedness will be lost.
17
Unions should have remained non partisan and not forced participation. They alienated a large portion of the potential members by their partisan political support of the Dems.
44
Maybe if worker exploitation wasn’t the favorite tool of the right then unions wouldn’t be slanted left.
13
As long as corporations and right wing billionaires have used 100s of millions of dollars in partisan battles to undermine workers rights (all workers rights by the way, not just union members) unions have be partisan.
5
As a union member over the past decade I have provided thousands of dollars to support causes I detest. No more. Thank you SCOTUS.
42
And what are those causes? Worker rights? Health care? Voter rights? More funding for education? Higher pay? Better working conditions? Hardly radical things.
Unions are democracies -if you didn't like what they were doing you could run for office to influence their behavior. I bet you didn't participate but sat back and complained.
So now things will be a bit harder but we will continue to do the work that is necessary.
Also notice that there are no breaks on corporate money. Wonder why?
65
And I have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in income taxes for Wars I don't support. If only I could have withheld the portion of taxes I was forced to pay for wars that killed so many innocent people.
Now that would be a cause worth supporting.
216
I am an administrative assistant who makes a better salary than many of our full- time professors. I have a problem with that but you likely will not.
I’m not sure how there is an argument on the other side. If we are all about freedom to choose, how can you be forced to join an “employee organization” to which you don’t want to become a part? Moreover, as the article notes, unions take political positions on issues and then use the dues money to lobby. Again, someone should not be forced to pay to subsidize a political position (and, more accurately) an agenda they don’t support. When unions are at their best, they protect workers and help negotiate better wages and working conditions. But when they have a mandated monopoly, they become just another corrupt, bloated bureaucracy in the business chain. They now will need to work to justify their existence and importance by convincing workers to join. That’s how any organization stays relevant and operates most efficiently.
53
I agree with you regarding that employees should not be forced to join an organization to which they do not want to become a part of. However, they then should NOT be part of that organization , nor receive ANY of its benefits. Let them create their own organization and negotiate with the company for their own benefits!!
17
So change the law, it's that simple. Ask any of those who don't want to be forced to pay for what they don't believe in; they didn't ask something for nothing.
1
But did they REFUSE it? On the grounds of principles?
Workers who don't want to pay union dues should therefore not receive any benefit from union negotiations. They should no longer receive the protections and benefits contained in collective bargaining agreements (whether those benefits be health care, raises, access to a grievance procedure, etc.). Those who don't pay dues should be considered free agents, without any protections or benefits the union collectively bargains for.
Whereas union members usually can't be fired "at will" without cause or at least access to a grievance process, those who decide they don't want to pay dues may now be fired "at will" for any arbitrary and capricious reason whatsoever.
Their wages can also be lower than that of their union colleagues, whatever their employer decides to pay them. Their benefits and pensions can be cut at will, with no redress.
You will come crying to the union for protection when you have a problem with management! You'll be pretty anxious to suddenly join the union then. And the union would be right to turn its back on you.
247
Clarice - "...should therefore not receive any benefit from union negotiations."
So it's really NOT about the worker's benefits is it Clarice, it's really about the money and the political power. How altruistic of union management!
5
By "benefit from union negotiations" I meant things like health care, raises, and pensions (as the outcome of union negotiations enshrined in a contract between labor and management). I don't know what you thought I meant.
1
Or... this "free agent" can readily pay all their back dues to gain Union protection once again -- with a steep penalty.
1
Anyone remains free to give money to unions or to any political cause that he or she supports. The Supreme Court simply decided that these contributions should be voluntary on the part of those working in the public sector. This decision rights a wrong that has been in place for the past 40 years and has been too long in coming.
86
If it was only that simple. BTW as a shareholder can I force corporations and wealthy executives to stop giving to right wing causes? No?
The intention of the case is really important. Under this case people will get services without paying for them. You have a question about your rights under the contract or are about to be fired, under this case you can get legal services or help from a trained union person without contributing a dime. Your colleagues have paid dues but not you. When you ride a train is it okay with you if a quarter of the people on the train didn't pay their fare?
Most of the dues go to support the unions' bread and butter work not political causes. Don't ignore the intention of the case. If you want to destroy unions be honest about it.
119
So do you think that share holders of corporation should have the same rights. What if I as a shareholder who likes the benefits accrued by my ownership of the stock disapproves of the contributions the corporations make to the Republican Party because it takes away from my dividends, should I be able to tell the corp that I don’t want my share of the profits used in that way?
1
One can not negotiate "intentions." All that is negotiable is behavior and that the issue here. And to me, the issue is whether one can be forced to pay dues to a private organization as the price for working in the public sector. Unions, like the rest of us, need to live within their means. So if this is important, they can elect to offer fewer frills and perhaps union officials could accept lower salaries to make up some of the shortfall.
Welcome to Wisconsin’s Scott Walkerland.
We marched in Madison during winter storms in 2011 right after Walker was inaugurated as Walker and his wealthy cronies put their sneaky union decimation in action.
Then he and his Republican legislature pushed through right to work legislation.
Wisconsin was among the beginning of unions in the country. My dad, a factory worker, belonged to a union. My uncle, a union worker, was in charge of his company’s union “books” and even had a little room in his house where my aunt and him did their union work. My cousin held his wedding in “The Labor Temple” in our home town - the same town I might add where Scott Walker gave his acceptance speech.
As a kid I remember my relatives working hard. A plus of having my dad in a union was that our family always had pretty good health insurance.
As an adult my husband, a teacher, was a union member. And like growing up in my childhood union household, my own children had pretty good health insurance, thanks to union negotiators. For us it was a trade off, the teacher salary wasn’t great, but we had insurance. And in my years later as an RN Case Manager I realized even more importance in that.
Our country has turned its back on workers instead of “Making America Great”. Taking away union dues because unions may have a part in liberal voting will destroy jobs, wages, loyalty of steady employees.
But it will and has begun to destroy family healthcare - and many will suffer.
188
How would liberals react if Unions supported Republicans only? Let it sink in and think about it.... Unions should not favor either side, they should concentrate only on making the workers safe and paid well. By choosing sides they make an enemy and the worker suffers, not the Union. This last SCOTUS ruling would have never come up except for the Union leadership being so entrenched in liberalism. When you get greedy you usually end up paying for it.
20
Unions favored Democrats, because that party, above the other, worked to improve worker rights and benefits. What has the Republican Party ever done for workers. It seems you have no problem with the huge sums of money corporations give to the Republican Party to influence government action, or do you thin they do that expecting nothing in return. We need to get money from every organization out of elections. The only way to begin to elect candidates who truly represent the people is for people to finance the elections, and corporations, like unions, are not people.
10
I live in Wisconsin and thanks to Scott Walker and his pro-business policies (like "right to work") our unemployment rate has dropped to the lowest level ever of 2.8%!! There are now more open positions than people available to fill them. There is opportunity available to any individual willing to work hard and take advantage.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2018/05/17/wisconsin-unemp...
1
Why can't unions ONLY negotiate on behalf of their members? Instead of forcing everyone to pay union fees and allowing everyone to benefit from union negotiations, what if ONLY the actual members of the union benefited from their collective bargaining with management? Wouldn't that make more sense, than forcing non-members to pay fees on the basis that they benefit from negotiations?
Instead of allowing non-union members to get benefits for nothing, just cut them off, and see how fast they come crawling back to the union when they see their colleagues getting paid more than they themselves make.
98
I have argued the same thing for a long time. I would add one thing more: if the employee who wishes to forgo the union dues because they object to unions in principle (which is something I have heard from many who do object to the dues), they should be denied ALL union benefits, both current and historical (e.g., 40-hour work week, Social Security and other retirement benefits, medical insurance, safe work environment, etc.).
42
We were faced with this exact issue in my Firefighter Union, but on a smaller local scale. We had a member who refused to join the union on the grounds that he opposed the idea of all unions. Nevada is a "right to work" state so he was within his right to do so. We had to fight our city on every benefit and felt that this person should have to help pay for the benefits he received. We won our arbitration case and it was decided that he would have to pay for his share of any costs related to future negotiations. Ultimately the city said they had no way of either withholding benefits or charging him for his share of the costs, there was no legal precedents to follow. So this fellow benefited from our negotiations without contributing. The only upside was that he didn't continue working there long.
2
Sam, similarly, why can't unions use their collective voice ONLY for negotiations involving contracts and other direct relations with employers, and stay out of the political arena? They would have a stronger case for their purpose, and alignment with interests of all union members.
2