Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

Neomalthusian · Nov 8, 2019

Recent story on which this topic is based, from my former home state: Gov. Dunleavy thrusts Alaska into a leading national role as he takes on union procedures

Up until last year, public sector unions in non-Right-To-Work states pretty much forced new employees in union-represented jobs to sign withholding authorizations. These "dues authorizations" basically said "Whatever I am required to pay the union in order to be able to keep my job, I agree to have it withheld and sent to the union." If they didn't agree to this, they would have to independently send money separately to the union, or else the union would order the employer to fire the employee. That's what "union security agreements" are (or were).

Then in June of 2017, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional for public sector employers and unions to do this. Specifically, it said:

For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. Under Illinois law, if a public-sector collective bargaining agreement includes an agency-fee provision and the union certifies to the employer the amount of the fee, that amount is automatically deducted from the nonmember’s wages. §315/6(e). No form of employee consent is required.

This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue. Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938); see also Knox, 567 U. S., at 312–313. Rather, to be effective, the waiver must be freely given and shown by “clear and compelling” evidence. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130, 145 (1967) (plurality opinion); see also College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 680–682 (1999). Unless employees clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them, this standard cannot be met.

What Dunleavy and many other employers are starting to realize, is that the authorizations unions have strong-armed public employees into signing by threatening their firing if they don't (which prior to 2018 was legal), these consents really aren't valid anymore, because employees need to clearly, affirmatively and freely give consent to have money withheld from them to be sent to the union.

Since the agency fee era (pre-2018) allowed employees to be strong-armed into signing these authorizations, Dunleavy and others say they need to get another chance to decide if they want their money withheld. So Dunleavy is requiring new consents that give employees a free and clear choice, and the unions are ready to fight to the death over it, because they don't want union-represented employees to have another shot at making a clear and free choice.

Now that the law of the land has changed as it concerns withholding money from public employees, shouldn't public employees have to clearly opt in to having their money withheld and sent to unions? Shouldn't new consents have to be signed to express this free choice they didn't used to have?

Neomalthusian · Nov 9, 2019

Unfortunately, until this crap is reinforced by the federal courts pursuant to Janus, it will be up to each individual public employee to vociferously and adamantly opt out in order to get the employer and union to stop withholding their money.

independentusa · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
Unfortunately, until this crap is reinforced by the federal courts pursuant to Janus, it will be up to each individual public employee to vociferously and adamantly opt out in order to get the employer and union to stop withholding their money.

First let me say, I was part of a management team that worked and bargained with Unions and never in a union. One thing people who write as you do never mention is that by law unions have to cover all of those people in positions in the bargaining unit whether they belong to the union and whether they pay dues or not. So why pay dues when you can get all the benefits for free. So like most Americans why pay dues when you want something for nothing. In reality without dues, unions can not exist and that is what private businesses have learned and why they have pushed right-to-work laws. And what has happened in the past thirty years since states began passing such laws and unions have died, real wages have either remained stagnant or dropped for working people. So keep telling people they should not pay dues and you help the growing disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us. Just so you know the wealthy 10% in the late 1980's owned 80 percent of the countries wealth and today almost 90%.

MrWonka · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
Now that the law of the land has changed as it concerns withholding money from public employees, shouldn't public employees have to clearly opt in to having their money withheld and sent to unions? Shouldn't new consents have to be signed to express this free choice they didn't used to have?

No, because even as ****ty as Republicans are they know better than to **** with the Fraternal Order of Police. In these stupid right wing states that have targeted Unions they always conveniently leave Public Sector Unions in place because they know they can't afford to piss off the Police or Firefighters.

So the real question is why would destroying every other type of Union be a good idea but leaving the Police Union in tact be a good idea? Answer: It's not. This stupid law is bad for workers everywhere. Republicans just don't have the balls to go after the police. They need them for protection against all the other poor people they've ****ed over.

MrWonka · Nov 13, 2019

independentusa said:
First let me say, I was part of a management team that worked and bargained with Unions and never in a union. One thing people who write as you do never mention is that by law unions have to cover all of those people in positions in the bargaining unit whether they belong to the union and whether they pay dues or not. So why pay dues when you can get all the benefits for free. So like most Americans why pay dues when you want something for nothing. In reality without dues, unions can not exist and that is what private businesses have learned and why they have pushed right-to-work laws. And what has happened in the past thirty years since states began passing such laws and unions have died, real wages have either remained stagnant or dropped for working people. So keep telling people they should not pay dues and you help the growing disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us. Just so you know the wealthy 10% in the late 1980's owned 80 percent of the countries wealth and today almost 90%.

Exactly. Making Union dues optional would work about as well as making Income Taxes optional. Remember we're the UNITED states people. WE ARE A UNION. The U.S. Military can't protect the country without protecting every person living in it. The government can't build roads with free access without that benefiting the whole country. As a result, it would be nonsensically stupid to let tax payers opt out of the income taxes necessary to pay for these things.

Same thing for Unions. When a Union negotiates for better working conditions they do so on behalf of every employee whether they like the Union or not. As a result it is nonsensically stupid to allow individual employees to opt out of the Union and still get all the benefits.

Neomalthusian · Nov 13, 2019

MrWonka said:
No, because even as ****ty as Republicans are they know better than to **** with the Fraternal Order of Police. In these stupid right wing states that have targeted Unions they always conveniently leave Public Sector Unions in place because they know they can't afford to piss off the Police or Firefighters.

So the real question is why would destroying every other type of Union be a good idea but leaving the Police Union in tact be a good idea? Answer: It's not. This stupid law is bad for workers everywhere. Republicans just don't have the balls to go after the police. They need them for protection against all the other poor people they've ****ed over.

You’re way out in left field. It’s not even clear you know what this topic is about. You didn’t actually respond to my post.

Neomalthusian · Nov 13, 2019

MrWonka said:
Exactly. Making Union dues optional would work about as well as making Income Taxes optional.

Public sector union dues already are optional. No public sector employee is required to pay a union any amount of money as a condition of remaining in their job. It’s law of the land.

Same thing for Unions. When a Union negotiates for better working conditions they do so on behalf of every employee whether they like the Union or not.

They don’t negotiate on behalf of every employee, they negotiate on behalf of every employee in the bargaining unit they have established, assuming the union has also chosen to certify itself as the exclusive representative over that entire bargaining unit. If they wanted to only have to negotiate for members, they could certainly do that and go that route instead.

As a result it is nonsensically stupid to allow individual employees to opt out of the Union and still get all the benefits.

Then tell unions to stop being nonsensically stupid. It’s unions’ choice to subject themselves to Duty or Fair Representation or not. They aren’t required by law to certify as exclusive representatives.

Slartibartfast · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
Recent story on which this topic is based, from my former home state: Gov. Dunleavy thrusts Alaska into a leading national role as he takes on union procedures

Up until last year, public sector unions in non-Right-To-Work states pretty much forced new employees in union-represented jobs to sign withholding authorizations. These "dues authorizations" basically said "Whatever I am required to pay the union in order to be able to keep my job, I agree to have it withheld and sent to the union." If they didn't agree to this, they would have to independently send money separately to the union, or else the union would order the employer to fire the employee. That's what "union security agreements" are (or were).

Then in June of 2017, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional for public sector employers and unions to do this. Specifically, it said:

What Dunleavy and many other employers are starting to realize, is that the authorizations unions have strong-armed public employees into signing by threatening their firing if they don't (which prior to 2018 was legal), these consents really aren't valid anymore, because employees need to clearly, affirmatively and freely give consent to have money withheld from them to be sent to the union.

Since the agency fee era (pre-2018) allowed employees to be strong-armed into signing these authorizations, Dunleavy and others say they need to get another chance to decide if they want their money withheld. So Dunleavy is requiring new consents that give employees a free and clear choice, and the unions are ready to fight to the death over it, because they don't want union-represented employees to have another shot at making a clear and free choice.

Now that the law of the land has changed as it concerns withholding money from public employees, shouldn't public employees have to clearly opt in to having their money withheld and sent to unions? Shouldn't new consents have to be signed to express this free choice they didn't used to have?

Thats fine, however, such an employee should go without benefit of any union negotiated benefits, including a different health plan, a different holiday schedule, different pay schedule, no protections, etc.

They can deal directly with HR on their own for those things.

Neomalthusian · Nov 13, 2019

independentusa said:
First let me say, I was part of a management team that worked and bargained with Unions and never in a union. One thing people who write as you do never mention is that by law unions have to cover all of those people in positions in the bargaining unit whether they belong to the union and whether they pay dues or not.

That is not entirely true. This legal requirement is purely a function of unions' choice to certify as "exclusive representative."

So why pay dues when you can get all the benefits for free. So like most Americans why pay dues when you want something for nothing.

To the union, why voluntarily and intentionally provide benefits for free when you can legally be members-only instead?

In reality without dues, unions can not exist and that is what private businesses have learned and why they have pushed right-to-work laws. And what has happened in the past thirty years since states began passing such laws and unions have died, real wages have either remained stagnant or dropped for working people. So keep telling people they should not pay dues and you help the growing disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us. Just so you know the wealthy 10% in the late 1980's owned 80 percent of the countries wealth and today almost 90%.

Unions don't redistribute wealth, especially public sector unions, which is what this thread is about.

tacomancer said:
Thats fine, however, such an employee should go without benefit of any union negotiated benefits, including a different health plan, a different holiday schedule, different pay schedule, no protections, etc.

That could certainly be the case and is already entirely legal under current law. Any and every union has the ability to decertify as exclusive representative and thereby deprive any non-paying employee of its services, thereby only being obligated to provide services to its dues-paying members.

Slartibartfast · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
That could certainly be the case and is already entirely legal under current law. Any and every union has the ability to decertify as exclusive representative and thereby deprive any non-paying employee of its services, thereby only being obligated to provide services to its dues-paying members.

It should be automatic instead of having the union take action to not represent employees who decline to be a part of the union (through dues or other membership activities). The moment an employee signs a form to opt out, their pay and other benefits should reset at the next pay period (or whatever schedule the company deems appropriate).

Helix · Nov 13, 2019

MrWonka said:
Exactly. Making Union dues optional would work about as well as making Income Taxes optional. Remember we're the UNITED states people. WE ARE A UNION. The U.S. Military can't protect the country without protecting every person living in it. The government can't build roads with free access without that benefiting the whole country. As a result, it would be nonsensically stupid to let tax payers opt out of the income taxes necessary to pay for these things.

Same thing for Unions. When a Union negotiates for better working conditions they do so on behalf of every employee whether they like the Union or not. As a result it is nonsensically stupid to allow individual employees to opt out of the Union and still get all the benefits.

Yep. His argument is just another tired old union busting technique anyway. Make the dues optional, many choose not to pay, and then goodbye union.

Neomalthusian · Nov 13, 2019

tacomancer said:
It should be automatic instead of having the union take action to not represent employees who decline to be a part of the union (through dues or other membership activities). The moment an employee signs a form to opt out, their pay and other benefits should reset at the next pay period (or whatever schedule the company deems appropriate).

These aren't companies, they're governments, school districts, etc. Public sector employers.

What you're saying would inherently be a union's choice to abandon exclusive representation privileges. This is the union's prerogative. Unions can choose to be members-only, and then the union's benefits would be contingent on the employee's payment. Unions have this option, but typically don't choose it.

Slartibartfast · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
These aren't companies, they're governments, school districts, etc. Public sector employers.

What you're saying would inherently be a union's choice to abandon exclusive representation privileges. This is the union's prerogative. Unions can choose to be members-only, and then the union's benefits would be contingent on the employee's payment. Unions have this option, but typically don't choose it.

They have HR departments and the ability to negotiate salaries and policies as well. Perhaps unions can or cannot, at their prerogative, that is irrelevant. If an employee does not want to get part of the union, then they should get none of the benefits and should have to negotiate with their employer as an individual at whatever pay rate or other benefits can be gotten and their inherent individual negotiating power.

Neomalthusian · Nov 13, 2019

Helix said:
Yep. His argument is just another tired old union busting technique anyway. Make the dues optional, many choose not to pay, and then goodbye union.

It's not a "technique" or an "argument," it's a legal reality. It's the law of the land. Public sector dues are optional throughout the country.

This particular topic is about whether pay deduction authorizations employees were basically compelled to sign prior to 2018 are still valid and legally binding despite the Supreme Court's 2018 decision that this compulsion to agree to union payment or be fired was a violation of constitutional rights.

Neomalthusian · Nov 13, 2019

tacomancer said:
They have HR departments and the ability to negotiate salaries and policies as well. Perhaps unions can or cannot, at their prerogative, that is irrelevant.

It's not at all irrelevant, it's extremely relevant. What you're saying should happen when employees refuse payment can be what happens if unions want it to be what happens. It's entirely legal for it to work this way. But unions don't want it to be that way. They want to cast a wide net of exclusive representation even if it means scooping up employees who refuse payment. They can choose to keep doing that or to stop doing it at any time.

If an employee does not want to get part of the union, then they should get none of the benefits and should have to negotiate with their employer as an individual at whatever pay rate or other benefits can be gotten and their inherent individual negotiating power.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the union's provision of benefits to non-paying non-members is entirely the union's prerogative.

Slartibartfast · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
It's not at all irrelevant, it's extremely relevant. What you're saying should happen when employees refuse payment can be what happens if unions want it to be what happens. It's entirely legal for it to work this way. But unions don't want it to be that way. They want to cast a wide net of exclusive representation even if it scoops up employees who refuse payment. They can choose to keep doing that or to stop doing that at any time.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the union's provision of benefits to non-paying non-members is entirely the union's prerogative.

The option for the union to choose that shouldn't exist. The employee should automatically get the lower pay, fewer benefits, etc as a part of law.

Neomalthusian · Nov 13, 2019

tacomancer said:
The option for the union to choose that shouldn't exist. The employee should automatically get the lower pay, fewer benefits, etc as a part of law.

There have been court cases that almost made it to the Supreme Court that could have resulted in what you're advocating (e.g., Hill v. SEIU, Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Association) but the Supreme Court declined to hear them. Had Hill or Uradnik prevailed, the result could have been that unions would be members-only, and then non-members would be non-represented and unions would then focus their services on dues-paying members only.

FYI, at this particular point in time, unions would typically shriek in opposition to what you're saying.

MrWonka · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
Public sector union dues already are optional. No public sector employee is required to pay a union any amount of money as a condition of remaining in their job. It’s law of the land.

False.

Neomalthusian said:
They don’t negotiate on behalf of every employee, they negotiate on behalf of every employee in the bargaining unit

False.

Helix · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
It's not a "technique" or an "argument," it's a legal reality. It's the law of the land. Public sector dues are optional throughout the country.

This particular topic is about whether pay deduction authorizations employees were basically compelled to sign prior to 2018 are still valid and legally binding despite the Supreme Court's 2018 decision that this compulsion to agree to union payment or be fired was a violation of constitutional rights.

It's a right wing union busting technique.

Allan · Nov 13, 2019

MrWonka said:
Exactly. Making Union dues optional would work about as well as making Income Taxes optional. Remember we're the UNITED states people. WE ARE A UNION. The U.S. Military can't protect the country without protecting every person living in it. The government can't build roads with free access without that benefiting the whole country. As a result, it would be nonsensically stupid to let tax payers opt out of the income taxes necessary to pay for these things.

Same thing for Unions. When a Union negotiates for better working conditions they do so on behalf of every employee whether they like the Union or not. As a result it is nonsensically stupid to allow individual employees to opt out of the Union and still get all the benefits.

To give another similar analogy the company I retired from recently had almost 300K employees. They had life insurance and deducted an amount from each employee as a contribution. Employees could opt out of some features of their benefits, but not the life insurance. The reason was that life insurance was much cheaper per employee if all employees contributed.

In the case of unions all employees benefit to a greater degree if all employees contribute. The 'pot' if you will gives the union more resources to better represent their members.

Neomalthusian · Nov 13, 2019

MrWonka said:
False.

Not false. Up until today, you didn't know the facts. Good news is you learned something today. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

False.

Don't be so silly.

Helix said:
It's a right wing union busting technique.

There is no "technique" being applied. It's a basic legal question concerning a legal reality that has been in effect since late June of 2018. A basic honest reading of Janus suggests that an employer is violating employees' rights if they continue honoring a written authorization that was signed under coercive conditions (which have now been ruled an unconstitutional infringement of employee rights).

Balking and claiming this basic legal question is a "union busting technique" doesn't protect employers from being sued for honoring old written authorizations that were invalidated by the Supreme Court.

MrWonka · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
Not false. Up until today, you didn't know the facts. Good news is you learned something today. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

Jesus Christ dude. Maybe you shouldn't be posting links to documents that you haven't even read yourself.

The first paragraph of your own article that you just cited said:
Nonmembers are required to pay what is generally called an “agency fee,” i.e., a percentage of the full union dues.

Neomalthusian said:
Don't be so silly.

Also from the very first paragraph of the document you just cited. said:
If a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit vote to be represented by a union,
that union is designated as the exclusive representative of all the
employees, even those who do not join.

You should probably just quit now before you make yourself look any more foolish.

MTAtech · Nov 13, 2019

independentusa said:
First let me say, I was part of a management team that worked and bargained with Unions and never in a union. One thing people who write as you do never mention is that by law unions have to cover all of those people in positions in the bargaining unit whether they belong to the union and whether they pay dues or not. So why pay dues when you can get all the benefits for free. So like most Americans why pay dues when you want something for nothing. In reality without dues, unions can not exist and that is what private businesses have learned and why they have pushed right-to-work laws. And what has happened in the past thirty years since states began passing such laws and unions have died, real wages have either remained stagnant or dropped for working people. So keep telling people they should not pay dues and you help the growing disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us. Just so you know the wealthy 10% in the late 1980's owned 80 percent of the countries wealth and today almost 90%.

Thank you for covering everything I would have said. I have nothing to add, except that destroying unions is/was the objective of these laws and court rulings. Those (owners of corporations) that push these laws do so knowing that making dues voluntary makes unions weak and their own power greater. It's a feature not a bug.

Helix · Nov 13, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
There is no "technique" being applied. It's a basic legal question concerning a legal reality that has been in effect since late June of 2018. A basic honest reading of Janus suggests that an employer is violating employees' rights if they continue honoring a written authorization that was signed under coercive conditions (which have now been ruled an unconstitutional infringement of employee rights).

Balking and claiming this basic legal question is a "union busting technique" doesn't protect employers from being sued for honoring old written authorizations that were invalidated by the Supreme Court.

my state is all about union busting, and the quality of jobs here reflects that. fire at will, "independent contractor" status, lower pay for the highly skilled, etc. right wingers hate them some unions. i look forward to voting against them long term, as i'm sick of their bull****. hopefully the backlash against Carrot Caligula will help, but my state is very, very red, so it would probably take the gamblers destroying the economy again plus that moron on the ticket to make any real changes here.

Neomalthusian · Nov 13, 2019

MrWonka said:
Jesus Christ dude. Maybe you shouldn't be posting links to documents that you haven't even read yourself.

I have read the entirety of that document. You are the one that looks foolish. The language you quoted from the syllabus was precisely the thing that this decision ruled unconstitutional. How do you not know this?

You should probably just quit now before you make yourself look any more foolish.

My comments can only appear foolish to someone who is entirely and fundamentally mistaken.

Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

Neomalthusian

Neomalthusian

independentusa

MrWonka

MrWonka

Neomalthusian

Neomalthusian

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

Neomalthusian

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

Helix

Neomalthusian

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

Neomalthusian

Neomalthusian

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

Neomalthusian

MrWonka

Helix

Allan

Neomalthusian

MrWonka

MTAtech

Helix

Neomalthusian

Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

Jesus loves you.

Jesus loves you.

Jesus loves you.

Jesus loves you.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency