Help Me Here - When I Join A Club. Organization, A Warehouse Club.....

[global1]

or a cable TV, satellite TV, Sirius Radio, etc - I pay a membership fee, dues, or some kind of fee and for that fee I get the benefits of the Club, Organization, Warehouse Club, etc - and those people that don't pay the membership fee - don't get the benefits.

Now with respect to unions - I can understand that some people may not want to join a union and that is their choice. What I don't understand is why those people that don't want to join the union derive any benefit of or from the union just because they work in a union shop. These non-joiners get these benefits of the union on the backs of people that made the choice to join and pay their membership fee.

How did this disparity come about? Why should non-union workers derive any benefit of the union if they don't want to join?

Why can't their be distinct pay grades and benefits for union people that are different and better than that of those people that chose not to join?

Seems to me that union members that pay their dues have a beef here that can be taken to the Supreme Court and flipped 180 in the other direction.

If you don't join - no benefits. If you join - you derive benefits of the union.

Why does the union have to represent both the joiners and non-joiners?

Can somebody explain that to me.

[Note: I realize that now is probably not the time to talk about the Supreme Court hearing such a case. I guess timing is everything and I'm a little off on that timing.]

[Midnight Writer]

1. I was union officer 32 years. Spent more time representing non-payers than members.

There is a certain prick mindset among workers who decide to take the benefits without paying dues. That mindset frequently gets them in trouble in the workplace, and under law, the union must represent them.

On top of that, in two cases when I lost the grievance, the peckerheads hired lawyers and sued me. Like I said: prick mindset.

This is a bullshit decision. A reasonable solution would be to separate political spending from union dues. The union could have a separate PAC that only takes voluntary contributions. The dues would go exclusively to employee representation.

The irony here is the non-paying employees will suffer in the long run when the union no longer has the strength to negotiate pay, benefits and workplace rules.

[global1]

2. You Say Under Law The Union Must Represent Them....

How did that law come about? It just seems contrary to any thing one joins.

Again - somebody joining and paying should get the benefits of what they joined. Somebody that refuses to join shouldn't be able to partake in any benefits. That seems reasonable and seems to work for everything except unions.

I don't understand why? Oh - I know you say it is law - but how did that law come about? Why are unions different in this case? This seems like one of those convoluted Repug rules that is used to break unions and in my mind that should be challenged.

I would think paying members would challenge that law - that on the face of it seems (dare I say it) unconstitutional. Has that law ever been challenged?

[FBaggins]

3. The part your missing is called "exclusive representation"

It’s like a monopoly power. The difference with your example is that none of those organizations can turn 51% support into being the only company that can provide that service. But a union can gain the power to be the exclusive bargaining unit for all employees. That power, however, comes with the requirement that they must represent both members and nonmembers.

[global1]

4. Is That A Union Stipulation?....

Does the union get this right of 'exclusive representation' if it gets 51% of the employees joining? Or - is it a federal law that says they can get be the exclusive bargaining unit for all employees when they reach that threshold?

I guess what I'm advocating is that if a union gets 51% of employees joining - they only have the right to represent just those 51%. The non-joiners can work at the same facility - but they don't have representation of the union and thus non of the union benefits. Each would have to negotiate for themselves - which really gives them no leverage to do.

But it would be an incentive for them to join this union and continue to drive up that number of employees that the union represents at that facility. What I'm advocating is a two-tiered system of wages & benefits.

Why doesn't it work that way?

[FBaggins]

11. Yes and no

It's part of the National Labor Relations Act. Depending on the vote that creates the union, they can gain the exclusive right to bargain with the employer... but if they have that, they must represent all employees (member or not).

So yes... you could say that it's a union decision. But giving it up would hurt.

[WillowTree]

5. One problem with your thinking is.......

.......that it would put the onus on the employer. In order to do what you want, there would have to be some sort of legal requirement for employers to pay employees who don't join the union less or to provide them with diminished benefits as compared to what union employees receive. And who would get to decide how much less? I'm not sure that I want the government to be able to make such distinctions. That's a whole lot different than setting a minimum wage.

[global1]

6. Don't Employers Now Have The Right To Pay One Employee Less Than Another?....

I know that there is a thing like 'minimum wage' but in my mind a union would negotiate a contract with the employer in a union facility to pay higher than minimum wage.

Example: if minimum wage is $15.00 than all employees would have to be paid the minimum and maybe get 1 week paid vacation, however, if 51% of the employees join the union and pay union dues - the union would be able to negotiate say a $20.00 wage plus 2 weeks paid vacation and other benefits for those employees that are paying members to the union. This seems to me that it would provide and incentive for the non-union members to join the union and pay the dues/fees.

Granted even to me my example sounds too simplistic. What am I missing?

[WillowTree]

8. There's also the whole 'equal pay for equal work' thing.

I get what you're saying, but I think it opens a whole can of worms with unintended consequences that could be ugly.

[global1]

12. Look - Unions Have Been Taking Hits Now For Years - Maybe It's Time To Re-Think.....

unions and move in a different direction.

I've posted this idea here on DU a couple of times in the past and maybe it's time I posted it again. Here is a link to what I call the National Workers Association:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10022032941

Check it out. It maybe a bit dated now - but I think that the seeds are there to spawn something that might be a powerful force.

Let me know what you think.

[genxlib]

7. The bigger problem

Is what that would mean for the companies. Suddenly the non dues paying workforce would be cheaper than the ones in the union. How long do you think it would be before the companies favored the cheap employees during hiring, promotion and layoffs? The result would be a downward spiral.

[WillowTree]

9. Yep.......unintended consequences like that.

[brooklynite]

10. Allow me to offer an example...

I teach as an Adjunct at NYU. Adjuncts are represented by the UAW. I have chosen not to become a member, because this is incidental work (I'm fully salaried) and I don't need their benefits either. However, I receive the same salary level as unrepresented employees (nb-if I taught a second class, I'd be obliged to join under the collective bargaining agreement).

Could the University offer a lower salary? Perhaps, but since the work isn't essential, I'd be less likely to take the teaching gig and the University wouldn't be able to offer my unique skill set and professional experience. And if the work was essential, I'd be more likely to join the Union as long as the differential increase made sense in comparison to the dues. So, from the University's perspective as an employer, there's no real incentive to offer different salary levels.