Unions due or Union Dues?

The Buffalo News reports today on a case before the Supreme Court involving unions and whether belonging to them should be mandatory.

In Friedrichs v California Teachers Association the plaintiffs are arguing that they should not have to pay union dues at all and should not be forced to join a union. They don't even want to pay any sort of fee (fair share services fee) that covers issues like collective bargaining.

And I say – let them win, with a caveat.

Let them win and be able to work without joining the union or paying any fair share services fee at all. They will receive nothing from the union and not have to worry about the union using their money to cover any sort of political speech and activities.

The caveat – They will receive none of the following:

1. They are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement in any way, shape manner, or form. They can hire their own individual lawyer, if they want one. (Let them see how much they can be billed for labor law. Union representation is a steal.) They can negotiate their own contract – pay scale, health insurance (watch the school kick them over to the Affordable Care Act & pay that fee), retirement (can you say “nothing” - pay for your own 401(k)?)

2. When they have an observation and want to grieve part of it – they can hire their own lawyer to be there with them. They can also hire a lawyer to be with them for the end of the year summative evaluation.

I agree with their right to free association. So give it to them and require the unions to leave them alone. The only way a person can be covered in any way by a union is if they join the union or pay a fee for each service that they want.  An expensive fee.

To me – it makes perfect sense. The Board of Education is going to be able to squeeze more blood from individuals than from a collective group. Let the people who don't want union representation learn that the hard way.

At the same time, I believe that the rank and file needs to have more of a say in how political funds are used. The American Teachers Federation endorsed Hillary Clinton's campaign for president. Did they survey the rank and file? No. Should they have? Yes. I know of numerous teachers that are supporting Bernie Sanders for president and stated that they will not vote for Hillary at all. Under any circumstances. I have heard a few say that they would vote Green, socialist, or other party rather than vote for Hillary. They remember how President Bill Clinton screwed over the country with NAFTA, welfare deform, and other actions that weakened unions and hurt the American workers.

So I recognize their grievance and, to a point, I agree with them. At the same time, I do not think that they should receive anything from the union at all unless they pay for it. They want into the collective bargaining agreement? That will cost them. They want union representation in a grievance? There's a fee for that. And so on. And all that needs to be made potentially more expensive than the union dues. After all, monthly membership at a health club or other organization costs less if you buy a longer term contract. Make the a la carte menu more expensive for non-members.

Will it weaken the unions in the short term? Yes. People will walk away thinking that they are saving money. Until they have to take time out of their day to negotiate their own contract, deal with the labor lawyer, etc. After a while, the union will become more attractive.

Unions do need to be made more democratic, to be sure. The elected leadership at the top has sold out and betrayed the rank and file too many times to the Democratic Party.

So, let the reforms begin.

And let people learn the hard way rather than form history.

Then again, I've never been taught my union's history.

Perhaps there's more that the unions should be doing and teaching us about what they are and why we need them.

Now there's a thought.