• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Government worker unions

ImTheCaptain said:
i'm torn
Click to expand...

418CWW362BL.jpg
 
Interesting case from a legal perspective. I do agree that it seems odd that public employees who do not want to join the union would still gain the benefit of the collective bargaining (almost certainly improving the overall salary and benefits of the position) without contributing dues. I don't see a way to remedy that though if SCOTUS finds that there's a First Amendment issue. Obviously the constitutionality of the issue would trump the odd position I mentioned though.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Interesting case from a legal perspective. I do agree that it seems odd that public employees who do not want to join the union would still gain the benefit of the collective bargaining (almost certainly improving the overall salary and benefits of the position) without contributing dues. I don't see a way to remedy that though if SCOTUS finds that there's a First Amendment issue. Obviously the constitutionality of the issue would trump the odd position I mentioned though.
Click to expand...

This is obviously intertwined with the 1st Am problem, but it it seems like faulty reasoning to assume that all union members are net-benefited by their membership because they receive an increased salary. In the public sector, especially, the increase/decrease in employees' salaries seems like a zero-sum game. If the State pays you more in salary, you can probably be sure it's making that revenue up through other activities (usually taxation) that stand to harm you.

Of course one would assume those harms are spread over a large body of people whereas the employees receive the focused benefits of salary, but still, as a legal matter, I'm not buying the argument that all union members are automatically benefited by membership. You can imagine other ways in which individual employees are harmed; ultimately, the analysis is too individualized for each employee to make such broad claims.

Another way to think of this: if the unions were in fact benefiting all these people, then you'd expect enough to opt in to keep the union afloat. If the union is actually facing an existential crisis because too many employees want to opt out, then the solution is better union representation, not mandated membership.

ETA: I'm not unsympathetic to the freeriding problem that the unions identify. That just seems like a proof problem, though, best dealt with in the trial courts. There might be some labor law nuance I'm missing here, though.
 
Last edited:
A better way to think about it is: is the union benefiting all members equally or would my dues be better spent on other lobbying efforts?

Example: if the average age of the union is 52 and I'm 26, the union membership as a whole may be much more focused on retirement and traditional health care, but as a younger (supposedly healthier) employee with retirement a long way off, I may prefer to have more money in base salaries and a lower cost health care with wellness activities.. Or even if I think retirement is important, I may prefer a defined contribution type plan with a variable contribution based upon sometype of performance match but the typical union person is pensioned.

Why pay dues for bargaining that doesn't benefit me now?
 
Deacon92 said:
A better way to think about it is: is the union benefiting all members equally or would my dues be better spent on other lobbying efforts?

Example: if the average age of the union is 52 and I'm 26, the union membership as a whole may be much more focused on retirement and traditional health care, but as a younger (supposedly healthier) employee with retirement a long way off, I may prefer to have more money in base salaries and a lower cost health care with wellness activities.. Or even if I think retirement is important, I may prefer a defined contribution type plan with a variable contribution based upon sometype of performance match but the typical union person is pensioned.

Why pay dues for bargaining that doesn't benefit me now?
Click to expand...

Teacher's unions poll the teachers they represent to determine which issues are most pressing. They compile a list of what is most important to the teachers they represent, and then the negotiation team fights for it.
 
I'm trying still trying to wrap my head around the practical implications of not requiring all employees to contribute union dues. The union would be negotiating benefits on behalf of these people still, but these people would not be contributing any dues to that process? Will a public employee who chooses not to join the union still receive all the benefits that an employee who pays dues does? There's a very serious free rider problem, but that would likely be relegated to a secondary consideration if there's a First Amendment issue with forcing people to join I suppose. It seems like an area where a legal conclusion would yield problems in practical implementation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top