Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 6:47am

A Few Thoughts on Wisconsin and Unions

At the risk of losing some of my libertarian street cred, I have to say that I feel a lot of sympathy for the public employee members in Wisconsin. Even if you think that their salaries and benefits are excessive, those benefits and wages were contractually agreed to by their employers, and I’m sure that in many cases people have planned their retirements on the assumption that these contracts would be honored.

On the other hand, if having public employee unions leads to workers receiving promises of future pensions and benefits that can’t or won’t be met, then that could be a reason to reconsider whether public employee unions are such a great idea going forward. The Church recognizes the right of workers to unionize, but this right is fundamentally based not on any the supposedly good consequences that unions have for workers, but rather as an application of the right of private association. As John Paul II noted in Centesimus Annus, (“the Church’s defence and approval of the establishment of what are commonly called trade unions [is] certainly not because of ideological prejudices or in order to surrender to a class mentality, but because the right of association is a natural right of the human being, which therefore precedes his or her incorporation into political society.”

I’m willing to accept correction on this, but it seems to me that if the right to unionization is based in the right to association, then it would seem that the union relationship ought to be voluntary for all the parties involved. Forcing workers to join a union or forcing an employer to deal with a union on certain terms strikes me as being contrary to people’s association rights, not a fulfillment of them. In the case of public employee unions, the government is the employer, and so should have a wide latitude to decide to what extent it is willing to bargain with unions and to what extent it isn’t.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DarwinCatholic
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 9:15am

Yeah, obviously, I can’t blame the Wisconsin unions for not wanting to see their benefits reduced. Given the choice, I’d rather not see my benefits reduced.

My only beef with unions is when they secure legislation which requires all workers in a given company or line of work (like being a public school teacher) to join whether they like it or not. This seems like a pretty clear violating of one’s human right to association, in that it forces association against one’s will. And, of course, with the idea that an employer has to reach an agreement with a given union, rather than simply forgoing to employ their members.

Phillip
Phillip
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 9:35am

Which is why laws which mandate union membership may be contrary to Catholic Social teaching.

Marie
Marie
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 10:37am

With the collapse of our economy I lost my job after working for 28 years. I was close to retirement and had to take that proverbial haircut in what my retirement was suppose to be. I was also married to an unionized auto worker and saw in my own employment a union shop dismantle itself because of unrealistic demands, which in my mind was the union committed suicide. This proved to me that unions are needed at certain times and then they need a new model such as what auto workers contracts are moving into a profit share approach. In the public sector some unions go into arbitration where they have to prove the government entity can afford to pay what they demand.
State governments have to balance their budgets by law and we operate under the rule of law. When the government goes into debt which they knowingly cannot pay back borders or moral and ethical issues.
In Michigan a JUDGE ruled that the state had to lay off teachers because of this issue and it will raise the class size to 60 pupils. I think it is a moral issue to put in place policies to make sure this does not happen.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 11:15am

This is “one big love triangle.” The gov employee unions are in bed with the politicians. The taxpayer is (can I say this?) cuckolded.

A significant amount of public employee union dues (100%, indirectly paid by TAXPAYERS) is used to help elect mostly democrat (nearly 100% pro-abortion) candidates who repay the selfsame campaign contributions (from taxes) with more taxpayer money in better benefits and higher wages.

They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that they have run out of other people’s money. That is an economical issue, not a moral issue.

Also, consider the 9.4% unemployment and 17% underemployment rates among private sector employees compared to the near 0% rates among gov employees.

Jacob Morgan
Jacob Morgan
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 11:55am

One has to distinguish unions in private enterprise from unions in public service. If public servants do not like their wages and such they can vote for different elected officials; they already have a say. There is something, well unsettling, in the idea of public servants organizing against the public in a democracy.

In private enterprise a union that becomes a parasite (e.g., instead of fighting for the 40 hour work week and a living wage, it fights for fork lift drivers to make six-figure salaries and life-time health insurance) competition will kill the host, and there will be other companies (that never drove their employees to unionize, or that have reasonable unions) that will step in the void to provide goods, services, and jobs. There is no such arrangement in government for parts of government that can not be privatized. In fact, as others have pointed out, it becomes a situation where the elected officials get votes and money from the union and then rewards the union with more pay–they are both parasites on the common citizen and the only limit is the ability to borrow money to be paid by, or to bankrupt, our children and grand children.

trackback
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 12:04pm

[…] A Few Thoughts on Wisconsin and Unions – Black Adder, The American Catholic […]

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 1:08pm

My late father worked in a plant almost all of his working life where membership in the Allied Industrial Workers was mandatory. Other than taking dues money and giving sweet heart jobs for union bosses he could never see what earthly good the union did for him and his fellow workers. If membership in the union had been optional he would have left it in a heartbeat.

Joe Hargrave
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 1:19pm

Just another reason why our treasures ought to be stored up in heaven, where they won’t rot.

RR
RR
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 1:26pm

You shouldn’t have to join a union but I think it’s perfectly permissible to insist that non-members pay for free riding.

Also, I bought the whole idea that public sector unions are bad but I’m not sure why that must be. There is an effective check on public sector unions. If Gov. Walker can do what he’s doing now, he can certainly stand up to unreasonable union demands.

On a related note, how do those who support Lila Rose’s deceptions feel now that Gov. Walker has been the victim? It’s still fair game? Is this the world we wanna live in? Where nothing is confidential?

R.C.
R.C.
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 1:37pm

Well stated.

Right of free association prohibits the government from prohibiting unions or union membership, provided the unions are freely joined by each member as an option which he may voluntarily leave or take without fear of consequences being imposed on him as a result of the decision.

Right of free association likewise prohibits the government from requiring that employers, including the government itself, deal solely with the unions, or with a particular union, for obtaining a worker to fill a particular job.

I suppose the only real question for libertarians, then, is this: Does a private (not government) employer have the right to not hire, or even to fire, persons purely for being/becoming members of a union?

In short, the right of free association exists, and the government has no just authority to penalize you (that is, to initiate force against you) for your association with a union. But if I don’t hire you or if I fire you, that isn’t an instance of me exercising force against you. It’s merely me refusing to associate with you. (I am, for the purposes of this example, assuming that I am not a company owner in a company town where the company, for all intents and purposes, is the government.)

So, do I have a right as an employer to not associate with you, or to cease associating with you, because of who I just found out you’ve been associating with?

My inclination is to say, “Yes, I have that right, provided I’m not the government, or in a position of such monopolistic power that my refusing to associate with you constitutes a de-facto exercise of force against you.”

R.C.
R.C.
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 1:39pm

RR:

Why should it be considered “free riding” if non-union members are hired by the same employer, for the same jobs, under different terms (since their terms were not negotiated by the union)?

Bill Sr.
Bill Sr.
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 1:41pm

In the late 40’s lots of plants were moving south to right to work states.
I watched a union member family of five move from Ohio to Tenn. to work in a plant which went non-union. He was told to strike and walk the picket line for less than half pay. After nearly two years with his family living on beans and biscuits he finally gave up. Sticking with the union rather than going non-union and providing for his family taught ME a lesson I’ve never forgotten.

G-Veg
G-Veg
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 1:58pm

Is it injust that we have “better benefits and higher wages” at this particular moment?

I would suggest that a down economy naturally lends itself to stronger wages and more certain benefits in precisely those sectors that enjoy weaker wages and declining benefits during periods of significant economic growth. There seems to be an inverse relationship to the attractriveness of government jobs and the attractiveness of private – sector employment.

G-Veg
G-Veg
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 1:59pm

By “injust,” I meant “unjust.”

RR
RR
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 2:01pm

RC, because the terms won’t be different. If employers don’t extend the same benefits they negotiated with unions to non-members, non-members can just walk in to the boss’s office and demand identical terms and they’ll very likely get them. They reap the benefits of unionization with minimal effort.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 2:17pm

“If employers don’t extend the same benefits they negotiated with unions to non-members, non-members can just walk in to the boss’s office and demand identical terms and they’ll very likely get them.”

Why? If I were an employer I’d give better terms to my non-union employees in hopes their ranks would swell.

The free rider argument in regard to unions has always struck me as weak. The truth is that there has always been a substantial segment of workers who do not wish to belong to unions, and the closed shop and mandatory deduction of dues is the union response to their unpopularity among more than a few of the workers they purport to represent. If unions were as popular as their mythology represents, neither the closed shop nor mandatory union dues deductions would ever have been necessary.

R.C.
R.C.
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 2:29pm

RR:

So you’re saying that the non-members can only achieve the better benefits by doing a little research into the salaries and benefits of other folk in their industry, and engaging in their own negotiations.

But isn’t that what everyone does to obtain a raise? Anyone with a little initiative and gumption, that is. Again, not something it’s just to call “free-riding.”

But whether it is or isn’t, it seems to me that the principle of free-association prohibits government from requiring by law that people pay a fee for not being in a union.

To say that the government may do that, is to say that I and a cavalcade of my fellow citizens may, with just moral authority, pull out a weapon and, while threatening you with violence if you don’t accede to my demands, take your property from you to punish you for not associating with the folk with whom we wish you to associate. Not very free, that.

Foxfier
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 2:31pm

Aw, folks beat me to the “being forced to PAY union dues when you don’t want to be a member, especially when you’re not a member, is also a violation of the right to associate.”

RR
RR
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 2:44pm

RC, non-members have a much easier time negotiating a raise when the union has already done the heavy lifting for its members. That’s just common sense.

As for whether it violates free association, I see it like the debate over the constitutionality of the health care mandate. An individual mandate may be unconstitutional but taxing and spending to the same ends is not. Likewise, forcing everyone to pay union dues may violate free association but employers can pass union costs on to their employees regardless of membership.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 2:54pm

“Likewise, forcing everyone to pay union dues may violate free association but employers can pass union costs on to their employees regardless of membership.”

Why in the world would they do that?

RR
RR
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 3:51pm

I don’t know much about Germany but from what I read it seems like their high rate of union membership is primarily a cultural phenomena.

If unions members contract to get x percent more than non-members, you’d get a de facto closed shop.

RR
RR
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 4:02pm

Don, I don’t know if employers would voluntarily pass unions costs on to employers regardless of membership but they can be made to. Or the government can bank roll unions. Point is there are ways to make non-members pay without violating the right to free association so I don’t find the “I have a right not to pay union dues” all that convincing an argument against closed shops.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 4:41pm

“Point is there are ways to make non-members pay without violating the right to free association so I don’t find the “I have a right not to pay union dues” all that convincing an argument against closed shops.”

RR if I am forced to pay for a private organization I do not wish to support that certainly does violate my right to free association. The closed shop is a classic example of forced association. The decline of unionism in the private sector has been caused by many factors, but I think the coercive aspects of unionism left a bad taste in the mouth of many workers towards unions.

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Black Adder
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 5:01pm

If it came down to it, a union could always write it into their contracts that they get x percent more than nonunionized workers, adjusting for various factors

My first reaction is to wonder why anyone would agree to this, but then it strikes me that “adjusting for various factors” might cover a lot. For instance, unions often seem to want to have compensation determined primarily by seniority and very expensive benefits (very low deductible insurance, guaranteed pension benefit, etc.) To someone with a non-union frame of mine, like me, who might also be planning to move on out or up into non-unionized roles fairly quickly, it would actually be more attractive to work non-union with a slightly lower total comp + benefits package if my package leaned more toward salary and less towards benefits, and if I could get pay and bonuses based on performance rather than seniority. For someone intent on plodding along and watching the clock for thirty years at the same company, working union might be more attractive.

Foxfier
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 5:22pm

Folks who disagree with the political leaning of the union– or who have a moral objection to the union at all– might take lower pay; those who have insurance from another source might jump at the chance to get more pay over redundant benefits, or to choose their own benefits elsewhere.

The obvious response to a union contract that says that the union workers will always get a set amount more than the non-union workers would be for those who don’t want to join Union 1 to form Union 2.

Joe Green
Joe Green
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 5:57pm

I said I’d stay away, but this one begs a response. Greedy labor unions killed most of the good daily newspapers in NYC, where I grew up and suffered with millions of other citizen-taxpayers forced to suffer through countless teacher, transit, garbage, and other government worker strikes and impossible wage and other demands that sent a once-great city in a steep decline from which it never recovered.

I’ll never forget the Daily News headline back in the 1970’s when New York sought help from the federal government: “Ford to City: Drop Dead!”

The headline today should be: “Wisconsin to Unions: Shut Up!”

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 6:23pm

Stick around Joe. You are a worthy sparring partner!

Joe Green
Joe Green
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 6:25pm

Thanks, Don. All forgiven?

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 6:30pm

Nothing to forgive Joe.

Joe Green
Joe Green
Thursday, February 24, AD 2011 6:34pm

In that case, allow me to observe:

It’s hard to have much respect for the collective intelligence of the American people when the majority do not seem to know the difference between “STOP” and “YIELD.”

: )

Kurt
Kurt
Friday, February 25, AD 2011 2:18pm

A significant amount of public employee union dues (100%, indirectly paid by TAXPAYERS) is used to help elect mostly democrat

Neither in federal elections nor Wisconsin elections may union dues be used to make contributions to candidates. Contributions come from a separate political action committee of which no union member is required to give an dmost do not. (Even though all union members, PAC givers and non-PAC givers get to vote on endorsements).

i don’t know much about Germany but from what I read it seems like their high rate of union membership is primarily a cultural phenomena.

It is largely due to the strong role the Catholic Church played in promoting trade unionism and union membership, along maybe with the intercession of German labor union leader Blessed Nikolas Gross.

I actually don’t have a problem with a closed shop with its what the employer and union agree to. On the other hand, if a business wants to have an open shop that also should be allowed.

The closed shop is illegal and has been since the Taft-Hartley Act.

A Union Shop is only permissible with the agreement of both management and labor. Union shops are not permitted among federal goverment employees or in “Right-to-Work” states.

The Open Shop is perfectly legal and exists except where a union shop has been agreed to per above.

if I am forced to pay for a private organization I do not wish to support that certainly does violate my right to free association. The closed shop is a classic example of forced association.

The Union Shop under the NLRA is balanced with the Union’s duty of fair representation. Full disclosure: I am a union representative in an open shop. If I fail to give those employees who are not union members the same level of service I give those who pay dues, I can be fined, fired or go to jail. I have never heard one conservative or libertarian make a single comment of the unfairness of this.

Labor has long said they are happy to give up the opportunity to negotiate for an Union Shop if it is then free to only represent those who join the union. In fact, during the Bush Administration, a union tried to get the NLRB to sauy it could do that. Both the Chamber of Commerce and the Bush Administration successfully filed objections.

Foxfier
Friday, February 25, AD 2011 2:55pm

Kurt-
are they non-members, or ‘core members’?

It’s a little disingenuous to go from someone saying that union dues are used to elect democrats to talking about direct PAC contributions. The purple shirted thugs of late are a big example of this “help.”

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Kurt
Friday, February 25, AD 2011 2:58pm

Kurt,

If I fail to give those employees who are not union members the same level of service I give those who pay dues, I can be fined, fired or go to jail. I have never heard one conservative or libertarian make a single comment of the unfairness of this.

FWIW, I believe I commented to you within the last couple weeks that this strikes me as unfair. As someone against unions as they currently exist in the US, if there were a union operating at the company I worked for I would not only not want to have to be a member of pay “fair share”, but I would also not want to have the union deal with any grievance I might have, not want to have my employment constricted by the union contract, etc. (I also don’t won’t an employer to be able to hand off it’s HR duties to a union, as it gives them too much plausible deniability.)

So at least, now you can say that at least one conservative or libertarian has agreed with you this is unfair. 🙂

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Kurt
Friday, February 25, AD 2011 3:00pm

Neither in federal elections nor Wisconsin elections may union dues be used to make contributions to candidates. Contributions come from a separate political action committee of which no union member is required to give an dmost do not. (Even though all union members, PAC givers and non-PAC givers get to vote on endorsements).

Also, I believe this is a tad disingenuous in that unions can easily advocate in an election without giving money directly to a candidate. That’s like suggesting the NRA is a non-partisan organization.

Kurt
Kurt
Friday, February 25, AD 2011 4:06pm

are they non-members, or ‘core members’?

Non-members. Where management and labor have agreed to a union shop, employees still have the option to quit the union and only pay an agency fee. The agency fee payers still have all the rights to equal service from the union and can sue if they feel they have not been served.

In an open shop, those who pay no dues or agency fees still have all of the rights to equal service. Now, you may ask “yes, Kurt, but who would be enough of an a**h@@@ to willfully not join the union, pay a cent of dues, and still demand union representation and take action if they did not get it?” You would be amazed. My union lawyers make me take hours of training every year to make sure I don’t get a DFR complaint lodged against me.

I believe this is a tad disingenuous in that unions can easily advocate in an election without giving money directly to a candidate.

Indpendent expenditures on behalf of a candidate using union dues money is also illegal in federal and Wisconsin elections. Not only can a union not use dues money to buy a TV ad saying “vote for X” but it would be illegal for a union to spend dues money to give members a t-shirt with the union name on it to go to a campaign rally.

So at least, now you can say that at least one conservative or libertarian has agreed with you this is unfair

Should I hold my breath for the second?

And rather than constantly reading from conservatives attacks on unions for the union shop, should I have any hope that these attacks would be retired and instead conservatives would focus on attacking the Chamber of Commerce for their position and demand that unions be allowed to be organized that simply represent their voluntary dues paying members? The AFL-CIO has been for this since Blessed Lane Kirkland. Its nothing new on the labor side.

And once we resolve that, maybe you can give me a defense of the conservative position on the prohibition of secondary boycotts?

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Kurt
Friday, February 25, AD 2011 4:19pm

Indpendent expenditures on behalf of a candidate using union dues money is also illegal in federal and Wisconsin elections. Not only can a union not use dues money to buy a TV ad saying “vote for X” but it would be illegal for a union to spend dues money to give members a t-shirt with the union name on it to go to a campaign rally.

Well, given your expertise on the topic, maybe you can explain a bit for those of us who only read the news stories. It’s common knowledge that unions are some of the biggest spenders in elections dealing with issues they’re concerned about. Are you saying this is entirely PAC money and dues are never used for it?

Also, if this is the case, why to unions often include positions on topics having nothing to do with their areas of work in their union resolutions? For instance, a public school teacher friend of mine was complaining to me recently that the NEA and OEA both specifically endorse abortion and birth control in their resolutions. If unions are not going around advocating in favor of various political issues, why are they spending resources adopting resolutions on these topics?

Foxfier
Friday, February 25, AD 2011 4:32pm

Non-members. Where management and labor have agreed to a union shop, employees still have the option to quit the union and only pay an agency fee. The agency fee payers still have all the rights to equal service from the union and can sue if they feel they have not been served.

According to the NLRB link that I provided:
The NLRA allows employers and unions to enter into union-security agreements, which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired.

Even under a security agreement, employees who object to full union membership may continue as ‘core’ members and pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer full members but are still protected by the union contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right.

An employee may object to union membership on religious grounds, but in that case, must pay an amount equal to dues to a nonreligious charitable organization.

More than 20 states have banned union-security agreements by passing so-called “right to work” laws. In these states, it is up to each employee at a workplace to decide whether or not to join the union and pay dues, even though all workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union. These states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

Can you provide the text showing where you’re required to give union representation to these folks on the same level as full union members? The site search is borderline useless.

Indpendent expenditures on behalf of a candidate using union dues money is also illegal in federal and Wisconsin elections. Not only can a union not use dues money to buy a TV ad saying “vote for X” but it would be illegal for a union to spend dues money to give members a t-shirt with the union name on it to go to a campaign rally.

Again, you’re either missing the point or dodging.

RL
RL
Friday, February 25, AD 2011 4:53pm

Stop holding your breath Kurt. I think that’s unfair. I also think it’s unfair to require non-union employees to fork over even a minimal of funds to the union.

In these states, it is up to each employee at a workplace to decide whether or not to join the union and pay dues, even though all workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union.

And there’s the rub. It may be in some (or possibly many) instances that a non-union worker is “protected” by the union’s agreement. However, that means the non-union employee and the company are also restricted by the union agreement. This strikes me as unfair too.

Kurt
Kurt
Saturday, February 26, AD 2011 10:21am

Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 55 LRRM 2031 (1964).

MacKnight v. Leonard Morse Hospital, 828 F.2d 48,126 LRRM 2259, 2261 (1st Cir. 1987).

http://www.teamster.org/content/duty-fair-representation (last item)

From the Federal Labor Relations Authority (bolding is mine):

THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION UNDER THE STATUTE

A. The Section 7114(a)(1) Duty of Fair Representation
Section 7114(a)(1) of the Statute provides:
§ 7114. Representation rights and duties.

(a)(1) A labor organization which has been accorded exclusive recognition is the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit it represents and is entitled to act for, and negotiate collective bargaining agreements covering, all employees in the unit. An exclusive representative is responsible for representing the interests of all employees in the unit it represents without discrimination and without regard to labor organization membership.

The obligation set forth in the second sentence of section 7114(a)(1) of the Statute is commonly referred to as an exclusive representative’s duty of fair representation. The Authority has interpreted this section to require an exclusive representative to represent the interests of all bargaining unit employees: 1) without discrimination; and 2) without regard to whether the employee is a dues paying member of the exclusive representative. The duty of fair representation is grounded in the principle that when a union attains the status of exclusive representative, it must use that power to fairly and equally represent all members of the unit.
I will first discuss that aspect of the duty of fair representation which involves disparate treatment by a union of a unit employee based on union membership.
B. Authority Test When Employees are Treated Differently Based on Union Membership
1. Legal Test
This aspect of the duty of fair representation usually concerns situations where a non-dues paying bargaining unit employee claims disparate treatment from that received by dues paying union members. In other words, an employee alleges he/she was treated differently just because they were not union members.

Kurt
Kurt
Saturday, February 26, AD 2011 10:32am

Stop holding your breath Kurt. I think that’s unfair. I also think it’s unfair to require non-union employees to fork over even a minimal of funds to the union.

OK. And the labor movement is happy to concurrently do away with both. The Chamber of Commerce and the GOP is not. I appreciate your kindness. Can you advise me about how we can get the great majority of conservatives who have taken up your viewpoint to move on this?

Again, you’re either missing the point or dodging.

The law is clear that Wisconsin unions can’t use dues money for political activities. If you are aware of a violation of the law, I think you should report it to the Wisconsin AG.

Bill Sr.
Bill Sr.
Saturday, February 26, AD 2011 12:03pm

Within the past twenty years there were tens of thousands of private sector employees just like myself who, after many years on the job and been given our “outstanding service” plaques, were regrettably “downsized” out of a job because our companies or subsidiaries could no longer “afford” us. It was simply and necessarily the right fiscal move to keep the company profitable for the stockholders.
Why in heavens name can’t the state of Wisconsin or any other enterprise with responsibility to those who fund their operations use the same logic to maintain its solvency without being looked upon as villains?
Also, I feel certain that not any one of the people I have referred to was promised a job for life and were free to terminate their employment when ever we wished.

Foxfier
Saturday, February 26, AD 2011 12:11pm

Humphrey V. Moore looks to be about the union being required to represent everyone when they’re the only ones allowed to represent anyone, and MacKnight v. Leonard Morse Hospital has no mention of union membership in it.
(The case seems to be about a really bad nurse throwing a fit about the person who represented her deciding, after the case was done, that she really shouldn’t be a nurse.)

The only link between MacKnight and membership in a union I could find was a statement in this document, as some sort of afterthought to mentioning that grievance representations have to be materially deficient to be actionable.

The text you quoted boils down to: “When the union is the only one allowed to represent anyone, they have to represent non-union members, too.”

Or:
FLRA.gov
Basically, an exclusive representative may not treat non-union members differently than dues paying union members in matters over which the union has exclusive control. Thus, the duty not to discriminate based on union membership attaches only when an employee has no right to choose a representative other than the union to represent the employee in the underlying dispute. In situations where an employee may choose a representative other than the exclusive representative, such as in a proceeding before the Merit Systems Protection Board or in litigation in a U.S. District Court, the exclusive representative may discriminate between dues paying members and non-members and thus may lawfully treat employees differently on the basis of whether or not they pay dues and belong to the union. Since the union in such situations does not have exclusive representation authority, the employees who are not union members may protect their interests by selecting representation from other sources. Thus, the Authority has held that an exclusive representative’s responsibilities will be analyzed “in the context of whether or not the union’s representational activities on behalf of employees are grounded in the union’s authority to act as exclusive representative.”

So you’re not required to give non-members service equal to what you’d give union members, unless they’re barred from getting that service themselves.

I can see why folks would object if the unions didn’t give up all exclusive representation rights– that is, if it wasn’t made so that non-union members aren’t bound by union deals. Without having the data about the lawsuit on hand, and not being able to find it without better details, I’m not prone to think well of the unions.

Can you advise me about how we can get the great majority of conservatives who have taken up your viewpoint to move on this?

Why try to get ‘conservatives’ to do it, when you could try to get the unions to work for it? Be a good thing– get them off of abortion, birth control, etc.
Could even make a nice big national campaign out of it- “True Freedom! Freeing those who want no union from being bound by union deals, freeing unions from responsibility to those who don’t want to join!”

The law is clear that Wisconsin unions can’t use dues money for political activities.

I believe you mean partisan political activities. Same way that ACORN isn’t allowed to be partisan– and we all believe that, right?

DarwinCatholic
Saturday, February 26, AD 2011 1:27pm

OK. And the labor movement is happy to concurrently do away with both. The Chamber of Commerce and the GOP is not. I appreciate your kindness. Can you advise me about how we can get the great majority of conservatives who have taken up your viewpoint to move on this?

My guess is, you’d find that the vast majority of conservatives have no interest in continuing this — after all many conservatives don’t want there to be unions at all, so they could hardly want unions to be representing non-union members. The reason folks like the Chamber of Commerce would oppose changing this is, I would imagine, that one of the benefits a company would be considering in forming an agreement with a union would be that they can now push off a lot of their HR work on the union. If the union is relieved of this responsibility, this effectively increase’s the company’s costs. So they aren’t going to want to let unions off the hook without renegotiating on terms more favorable to them. However, if unions never wanted to have to represent these folks anyway, I’m sure they should be happy to agree.

If conservatives aren’t leading the charge on this, it’s probably because they either don’t know about it or are busy trying to relieve unions of other responsibilities.

The law is clear that Wisconsin unions can’t use dues money for political activities. If you are aware of a violation of the law, I think you should report it to the Wisconsin AG.

Forgive me, but I get the sense that we’re getting answers here which are true but not actually answering the question asked. Anyone who reads the paper knows that union money is a big factor (almost always on the progressive side of the aisle) in elections. Now, it’s possible that all of this is voluntarily given PAC money from happy union members — after all the NRA is an election heavyweight and all its money is collected from voluntarily paying members — but I must admit that given that virtually all the actual union members I know are unwilling members who have been forced to join by union shop agreements, I find it a little hard to believe that PAC donations are the sole source of all the union money at play in elections.

Now it’s possible that:

a) This is somehow different in Wisconsin than in much of the rest of the country or
b) You’re telling us things that are true but not actually answering the questions we’re asking.

How do I get this idea about union money in elections? Well, a quick google search returned this as the number one result:

Two top newspapers are examining two of the top spenders in this year’s campaigns. The Wall Street Journal says the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is the no. 1 independent spender. The New York Times delves into public records to identify corporations that are helping to fund policy battles and record campaign spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

According to the Journal, AFSCME is spending $87.5 million — more than anyone else, but the title could be temporary depending on what happens in the next 10 days. The union’s money comes from dues paid by its 1.6 million members.

So, is Politics Daily lying or mistaken, or is it in fact common practice for dues money to go to political purposes? In this case, Labor apparently out-spent the Chamber of Commerce, which suggests some pretty solidly deep pockets.

And here’s the Daily Beast saying the same thing even more explicitly:

Team Obama’s message in the closing weeks of the campaign was completely eclipsed Friday by a union official who openly boasted in a story reported by The Wall Street Journal: “We don’t like to brag,” but “we’re the big dog” when it comes to campaign funding.

Big as in $87.5 million. Big as in the biggest spender of any outside group—all meant to protect the interests of unions, the new “privileged class.” But wait a minute: Team O led us to believe that honor went to the vilified U.S. Chamber of Commerce and all of its alleged contributions from “foreign money” sponsors.

A record $87.5 million has been spent by one union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, to elect Democrats. Paid not by voluntary contribution from its members, but by forced union dues from workers—who are paid by taxpayers.

Kurt
Kurt
Saturday, February 26, AD 2011 2:03pm

My guess is, you’d find that the vast majority of conservatives have no interest in continuing this

Well, we have a situation in which labor has an offer on the table to abolish. And we have your assertion (which I will accept) that most rank and file conservatives would accept labor’s offer. And we have the reality that the Chamber of Commerce and the GOP are blocking abolishing this situation.

Where this leads me is that once again rank and file conservatives are dupes for Big Business and the Republican establishment. We have conservative politicans blocking the way for what labor and informed rank and file conservatives see as the right path. And we have scads of conservatives (as any google search will show) who rail against the unuon shop while are blind to DFR obligations of unions.

DarwinCatholic
Saturday, February 26, AD 2011 2:15pm

I don’t think that conservatives are particularly “dupes” in this regard, they just don’t translate their thinking into the particular actions which would be most helpful to labor. They’re a lot more interested in getting unions out entirely than in relieving them of their obligations to non-union workers in an open shop.

Of course, what I’d be much more interested in is your response to the question about election spending and union dues.

Kurt
Kurt
Saturday, February 26, AD 2011 5:06pm

I don’t think that conservatives are particularly “dupes” in this regard, they just don’t translate their thinking into the particular actions which would be most helpful to labor. They’re a lot more interested in getting unions out entirely

I appreciate that. It’s not hard to say: “I’m against labor unions I want to get rid of them entirely.”

I obviously disagree with that view, but I appreciate it much better than those who pretend they are not against organized labor, just raise a myriad of particular objections.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top