When Illinois Givernor Beuce Rauner first proposed a limit on unions’ ability to collect dues from non-members, the Néw York Times published this editorial explaining why Rauner is wrong. Non-members enjoy the wages and benefits negotiated by unions. The Times called it a “war on workers.”
“At issue are so called “fair share” fees. In a unionized workplace, a union must extend collectively bargained pay raises and other benefits to nonmembers. The nonmembers — about 15 percent of unionized state employees in Illinois — do not have to pay union dues or contribute to the union’s political activities. Instead, under the law in Illinois and in many other states, they must pay the union a fair-share fee, which is less than full dues, to cover the cost of collective bargaining undertaken on their behalf.”
Diminishing the power of unions hurts all working people.
“Allowing nonmembers to get union benefits without paying fair-share fees would tempt dues-paying members to drop out. Union coffers — and bargaining power — would be weakened. Ultimately, all working people would suffer, because collectively bargained pay increases in unionized workplaces tend to lift wages in nonunionized ones, as companies compete for employees. Anti-unionism, which has become increasingly entrenched in recent decades, correlates with stagnating and declining wages. As unions have been harmed, not only by market forces but by policies that deliberately weaken them, income has flowed increasingly to those at the top of the economic ladder rather than to workers.”
Crushing unions is good for the 1%. But not for workers who need a route into the middle class

You go, Diane! The clear bias that the GOP shows toward unions is only based on the fact that the unions are the “last man standing” in the way of the corporate plutocrats. They have bought the politicians. They have bought the courts. Who but the unions can stand up to their goal of “everything for the dollar, nothing for the community” actions?
LikeLike
I have mixed emotions about mandatory union dues by any description. I believe in NYS they are called agency fees. I feel the UFT is reluctant to fight aggressively for its members because the state guarantees its survival making the UFT more beholden to the politicians. Since the agency fee provision was enacted in 1977 there has never been a call for a strike no matter how egregious the abuse of teachers. Prior to 1977 there were 2 strikes under the Taylor with one of the strikes occurring under the 2-for-1 per/day wage penalty. Randi Weingarten stated she would call for a strike if tenure was under assault. Tenure is gone under the VAM proposed rating system. Two consecutive negative VAM scores would override the other components of a teacher’s evaluation and result in dismissal. Still waiting for Randi.
LikeLike
Historically, there are a number of issues associated with unions submitting to a formal set of federal labor regulations. Government protection of a (limited) right to stike/organize has been accompanied by rules that restrict union independence and employee voice:
“Building on the anti-union amendments fashioned by the Southern Democrats, NAM, and the AFL in 1939, the Taft-Hartley Act put its greatest emphasis on adding new rights for corporate executives in relation to labor, which in effect gave management more latitude to pressure workers. For one thing, the Taft-Hartley amendments included new language that downgraded the importance of collective bargaining in the name of free speech for both employers and workers. In practice, this meant employers could refuse to bargain and more readily propagandize workers through pamphlets, flyers, and speeches at meetings workers had to attend. Veiled threats to move the plants elsewhere were often made and companies did increase their efforts to move factories to the South whenever possible. In addition, the softening of provisions against unfair management practices aided in the defense and extension of company unions (Jacoby 1997, pp. 183-191, 200-203).
The act also added a list of unfair labor practices that hampered union organizing by outlawing tactics that were used in the 1930s to win union recognition, such as mass picketing and secondary boycotts. Unauthorized (“wildcat”) strikes by the rank-and-file on the shop floor were prohibited, which took power from those on the bottom of the union and at the same time forced the labor leaders to police their dissident members or else be in violation of the law (e.g., Gross 1995, Chapter 1).”
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/history_of_labor_unions.html
LikeLike
Yes the Taft-Hartley Act did weaken unions. Nevertheless unions grew well into the early seventies. The UFT grew without a mandatory dues checkoff until 1977. I know that those were different times but I still believe that mandatory dues weakened unions in the long run because leadership catered to those that guaranteed their pay checks.
LikeLike
My sense, admittedly that of an outsider, is that the aloofness (if that’s the word) among the UFT’s leadership has a lot more to do with its governance structure and internal politics than with mandatory dues. I don’t see how unions can possibly survive without mandatory dues, at least not as we currently conceive of unions.
LikeLike
Recall that the UFT had tremendous growth during the 60’s without mandatory dues payment. Union leaders were forced to fight for membership by actions that supported teachers. I recognize that those were different times but I do believe that some of the problems unions face today are self inflicted.
LikeLike
And you will continue to wait for Randi. Unions are not looking out for their members because the individuals who run the Unions have forgotten what it’s like to be a teacher with their six figure salaries and cushy do nothing jobs. The only way to improve the profession is for teachers to form their own Unions. This will eliminate the middle man who in many cases is not looking out for the best interests of students and teachers. Just look no further than the current state of affairs in education and ask yourself where have the Unions been? They have been sticking it to their members so I don’t necessarily agree with mandatory dues those dues should be earned and in the last decade or so they have been far from earned. Why would Unions have to bust their tails to produce for students and teachers if their dues are going to come in no matter what?
LikeLike
Finally someone who I am in agreement with although in the minority.
LikeLike
Mr. Brocoum,
I certainly don’t disagree with you in regards to the larger point about self-inflicted wounds.
LikeLike
We’re seeing a race to the bottom in the United States. Using a divide and conquer strategy, conservative elites have engineered RTW laws in former union strongholds in an effort to kneecap unions. And it’s working. Their primary claim is that unions often contribute to Democrats which is offensive to Republican union members. (Except dues can’t be used for that, PACS which are optional can be used for that.)
With this argument, they’ve allowed for freeloading on union backs. We’ve seen people not pay their dues in my district. They still want the union-negotiated contract but they can get it without paying the dues. Over time, this will dissipate the unions entirely. (Or at least until the middle class is thoroughly destroyed and the Gilded Age fully returns.)
Why do they do this? To attract businesses. Which makes sense but this strategy has generally not worked. Michigan has seen more jobs but lower average wages. Oklahoma has suffered as a result of RTW. Governors and legislatures are selling out their workers / citizens to business owners.
It’s like every state is simply trying to outdo their neighbors. A darkly comic sketch on the Daily Show two years ago had Jason Jones in Lansing and Asif Mandvi in Indianapolis in a duel where each respective legislature was selling out their workers more viciously. The final “fake law” was the income incentive act where business owners would pay their employees with cash thrown into a pit where the employees would then fight for the money “armed only with the bones of the fortunate dead.”
Strangely, it wasn’t laugh out loud funny.
LikeLike
What reaction does anyone have to WSJ’s editorial on a “failed” union charter in NYC?
LikeLike
Organized people–people power by the many–is the only defense against money power in the hands of a few.
LikeLike
TAGO!
LikeLike
Without unions, corporations would hold even MORE power than they already do (if you can imagine that!). Excellent article, Diane
excellencevsequality.wordpress.com
LikeLike