Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Janus case, a case that rightwing supporters hope will cripple public-sector labor unions by making membership voluntary. Janus is a public employee who doesn’t want to pay union dues. If non-members get the same benefits as dues-paying members, then many members will drop out and the labor movement will lose its political power.
Here is the union explanation of Janus.
https://www.afscme.org/now/what-janus-v-afscme-is-really-about
Here is the anti-union explanation.
Janus v. AFSCME: A Case to Protect Public Employees’ First Amendment Rights
The Economic Policy Institute reports that black women—and women as a group—are disproportionately represented among the affected workers.
If Janus goes against the unions, they should seriously consider an approach in which the benefits they negotiate are awarded only to dues-paying members. Wages, pensions, Heath Care. Why should those who don’t pay dues enjoy the benefits negotiated by collective bargaining?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane – if they are the sole bargaining agent — like the UFT – they have no choice but to cover non members. But if they are not the sole bargaining agent – the newly formed UFT won in an election around 1962 I believe then they don’t have to take care of non-members. Fact is the UFT et al don’t want to ever give up sole bargaining rights and prefer to cover non members. That is not to say that say if 30% leave the UFT and form another union and then call for another bargaining election we might see that happening.
LikeLike
Sure, cover non-dues paying members but the union should not offer legal help when a non-paying member is targeted by abusive administrators and/or parents.
If a teacher decides not to pay dues, then let them suffer when they are abused or accused of being incompetent. Let those non-paying members pay for their own lawyers.
If you don’t pay dues, you can’t file a grievance through the labor union against your crappy boss and believe me, there are a lot of crappy, abusive bosses out there in both the private and public sector.
For instance, if a Trump type slips into her classroom after school and gropes a teacher and abused her sexually and she doesn’t pay dues, she is on her own. The union does not offer legal help to defend and protect her against that abuse.
LikeLike
If unions lose in court they should still insist that very worker in a job that has union workers should have the same benefits but not be required to defend non union workers against management abuse. If non union workers have fewer benefits management would seek to only hire workers who agree not to join a union.
LikeLike
I like your thinking. Give them the same benefits but leave them to fend for themselves with management when it comes to abusive practices. I was only a probationary teacher, so I never had union protection from management abuse. You are basically at the mercy of management whims. We were a ready pool of RIF employees, and incompetent or inexperienced administrators could “practice” management on us with little chance of complaint. Because we could be fired at will, it was a neat way to “chance upon” more qualified candidates (i.e. former students, family members or acquaintances) or eliminate potential future costs (health risks). I hate to paint such a negative picture, but “speaking truth to power” is something reserved to those who are tenured and/or have a power base that is difficult to dismiss.
LikeLike
Black women will face the most harm, followed by white women as the profession is at least 75% female. “Reform” is also a war on women. Teaching is one of the few careers where women do not have to go up the paternalistic hierarchy and beg for a raise.
LikeLike
Isn’t the union legally bound to defend these scabs, even if they pay nothing towards the union?
LikeLike
There seems to be a big misunderstanding as to what the NLRA was all about . Unions only achieve power by being the sole bargaining agent for a work unit . An employer can not negotiate agreements with other workers when the Union is the certified representative . That was the point of the NLRA to force recognition . That puts Unions in the position of having to represent all workers in all matters related to the contract they have negotiated. Because those workers have no legal ability to represent themselves.
However the NLRA did not include Public Workers; leaving those labor relations up to the States . Where anything goes,some states modeled after the NLRA other sought to limit rights further . Most Public workers have been denied the legal right to strike . Some have had the scope of what can be negotiated limited . Janus is not seeking an interpretation of the NLRA , it is a challenge to the States laws on constitutional grounds . The State in this case forces fair share payments (some don’t ) . The challenge is on 1st amendment grounds.
But none of this is binding. The question comes down to how much workers are going to sacrifice. Workers today are living off of the sacrifice of those long gone and that sacrifice
was not just economic . . At some point workers will have to be willing to sacrifice again.
“Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose”
LikeLike