Some employees benefit by agency of the Union, without paying for it. That's absolutely true. So I don't really see the problem of paying a reduced rate for a monetary benefit that those employees receive on every paycheck by way of a union's previous and current work. They weren't paying the full rate and still getting the full benefit of association...
That's the way it was under the 1977 USSC ruling.
The justices saw a difference regarding government workers (not private sector workers?).
From the linked article....
""States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees," Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion for the court's five conservative justices.
While I understand the desire to withhold from Union fees if you choose not to join, and/or refuse to join for political reasons, it's a bit disingenuous to accept the wages earned by union negotiations while not having some skin in the game, isn't it?
Unions have and create their own sets of issues. Don't get me wrong. But this decision doesn't correct the problem at hand. There's still an imbalance and unjust scenario being created in the workforce.
Unions formed for a reason, out of necessity, and I think it's important to remember and recognize that, despite their flaws.
I wager that the cost of bargaining is minimal compared to dues.
It appears that the ruling only applies to public sector workers because
union bargaining affects government, & is therefor political in nature.
I'd think that fans of government wouldn't see a need for strong unions
to fight with the very organization they trust (unlike businesses).
As I read news coverage of the ruling, it wouldn't change things for
private sector unions. Thoughts on this?
