Court Decision Gives Unions More Money for Recruitment

National Federation of Independent Business ^ | 03/26/02 | National Federation of Independent Business

[BellStar]

Union leaders celebrated a federal appeals court's
ruling yesterday that found employees at unionized
companies cannot withhold the part of their union fees
that pay for organizing drives, the New York Times
reports.

Under current law, even if workers decide not to join
the union at their workplaces, they must still pay
union fees, which are usually close to full union dues.
In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that non-union
workers have a right to withhold the portion of their
payment used to finance political activity, or
basically any money that's not directly related to
collective bargaining on workers' behalf.

But the federal appeals court decided not to extend
that right to money used for organizing drives, since
more members contribute to greater bargaining power.

"No worker should be forced to fund the recruitment of
supporters to a private ideological cause," said Stefan
Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work
Foundation, who promised his organization would
appeal to the Supreme Court. "This ruling is an
outrageous affront to employee freedom."

[BellStar]

I hate this so bad!

[BellStar]

"Under current law, even if workers decide not to join the union
at their workplaces, they must still pay union fees"

Does any one but me care? Am I that out of step? I think this stinks!

[eric_da_grate]

"This ruling is an outrageous affront to employee freedom."

"Employee freedom" is the price to be paid for joining a union....You'll support the RATS wether you like it or not...Dollars to donuts says that this judge is a Clinton appointee.

Funny how the typical union supporter makes the case that he sides with union labor because he'll feel sheltered from "exploitation".

[Taxman]

No, Bellstar, you are not the only one who cares.

I know that Labor Unions outlived their usefulness in America before WWI, and have been hanging on ever since then only because the Federal governement has legislated their contined existence and overlooked their criminal activity.

I have never belonged to a Labor Union and never will -- I believe that the laws which require workers to pay union dues against their will are unconstitutional, and should have been overturned years ago.

There is more, but you get my drift. If I were "King for a Day," Right to Work would become the law of the land, and the criminals in the Labor Unions would go to prison.

[aabbccddeeff]

It is all about pension money
Remember UPS strike?
That was a dispute of pension money control
Look at who controls the pension funds.

As always follow the $$ and you will find the answer.

[Holden Magroin]

I believe that the laws which require workers to pay union dues against their will are unconstitutional, and should have been overturned years ago.

I also don't think nonunion workers should be forced to pay union dues, but let me play devil's advocate for a second.

Conservatives usually say that minimum wage laws should be repealed because the government has no right to tell businesses what to pay their employees. If the worker doesn't like what he's getting paid, they argue, he should just get another job. So don't you think that if a worker doesn't want to pay union dues, he should just look for another job?

[On the Road to Serfdom]

You would have a point if the employer was the one making union membership manditory. However, what we are talking about here is the goverment forcing people who work at the business to pay money to a union even though both parties to the transaction-employer and employee-would prefer that no money be paid to the union.

[Taxman]

NO!

There is a hellofa difference between "forced unionism" and the minimum wage laws. [BTW, I am opposed to minimum wage laws as well.] Forcing someone who otherwise might like their job to pay union dues under threat of losing their job is tryanny of the worse sort.

People have a right to voluntarily join together in labor unions, but they certainly do not have the right to force anyone else to support them.

The crime is called extortion. It is a protection racket which benefits only the union bosses and should never have been allowed into law. America is a poorer nation and all Americanx have all suffered grievous harm because of this flawed notion.