[AirForceBrat23]

I'm not too clear on how this works. How can a union require a fee from someone who is not a member?

[Carry_Okie]

How can a union require a fee from someone who is not a member?

Illegally.  It requires complicity within the administration of whoever cuts the checks (I don't know if that is at the State or local level).

Yep, that's how bad it is.

[Ben Mugged]

Closed shop rules.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

>>>I'm not too clear on how this works. How can a union require a fee from someone who is not a member?

Yes, in some states the union can force non-members to pay for representatition related expenses (but not political expenses(legally)).

[newzjunkey]

First, CA is not a "right to work" state. Second, Gov Grey Davis (D) signed a law requiring it and no one's been able to get a repeal to Arnold's desk. The first shot at fixing this is Prop 75 on the Governator's reform special election in a couple weeks. This prevents public unions from using dues for political purposes without express written permission from each worker.

This bottomless funding source for the Dem's comrades is a repulsive act based on the "fig leaf" that because their employment is affected by the union, even non-members should pay their "fair share" for activities taken to their benefit.

Thanks to this endless, compulsory funding source where paychecks are essentially taxed or garnished, the Governator's being outspent at least 3:1 by the unions. The unions have been running smear ads on TV, radio and billboards all *year* long. They are so desperate, the teacher's union has borrowed against future special assessments of its members.

This decision sought by Landmark is a serious victory.