“The unions don’t have to represent the non union workers. The companies they work for pay their benefits not the unions.”
The union do represent all members of the bargaining unit whether they are members of the union or not. The collective bargaining agreement covers all members of the bargaining unit. Non-union members covered by a collective bargaining agreement are subject to the terms of the agreement as are the union members. Non-union members cannot for example go to management and negotiate their own terms of employment if they are covered by a contract.
“The union do represent all members of the bargaining unit whether they are members of the union or not.”
Why? Who imposed that restriction? Was it the unions themselves to prevent non union members from making their own deal with the company?
“Non-union members cannot for example go to management and negotiate their own terms of employment if they are covered by a contract.”
If this is a rule imposed by the union, then it’s really the non union members that should be complaining, since it restricts their freedom to negotiate their own deal with the employer.
Correct. Not once but twice I was forced to go to downtown Houston to defend myself against charges brought by nonmembers that I had failed to properly represent them. I won both cases.
The inability of non-union workers to negotiate separately is actually in place to benefit the unions - and was something they pushed very hard for, IIRC.
The issue I have with this ruling is that the union is treated as having more rights than either workers or management.
I would amend the law to say that when union dues paying falls below 50% of the workers at a company, the union is automatically decertified. (And any coercion by the union - or anyone else - to affect individual dues paying is punishable as felony assault.)