Turns Out, Those Forced Union Dues Did Go To Liberal Advocacy Groups

[aGameOfThrones]

First Amendment: After the Supreme Court ruling that banned forced union dues for public sector workers, liberal activist groups started complaining about how they were going to lose a huge source of funds. Wait? Didn't unions repeatedly claim that those forced dues only went to collective bargaining costs?

The court case, Janus v. AFSCME, centered on the practice in 22 states, whereby public-sector workers could be forced to pay a portion of the union dues, even if they didn't join the union. The court ruled 5-4 that this was a violation of free speech, because it meant that government was forcing nonunion workers to subsidize political advocacy, candidates and policies they don't support.

Throughout the debate, big public-sector unions insisted that those forced dues were perfectly reasonable. Since nonunion members also benefited from union collective bargaining deals with state and local governments, it made sense for them to cover their share of those collective bargaining costs. The unions called it "fair share" fees.

None of those forced dues, unions emphatically stated, went to political causes, so there was no free-speech violation.

"The simple truth is that no one is forced to join a union and no one is forced to pay any fees that go to politics or political candidates. That is already the law of the land," is how the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees put it.

But this week, the New York Times published a lengthy story explaining how the Janus decision will not only hit public sector unions but "will also hit hard at a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates."

These groups, the Times reports, got tens of millions of dollars from public sector unions — "funding now in jeopardy because of the prospective decline in union revenue."

The giant Service Employees International Union says it cut its budget by 30% on the assumption that the court would rule against the unions in the Janus case. The Times says it "had been talking with leaders of liberal groups for two years about how to offset the loss."

Public-union money accounted for up to 15% of the Economic Policy Institute's budget, the story notes. EPI puts out pro-union studies that the press then reports as credible research. Pro-immigrant group Mi Familia Vota was getting about $1 million a year from public unions. America Votes got $2 million in 2016.

So how is that — if none of the forced dues went to pay for anything other than collective bargaining — all these liberal activist groups are worried about having their gravy train cut off?

Surely the loss of those "fair share" fees would only come out of the unions' collective bargaining budget, not the massive amounts of money they spend supporting liberal groups and causes. Right?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/supreme-court-janus-union-dues-political-speech-first-amendment/

[Schifference]

So what is the problem? No need to force your own to do things they don't want to do. All the people need to do is up their willing contributions. This court decision should start a huge influx of willing donations to the union.

[nobody's_hero]

So what is the problem? No need to force your own to do things they don't want to do. All the people need to do is up their willing contributions. This court decision should start a huge influx of willing donations to the union.

Even better, they could donate to causes/campaigns directly, instead of having a union that represents them give to candidates to represent them. Lots of middle men could be cut out of the equation entirely.

I think that is what they are afraid of. Too many union leaders have made a living off of taking your money across the street and handing it to someone else.

[Zippyjuan]

Say your employer contributes to a political cause you don't agree with. Can you demand a wage increase to "get back" money which could instead have gone to your wages? Or must you accept the current conditions of your employment or seek a different job?

[juleswin]

Say your employer contributes to a political cause you don't agree with. Can you demand a wage increase to "get back" money which could instead have gone to your wages? Or must you accept the current conditions of your employment or seek a different job?

Look up the difference between wages and dues and you will find an answer to your question

[Zippyjuan]

Look up the difference between wages and dues and you will find an answer to your question

Union membership dues may be a condition of employment. If you don't want to pay them, don't take a union job.

[juleswin]

Union membership dues may be a condition of employment. If you don't want to pay them, don't take a union job.

And that is what is being challenged. Why is paying dues to a third party a condition of employment?

[Zippyjuan]

And that is what is being challenged. Why is paying dues to a third party a condition of employment?

In the case of Unions, they negotiated higher pay and benefits for the workers. Union jobs tend to be higher paying jobs- the employee benefited from the Union. It was hired by the workers to represent them.

Some want to be "free riders" and get the benefits without paying for them. Like welfare.

If you don't want to pay dues, get a non- union job. If you don't like who your employer contributes to, find another employer. The choice is yours.

Or have the government get in the middle.

Either way, the employees are still free to donate whatever they want to whatever cause they would like to support.

[Zippyjuan]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/24/news/economy/union-wages/index.html


Want a raise? Join a union

Union membership still pays...at least in terms of higher wages.

The typical union worker made $970 a week in 2014, compared to $763 for non-union workers, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

That 27% spread has remained relatively constant at least since 2000, when the agency started tracking the data.

To be sure, not everyone wants to be stuck in a union contract, which dictates many work rules in addition to pay. Some prefer to bargain individually for their wage and annual raises.

Still, union workers continue to command a substantial wage premium in their fields, said Lance Compa, senior lecturer at Cornell's ILR School, which focuses on labor relations. Unionized registered nurses make an average of $75,000 a year, while their non-union peers make $60,000, for instance.

Bus drivers for Facebook, who voted to join a union in November, are among the latest to see a collective bargaining boost. They approved their first contract Saturday, which would increase their wages by an average of $5 an hour, according to a union official.

Under the new contract, base wages would increase to between $21 and $25, compared to an average of $17.93 previously.

"You are better off in a union job because there you get to bargain for better wages," said Sylvia Allegretto, co-director of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley.

Union workers also usually enjoy better benefits, including health insurance and retirement accounts.

Being a union member, however, doesn't mean your pay will increase at a faster rate. The wages of both groups have increased only 2.1% since 2000.

Also, bowing to corporate pressure, some unions are now negotiating tiered wage scales so that new employees are paid less than their experienced brethren.

It's hard for unions to escape the wage squeeze that many American workers are facing. They must still contend with the same issues, including global competition and automation.

Joining a union is becoming tougher too as their ranks dwindle. Union membership dropped to 11.1% last year, down from 18.8% three decades ago.

Membership among government workers was 35.7% and has remained fairly stable since 1984. But in the private sector, the union ranks have thinned to 6.6%, down from 15.5% three decades ago.

[juleswin]

In the case of Unions, they negotiated higher pay and benefits for the workers. Union jobs tend to be higher paying jobs- the employee benefited from the Union. It was hired by the workers to represent them.

Some want to be "free riders" and get the benefits without paying for them. Like welfare.

If you don't want to pay dues, get a non- union job. If you don't like who your employer contributes to, find another employer. The choice is yours.

Or have the government get in the middle.

Either way, the employees are still free to donate whatever they want to whatever cause they would like to support.

That or just make union benefits apply to just union members. The representations, the wage negotiations, the job safety etc etc. That way you don't close off a job site to everybody else just because the union moved in. I bet the union wouldn't want any of that.

I don't like it when govt forces citizens to buy insurance and I sure as hell not going to approve unions forcing workers to pay dues

[oyarde]

As far as the op goes , unions are leftist ran organizations so there was never any doubt the contributions went to communist sympathizer candidates . The same kind of candidates that promote types evil that is even worse than what you are accustomed to unless you live in a coastal state or illinois .

[Swordsmyth]

Say your employer contributes to a political cause you don't agree with. Can you demand a wage increase to "get back" money which could instead have gone to your wages? Or must you accept the current conditions of your employment or seek a different job?
It would not have gone to wages and you are not compelled to work for that employer.

[Swordsmyth]

Union membership dues may be a condition of employment. If you don't want to pay them, don't take a union job.

That can be debated when all of the government interventions on behalf of unions have been removed, but even then public employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize since those who pay them do so with other people's money.
Since these public employee unions have not yet been outlawed it is only right to bar them from forcing membership on unwilling public employees, they should be barred from any political activity since that causes a conflict of interest when dealing with the politicians they help elect.

[angelatc]

Say your employer contributes to a political cause you don't agree with. Can you demand a wage increase to "get back" money which could instead have gone to your wages? Or must you accept the current conditions of your employment or seek a different job?

Butt hurt much? My employer doesn't hold money out of my paycheck to support those causes.

[angelatc]

Union membership dues may be a condition of employment. If you don't want to pay them, don't take a union job.

The employer gets to dictate the terms of employment, not the union. That's the whole point here.

[specsaregood]

The employer gets to dictate the terms of employment, not the union. That's the whole point here.

And lets not pretend that govt employer is the same as a private entity employer. Union membership should never have been an employment requirement in the public sector. If a private employer wants to limit themselves to such a contract, so be it. They can go out of business.

[devil21]

They're not really advocating for "liberal" values, the leadership of the unions (the big ones, at least) are advocating for socialism, if not outright communism. Go into an AFL-CIO affiliated office anywhere and you'll see FDR quotes and raised fist signs and similar propaganda everywhere.

[CaptUSA]

I'm a big fan of unions. It's just that in our current political structure, unions are fraught with problems.

If we got rid of nearly all labor laws, nearly all workplace regulations and safety standards, and took government out of economic concerns, unions could serve the purpose of collective bargaining and ensuring low-skill worker protections. And if politicians didn't have any power to sell, you wouldn't have to be concerned about union political donations because there wouldn't be anything to buy.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it is. Unions aren't doing what they're designed to do. They're just machines to exert political influence and make the connected wealthy at the expense of the workers. AND... They have to make the workers believe they're getting screwed by the employer. Nothing like being forced to pay someone whose job it is to make sure you remain dissatisfied and unhappy.

[dannno]

Say your employer contributes to a political cause you don't agree with. Can you demand a wage increase to "get back" money which could instead have gone to your wages? Or must you accept the current conditions of your employment or seek a different job?

Is this employer the government?