Wisconsin Gov Scott Walkers Anti-Union legislation

[MathiasOfAthens]

The governor recently signed into a law which banned unions from requiring dues from members. The thing I do not understand about this laws is if the workers chooses to be in the union shouldnt they be required to pay dues in order to receive benefits? Doesnt this law just give the workers the right to join unions and receive the benefits of that union without paying dues. Like having insurance on something but never paying monthly into the insurance.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/poli...k-bill-n319941

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law anti-union legislation that prohibits union workers from being required to pay union dues. The Right to Work law is an effort to reduce the power of unions in the Midwestern state and is one that will give Walker additional conservative bona fides in his likely presidential bid.Walker refused to indicate during his reelection campaign in 2014 if he would support the legislation. His signature Monday morning makes Wisconsin the 25th state to implement the ban that was passed by the Republican legislature earlier this month.

Opponents of the bill say it will decimate unions and have a ripple effect of suppressing the ability of workers to organize while supporters, including Walker, say that this will lead to economic growth.

And its not the first Anti-Union legislation:

This is the second major anti-union legislation that Walker has supported. In 2011, he ushered through highly controversial legislation titled Act 10 that reduced the bargaining power as well as health care and pension benefits of public sector unions. The move led to a recall election, which Walker won.

Unions in Wisconsin are already weaker than they were before Walker.

I am ok with laws allowing workers to decide whether or not they want to join the union and pay into said union. But this right to work laws just make the unions weaker by allowing freeloaders to receive union benefits without paying. Whatever benefits they are now they are reduced from what they were years ago.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

If someone wants to join a Union - knowing full well that they have to pay membership dues, or choosing to do so - then that's their call to make. I see many on the Right think freedom is all well and dandy until it starts to work against business interests. Freedom indeed. This is surely Unconstitutional.

[Derpy Hooves]

If someone wants to join a Union - knowing full well that they have to pay membership dues, or choosing to do so - then that's their call to make. I see many on the Right think freedom is all well and dandy until it starts to work against business interests. Freedom indeed. This is surely Unconstitutional.

​How is it unconstitutional?

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

​How is it unconstitutional?

One could argue it under the 9th and 10th Amendments. And it could be put under a tenuous (this I freely admit) interpretation of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; on the basis that a Union is a political as well as social organisation, or at least can be - and that as such under the Citizens United v. FEC interpretation banning donations to a Union could be seen as Unconstitutional. But again I concede this is tenuous. One could also see it as violating the National Labor Relations Act.

[MathiasOfAthens]

​How is it unconstitutional?

Could a state government or the US government for that matter force Insurance companies pay out benefits like healthcare or car repairs to members who do not pay their dues? Would that be constitutional? How can the government force unions to provide benefits to non-paying members? At the same time those unions would essentially lose a lot of income and could go out of, technically, business.

[Symphony]

One could argue it under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The 9th and 10th Amendments set limits on the Federal government from infringing on or interfering in unenumerated rights that are retained by the people and by the individual states, respectively. As a State government is the one that is instituting this law, those Amendments aren't applicable.

[sumskilz]

The issue is that workers are having to pay the fees even if they don't join the union...

Unions argue that the fees are fair for nonunion members who still benefit from the contracts they negotiate, and that without a requirement, their membership, financial support and very existence are threatened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/us...work-bill.html

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

The 9th and 10th Amendments set limits on the Federal government from infringing on or interfering in unenumerated rights that are retained by the people and by the individual states, respectively. As a State government is the one that is instituting this law, those Amendments aren't applicable.

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserves to the States respectively, or to the people."

Freedom of Association is a pretty basic liberal right - and is implicit in the 1st Amendment.

[Symphony]

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserves to the States respectively, or to the people."

Precisely. The Constitution is a contract between States to create a Federal shared power. Translated from the 18th-century ornate:

9th: Just because we gave the Federal government specific rights under this contract doesn't mean that the people don't maintain additional rights not stated here
10th: Any power that this contract doesn't specifically give to the Federal government (or take away from the States) is retained by either the States or the people

In both cases, those Amendments prevent the Federal government from taking actions that haven't specifically been given up by the States to the Federal government (such as the right to declare war, regulate interstate commerce, and the like). Neither gives the Constitutional protection to the people from their respective States. The Bill of Rights generally was a document limiting the power of the Federal government; it was the later Amendments that started applying prohibitions (or grantign rights....often the same thing) to both the States and the people.

(no, this isn't an anti-Federal diatribe....I'm just clarifying what those Amendments apply to, and what they don't)

Freedom of Association is a pretty basic liberal right - and is implicit in the 1st Amendment.

Indeed, and one could easily argue that that right hasn't been infringed. Unions in Wisconsin can still assemble all they like; they just can't charge dues for doing so. Yes, I'm aware that a union without administrative funds eventually dies; it's still not prohibiting workers from assembling.


Edit: After doing some additional reading just to check myself, it seems that case law since 1958 (the first time the 9th amendment was ever cited more than in passing) has applied the protections of the 9th specifically to the people against individual states. Interesting.

It's even more interesting given that the 10th is, as I stated, specifically designed to prevent the Federal government from interfering in State authority of over state residents....which, in looking at some of the case law, makes the 9th and 10th Amendments often opposed to each other.

Constitutional law is such a crapshoot.

[Big War Bird]

The article cited by the OP is confusing at best The law does not prevent or except union members from paying member dues. What it does is prevent workers from being forced to join a union as a condition of employment. This forces a union to actually persuade new hires and existing workers that the union is worthwhile. If it chooses not, does not and can not, the union deserves extinction. If on the other hand it does those things then it will flourish. In either case the winner is the worker.

[Lord Thesaurian]

OK so I'd like to ask questions here as I'm not too familiar with the issue.

First off, there seems to be confusion here about what Right to Work actually is given all the propaganda:

A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Wisconsin becomes the 25th Right to Work state, which doesn't seem all that notable of course if only given its position on the list. However given that Walker has specifically gained national attention on this issue for literally several years, I'm rather wondering why the press has been paying so much attention to this particular issue in this particular state. Is it simply because unions are especially powerful in that state? I honestly don't know.

My understanding of pro-Right to Work arguments: No working person should be denied entry to a workplace or forced to pay/join a union based solely on a mandate from a previously negotiated security agreement.

My understanding of anti-Right to Work arguments: Allowing non-union members to work in a member organization creates a free-rider problem as non-members do not pay dues but are afforded the same benefits.

Taking each position at face value, I must say I don't really understand why this is an issue at all. If union members are worried about free-riding, it would seem the onus is on them to negotiate security agreements that exclusively apply to members; that is, if I'm worried that Bob will benefit from my efforts without having contributed anything, it's my job to properly formulate the agreement with my employer so that Bob does not benefit from what I've worked to negotiate.

Now, I won't deny my bias. As the son of a third generation business owner and entrepreneur, I have no love for what I would consider the antiquated and hyper-politicized mechanism known as the labor/trade union. That said, even at face value, like I said, I honestly do not understand how this is such a hot-button issue when the real problem seems to be with a failure to properly formulate contract language - unless organized labor is simply upset that Right to Work legislation undermines their ability to exert complete monopolistic control over labor in a given sector/region. But, like I said, this isn't my area of expertise. Please, someone, explain this to me.
-------------------------------
As for the Constitutional issue, there is none. If a state government can establish a minimum wage and other labor standards outside direct federal control, then it can certainly decide whether or not it should be permissible to bar someone from working some place on the sole basis of some arbitrary agreement between third parties (imagine an agreement between a union and employers to bar people of a certain race from working there or to charge them a fee based on their status). Moreover, if the government can force you to buy health insurance and charge you extra to buy health insurance for someone else on top of that, then I think you can see why no new ground is being broken here.

However, I think that detracts from the real issue, which is, why is this really an issue?

[MathiasOfAthens]

OK so I'd like to ask questions here as I'm not too familiar with the issue.

First off, there seems to be confusion here about what Right to Work actually is given all the propaganda:

Wisconsin becomes the 25th Right to Work state, which doesn't seem all that notable of course if only given its position on the list. However given that Walker has specifically gained national attention on this issue for literally several years, I'm rather wondering why the press has been paying so much attention to this particular issue in this particular state. Is it simply because unions are especially powerful in that state? I honestly don't know.

My understanding of pro-Right to Work arguments: No working person should be denied entry to a workplace or forced to pay/join a union based solely on a mandate from a previously negotiated security agreement.

My understanding of anti-Right to Work arguments: Allowing non-union members to work in a member organization creates a free-rider problem as non-members do not pay dues but are afforded the same benefits.

Taking each position at face value, I must say I don't really understand why this is an issue at all. If union members are worried about free-riding, it would seem the onus is on them to negotiate security agreements that exclusively apply to members; that is, if I'm worried that Bob will benefit from my efforts without having contributed anything, it's my job to properly formulate the agreement with my employer so that Bob does not benefit from what I've worked to negotiate.

Now, I won't deny my bias. As the son of a third generation business owner and entrepreneur, I have no love for what I would consider the antiquated and hyper-politicized mechanism known as the labor/trade union. That said, even at face value, like I said, I honestly do not understand how this is such a hot-button issue when the real problem seems to be with a failure to properly formulate contract language - unless organized labor is simply upset that Right to Work legislation undermines their ability to exert complete monopolistic control over labor in a given sector/region. But, like I said, this isn't my area of expertise. Please, someone, explain this to me.
-------------------------------
As for the Constitutional issue, there is none. If a state government can establish a minimum wage and other labor standards outside direct federal control, then it can certainly decide whether or not it should be permissible to bar someone from working some place on the sole basis of some arbitrary agreement between third parties (imagine an agreement between a union and employers to bar people of a certain race from working their or to charge them a fee based on their status). Moreover, if the government can force you to buy health insurance and charge you extra to buy health insurance for someone else on top of that, then I think you can see why no new ground is being broken here.

However, I think that detracts from the real issue, which is, why is this really an issue?

The solution sounds simple then. Allow non members to work and not be forced to join the union. As it works in European Unions. At least Swedish ones. However, Republicans decided to support freeriders by allowing people to join but not pay. So the simple solution was ignored and created this who ing mess.

[sumskilz]

However, Republicans decided to support freeriders by allowing people to join but not pay.

What makes you think that? I haven't read that. They could already not join, but they were still having to pay the fees.

EDIT: Ah I see now, one could easily interpret the wording of that article you posted that way. That's not how it's explained in the NY Times article though. Hmm...

[Admiral Piett]

The solution sounds simple then. Allow non members to work and not be forced to join the union. As it works in European Unions. At least Swedish ones. However, Republicans decided to support freeriders by allowing people to join but not pay. So the simple solution was ignored and created this who ing mess.

Aye, I agree. I lean to support right to work and am pretty cynical about just how little unions protected a cousin of mine's job in Oregon. No one should be coerced into joining. But membership without paying for it? That's really contrary to the whole notion of being part of an organization which is basically like insurance.

[MathiasOfAthens]

What makes you think that? I haven't read that. They could already not join, but they were still having to pay the fees.

EDIT: Ah I see now, one could easily interpret the wording of that article you posted that way. That's not how it's explained in the NY Times article though. Hmm...

Every source I have read on this states the same thing... that these laws allow everyone to benefit from unions collective bargaining.

[sumskilz]

Every source I have read on this states the same thing... that these laws allow everyone to benefit from unions collective bargaining.

Yeah, but that's just the unions whining. They say non-union members should still have to pay because they still benefit. They don't want to adjust to bargaining differently and they don't want to be out-competed in the job market by non-union members who will just work for less, they want to continue to force everyone to support the union.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Non-Union members do benefit though.

Think about it sumskilz. You have a union... representing maybe 40% of a workforce. Maybe less. If they approach the company and say they are representing 40% of the the employees who need a raise or whatever... Is the company more likely to listen if the union represents 40% or more than 50% of the workforce.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the Union can collectively bargain and increase the wages of ONLY paying members. Hopefully, that is the case. I would love to see a bunch of freeloaders stop paying and watch their colleagues get wage increases thanks to the union. Not that everyone doesnt deserve wage increases but workers not represent by unions cant really demand wage increases.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the Union can collectively bargain and increase the wages of ONLY paying members.

/thread

[Symphony]

Not that everyone doesnt deserve wage increases but workers not represent by unions cant really demand wage increases.

...and why not? Assuming they're doing the same work, under the same conditions, and with the same results, they don't deserve the same pay as somebody who's paid into the union? How does that make a union anything other than a protection racket?

The fundamental issue here is that nobody's willing to acknowledge that unions as an institution are no longer the same organizations as they were when laws were passed to address them. They've long since ceased to be self-organized groups of workers looking to protect themselves against a predatory employer, and have become corporate/political entities unto themselves. They have full-time employees, they have a defined ideology separate from any individual worker's concerns, they have their own marketing and lobbying arms, and they wield a massive amount of political influence....in essence and real execution, they're not fundamentally different from any other political party.

If somebody agrees with that ideology and wants to be a member of that party, then cool...I have no issue with that. They can support it with their time, efforts, and money as much as they like, just like any other political party. But let's not pretend they're a fundamental and necessary portion of the worker's landscape, and let's not pretend that they function at a grass-roots, collective level. They haven't been either of those things for a long time.

Imagine if you weren't eligible for Obamacare, because you hadn't paid into the DNC and in fact voted Republican in the last election. How is the expectation that you don't deserve better pay unless you pay into the union substantially different?

[ShockBlast]

Could a state government or the US government for that matter force Insurance companies pay out benefits like healthcare or car repairs to members who do not pay their dues? Would that be constitutional? How can the government force unions to provide benefits to non-paying members? At the same time those unions would essentially lose a lot of income and could go out of, technically, business.

That is the whole point to destroy the unions.