OpinionEditorial

Who should pay union dues?

UnionsJobs and WorkplaceCourts and the JudiciaryPolitics and GovernmentPublic EmployeesCivil and Public Service

Workers shouldn't have to choose between their jobs and their consciences. They shouldn't have to pay money to press a political agenda they don't agree with, and if they belong to a union that uses their dues for politicking, as most unions do, they should be able to withhold the portion of money that goes to campaigning and lobbying. To require otherwise would be to essentially compel employees, through their union dues, to make statements or take positions in violation of the free-speech principles embodied in the 1st Amendment.

But that doesn't mean employees should be able to avoid paying anything to the union that negotiates to improve their pay, benefits and working conditions. Unions represent all workers in negotiations, including non-members. Even employees who don't like their unions' political activities — even employees who don't like their unions and choose not to join — should pay the portion of dues, or an amount equal to it, that covers the basic work of collective bargaining. It's a fee for a service with obvious value to the employee.

That's as true of public sector employees as anyone else. They don't have to join the union, but if they're getting the benefit of the negotiation, it only makes sense that they pay their fair share for that portion of the union's work.

Now a "right to work" organization has brought a case to the Supreme Court arguing that the very existence of a public employee union is a political statement. Bargaining for a higher wage, the organization reasons, is a matter of political discourse because it is a policy argument: State money should be spent on employee wages rather than some alternative budget priority. Therefore, even when a union charges non-members merely to cover bargaining expenses and not for its political campaigning or lobbying, it is violating the 1st Amendment rights of those workers.

That's more than a bit of a stretch, and the court would be wise to reject the argument. Paying for a service performed at the bargaining table, with clear and direct benefit to the worker, is easily distinguishable from being compelled to pay for campaign donations or political lobbying, even if the two functions are in some ways linked.

The public employee union in this case is also trying out a 1st Amendment argument, based on an earlier Supreme Court decision finding diminished free-speech protection for workers who speak out in the course of their employment. It's creative but unnecessary. A public employee union does not compel anyone to agree with its politics merely because it collects a fee for negotiating a labor agreement.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
UnionsJobs and WorkplaceCourts and the JudiciaryPolitics and GovernmentPublic EmployeesCivil and Public Service
  • Boeing's hollow victory
    Boeing's hollow victory

    The company got the vote it wanted, but at what cost?

  • Lost unions and lost ground
    Lost unions and lost ground

    The decline of organized labor has helped worsen the racial wage gap.

  • Does America need unions? An ex-Wall Streeter says yes
    Does America need unions? An ex-Wall Streeter says yes

    Do free-market capitalists need to rethink their position on organized labor? Henry Blodget thinks so. In fact, Blodget wrote Friday, the country may need unions to help the economy grow faster.

  • How Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky changed L.A. County
    How Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky changed L.A. County

    Gloria Molina came to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 1991 after a federal court threw out the previous year's election and ordered a new one for a new district, drawn with boundaries that gave Latinos something closer to a proportionate share of representation. It was a landmark...

  • Bailed-out GM needs to rev up emissions effort
    Bailed-out GM needs to rev up emissions effort

    Half a century ago Ralph Nader published “Unsafe at Any Speed,” which warned of the hazards built into the Chevrolet Corvair. Today, General Motors' safety record is still being justly vilified, most recently for an ignition defect blamed for at least 33 deaths. And a new report...

  • How to keep future cold wars cold: Mind the missiles

    At a time when we are reflecting on the lessons from the Cold War amid growing concern about the current U.S.-Russia relationship, we should be looking ahead to anticipate how changes in technology and geopolitics create new challenges to peace and stability among the world's major powers.

Comments
Loading