> The situation in the NPR article and your own seem different though.
Good point - I realize that including my own experience muddied the waters of my argument a bit.
I mentioned my experience to highlight that aside from the situation where an employee is legally required to pay fees to a union there are other ways that a union can apply undo pressure onto an employee who does not want to join. In my case, it became clear that membership in the union was expected and not just suggested.
> Are you saying the teachers in California should be able to benefit from the union without paying any dues?
The "benefit" that non-union members receive from the bargaining of the union only applies as the established agreements extend to all employees (both union and non-union).
I'm saying that non-union employees should not be included in outcome of union negotiations. Non-union employees are by definition not represented by the union - they've opted not to participate as part of the collective bargaining group and should not be forced to pay into or support the negotiations of the bargaining group.
> How do you expect a union to continue to exist in that circumstance?
A union would be able to continue to exist as long as there is enough benefit of membership that it can continue to recruit and retain dues-paying members.
>A union would be able to continue to exist as long as there is enough benefit of membership that it can continue to recruit and retain dues-paying members.
In this example why would the corporation hire/retain any union member? The union would cease to exist if this were allowed.
Firing someone because they were involved in union activity is extremely illegal. It happens only when companies are confident there won't be consequences.
Good point - I realize that including my own experience muddied the waters of my argument a bit.
I mentioned my experience to highlight that aside from the situation where an employee is legally required to pay fees to a union there are other ways that a union can apply undo pressure onto an employee who does not want to join. In my case, it became clear that membership in the union was expected and not just suggested.
> Are you saying the teachers in California should be able to benefit from the union without paying any dues?
The "benefit" that non-union members receive from the bargaining of the union only applies as the established agreements extend to all employees (both union and non-union).
I'm saying that non-union employees should not be included in outcome of union negotiations. Non-union employees are by definition not represented by the union - they've opted not to participate as part of the collective bargaining group and should not be forced to pay into or support the negotiations of the bargaining group.
> How do you expect a union to continue to exist in that circumstance?
A union would be able to continue to exist as long as there is enough benefit of membership that it can continue to recruit and retain dues-paying members.