Pro/Con: Should workers have to pay union fees if they don’t join the union?
“Pro” thesis: Workers should have to pay union fees even if they don’t join the union.
Argument (by Lily Eskelsen García, President, National Education Association. Written for CQ Researcher, August 2015):
- All who benefit from collective representation should pay their fair share.
- The system works best when all who benefit pay their fair share; the system would suffer otherwise, and the small percentage who object should not be allowed to jeopardize the system.
- Union non-members are not forced to join the union or pay for political activities.
- The court precedent for supporting union non-members to pay their fair share of fees is in place (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education) and has been for 40 years, withstanding many challenges.
Reason #1 is controversial; if a non-union member doesn’t
want to pay fees to support the collective bargaining activities of the union,
maybe they shouldn’t be forced to, even if they benefit from them. Reasons #2 responds to this objection, but it
could use some extra support because it’s not clear that the unions would
suffer much if the small percentage of non-union members didn’t pay the union
fees. Reason #3 is controversial, too,
since any collective bargaining can be understood as political in nature (as
Garcia’s opponent argues in the Con section).
Reason #4 strongly supports the author’s case, but even it can be
questioned since courts don’t always get things right, though the fact that
the decision has been in place for 40 years and has withstood numerous
challenges is impressive.
Regarding the citations needed in the discussion needing, the two court
cases need citations (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and Friedrichs v.
California Teachers Association).
