Right to Work Is Coming to the Public Sector. The Only Way to Survive: Social Movement Unionism

[marmar]

from In These Times:


Right to Work Is Coming to the Public Sector. The Only Way to Survive: Social Movement Unionism
BY ARI PAUL


Around the country, public-sector unions are either wringing their hands or strategizing about a response to the likely demise of the agency shop and the ushering in of “right-to-work” for all government workers.

Later this year, the Supreme Court is expected to rule that workers who choose not to join the union that goes to the negotiating table for all employees in their bargaining unit cannot be compelled to pay a fee to cover that representation. Unions say that scrapping this requirement creates a free-rider problem — workers receive the benefits of union representation without paying a thing — and unlawfully takes union resources.

It would be perhaps the greatest victory for the anti-union right since the passage of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.

The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, could expand last year’s Harris v. Quinn decision, which enforced right-to-work only for health care workers employed by private, state-funded entities. In Friedrichs, ten teachers backed by the right-wing litigation group the Center for Individual Rights (which has also fought affirmative action in higher education) are claiming they are required to fund an organization whose political aims they oppose.

According to CIR, the union “takes the inherently political view that more of scarce taxpayer resources should be devoted to education rather than other needed government services, such as parks or public safety,” and the “CTA bargains for stronger tenure protection, a position which many teachers, especially younger teachers, disagree.” .................(more)

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18428/right-to-work-public-sector-social-movement-unionism

[guillaumeb]

1. I am a retired member of the NALC,

the National Association of Letter Carriers. In a Federal workplace there can be no mandatory dues collection even for costs of representation. In spite of that, over 90% of letter carriers belong to the NALC.

Interesting also that the plaintiffs in this case repeat the familiar right-wing meme that dues money goes to support Democratic politicians. Labor law prohibits using dues money for political contributions. That is why many unions have established non-dues funded PACs.

By the way, In These Times is a great magazine and has been since the mid 70s.