Unions suing Wisconsin over "right to work law"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by BMEUPSCOTTY

Not exactly up to speed on this, but where I work union membership is not required, and the union is required to represent non-members. If I was a non-member I would not expect their best effort however...
There is a list on the bulletin board of non-members, and members are encouraged to discuss the benefits of membership with the people on the list...
I know one guy on that list that has a sketchy past history with our employer including a separation. (details are hazy, he won't discuss it). Our local president put in a lot of time and effort on his behalf and was successful in getting the guy over 1000 hours of sick leave back that he lost due to the separation...

Guy still won't join the union!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"the union is required to represent non-members"
There was a federal labor lawyer on TV last night, who said there re no laws that would require that unions represent non-members. Interesting.

Those who pay no dues, have no right to any benefits provided by the union. But no one should be forced to join a union as a condition of unemployment, especially in the public sector. Can't be a teacher unless you join a union, meaning part of your paycheck goes to elect Democrats, and part of your paycheck goes to Planned Parenthood? Ridiculous.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the union is required to represent non-members"
There was a federal labor lawyer on TV last night, who said there re no laws that would require that unions represent non-members. Interesting.

Not Legally mandated...probably contractually mandated.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Not Legally mandated...probably contractually mandated.

Yes, I think it would be in the best interest of the union to bargain for all the employees whether they are in the union or not.

It would not benefit the union if non-union employees could bargain and contract for lower wages than union members in order to ensure getting open jobs. That would make it more attractive for companies to hire and bargain with non-union employees. And it would endanger union jobs, both in hiring and in negotiating new contracts when the old ones expire.

And it would not benefit unions if non-union employees could bargain for higher than union wages if they possessed superior resumes. That could also encourage the union members who thought they would be more valuable to the company than their union brothers to drop out of the union and negotiate for themselves. In general, it could damage the justification for the union.

So, whether union employees like it or not, it is to their advantage if their union sets wages and benefits for all employees, union or not.

Just an opinion, don't know if it's true or not.