Shouldn't union-represented workers have to opt IN to have money withheld?

Rasselas

Moderator
Feb 2010
72,980
51,036
USA
Well I should have specified public sector in the title, because union security clauses used to be a permissive subject of bargaining in the public sector, but not anymore.

So IOW, shouldn't public sector employees have to clearly and freely opt in, and sign new authorizations acknowledging this free choice they didn't used to have?
You want to inconvenience a lot of people for the sake of weakening their unions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dangermouse
Feb 2011
17,117
6,127
Boise, ID
The unions are continuing to supply a service, for which they are due payment. You make it sound like extortion. Do you expect them to work for nothing?
They aren't due payment unless the employee wants to provide payment. I don't expect unions to work for nothing, nor are they required to work for nothing. They are not required to certify as exclusive representatives. But if they are going to compel representation on employees who may not want that representation, then they are going to be subject to Duty of Fair Representation, payment (or not) aside.

You want to inconvenience a lot of people for the sake of weakening their unions.
Checking a box and providing a signature is not very much of an inconvenience, and regardless, the presumption of waiver of First Amendment rights was invalidated by Janus.