Sean Higgins
The myth of the “free rider” issue in right-to-work laws
It is a somewhat compelling argument, but critics like Levin obscure an important point: unions are not in fact obligated to represent every worker in a workplace. A economist James Sherk of the conservative Heritage Foundation points out, unions can negotiate “members only” contracts with employers:
“The National Labor Relations Act does not mandate unions exclusively represent all employees, but permits them to electively do so. Under the Act, unions can also negotiate “members-only” contracts that only cover dues-paying members. They do not have to represent other employees.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Here in ND, non-members sign permission for the union to bargain for their contract along with theirs. And then the non-member gives up all rights for INPUT into those negotiations.
Otherwise, if the school district wanted to pay those people who didn’t sign who are non-members differently, I believe they might be able to do so.
But then here a district also cannot pay a teacher MORE than the negotiated contract. I found that out when another school tried to offer me more & found they could not.
It’s why I’m stuck contracted in the district that is run by jerks.
I can’t take a huge paycut.
So the unions here in ND, a RTW state, DID have their say that way.
Which is pure BS nonsense.
Badger40 on December 14, 2012 at 7:59 AM
Did liberals make up the term free riding?
Why not call it what it is, free loading!
huckleberryfriend on December 14, 2012 at 8:12 AM
From the article:
If true, it would be a fair question to ask why the left objects to RTW laws. After all, liberals have been fighting for years to ensure that everybody gets what a few work for.
radjah shelduck on December 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM
What is the difference between a non-union “free rider” who opts not to join a union, but is still represented by the union in some matters, and the welfare kings and queens that contribute nothing to the system but get a free ride from the rest of us? The first example is a negative to the marxist dhimocrapts and the second is a positive. It seems to me, that according to the logic the marxists use to justify either argument, they are the same.
Old Country Boy on December 14, 2012 at 8:15 AM
Unions are filled with people who don’t think they can get a job without the union. Very low self esteem. Regardless of how talented they are. Many could make much more contracting out non-union. By the rules you are not allowed to “bat” up a job by personally going to see a contractor and asking. You have to be dispatched.
Non-union people typically are adamantly independent and their single biggest gripe with unions is that they can’t look for a job themselves. It is not an issue of talent it is an issue of independence for many. They know how to find a job and will not give that up for a spot on the board waiting to take their turn to be dispatched.
BullShooterAsInElk on December 14, 2012 at 9:08 AM
I think that “free riding shippers” should be forced to pay “startup dues” to new businesses. It’s not fair that only early adopters of new products and services pay high prices for things in the beginning until they’re mass produced and cheaper. And even if the free riding shoppers never buy them, new products drive prices down on existing things they buy.
elfman on December 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM
A very important point that was missed in the “lacking” coverage of the protests in Michigan. Those angry white men that you saw on your screen, some of them were from out of state, and many of them, get this…UNEMPLOYED. Mad at the governor. Misplaced anger. They should be mad at Barach.
Fleuries on December 14, 2012 at 9:43 AM