Here are a few of the main premises from the piece --
1. The plaintiffs in the case are employees of the state -- the authors refer to them as 'public employees' and 'co-workers' and describe them as receiving meager benefits, implying the plaintiffs have exactly the same status as others who voted for union representation.
2. Majority rule is a valid basis for forcing people to pay to support a union -- the authors claim that if a majority of workers vote for a union, it's appropriate to force everyone in the field to pay that union.
3. Unions are unconditionally good -- the authors give no consideration to the harm that union participation can cause, and claim that non-members are free riding if they are not forced to pay fees to the union. The authors also state that 'everyone suffers, if the union cannot afford to represent workers.'
Premise 1 is obviously false -- a number of the plaintiffs are caring for family members in their own homes, and are not in any way in what constitutes an 'employer-employee' relationship. They certainly don't have benefits packages, or have any interaction with so-called co-workers, as stated by the authors.
And premise 1 is especially absurd, given that the majority opinion gave emphasis to the pains the legislature of the State of Illinois went to, to distinguish the personal assistants from state employees -- precisely so the state would not have to give them the benefits received by full-fledged employees (see page 23 of the decision, for example).
Premise 2 is also obviously false -- this isn't even true for employees of a single company with a standard employment contract. There's nothing that justifies forcing dissenters to pay for union activities, even if the ridiculous assumption were true that unions always help every member.
An organization has no right to exist, if any of its members did not join it voluntarily.
Nothing gives an organization the moral right to force payment for services from individuals, for services those individuals specifically stated that they do not want, regardless of how valuable those services may be.
Premise 3 is laughably absurd. It's fascinating that people will attempt to use such a blatantly false assumption as justification for initiating force against others. Even if it could be proven without any doubt that union membership would benefit a particular individual, that individual has every right to refuse the cost, on the sole basis that it isn't worth it to them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/opinion/ruling-on-harris-v-quinn-is-a-blow-for-unions.html
...
Though its decision in Harris v. Quinn was narrow, saying that, in some cases, unions could not collect fees from one particular class of public employees who did not want to join, its language suggests that this may be the court’s first step toward nationalizing the “right to work” gospel by embedding it in constitutional law.
The petitioners in Harris were several home-care workers who did not want to join a union, though a majority of their co-workers had voted in favor of joining one. Under Illinois law, they were still required to contribute their “fair share” to the costs of representation — a provision, known as an “agency fee,” that is prohibited in “right to work” states.
The ability of unions to collect an agency fee reflects a constitutional balance that has governed American labor for some 40 years: Workers can’t be forced to join a union or contribute to its political and ideological activities, but they can be required to pay for the cost of the union’s collective bargaining and contract-administration activities.
The majority in Harris saw things differently. Making workers pay anything to a union they oppose is in tension with their First Amendment rights — “something of an anomaly,” in the words of the majority. But the real anomaly lies in according dissenters a right to refuse to pay for the union’s services — services that cost money to deliver, and that put money in the pockets of all employees.
...
'"Right to work" gospel'? How about the right to be free from coercion.
Notice this denigrating language implies that the conviction that one has a right to accept employment, without being forced to join an organization, never mind being forced to pay fees to that organization, is some kind of faith based viewed that isn't grounded in the fundamental individual right to be left alone.
And the last sentence in the paragraph quoted above is absolutely bizarre --
'But the real anomaly lies in according dissenters a right to refuse to pay for the union's services -- services that cost money to deliver, and that put money in the pockets of all employees.'How on earth did unions acquire this exalted and totally anomalous status, that they alone can charge individuals for services, even when those individuals specifically asked to be excluded, and it is just assumed that benefits flow without question? Think of all the other corporations that would love to be treated this way -- they could go around rendering services without requests, or, in this case, after having been specifically asked not to, and the government would force payments from the affected individuals. No more trying to be competitive, or even to do anything useful, since the government will force individuals to be customers.
This quote from the article states the ultimate motivation of the authors -- it's surprising that they state their contempt for workers so clearly --
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/opinion/ruling-on-harris-v-quinn-is-a-blow-for-unions.html
...
Once selected by a majority of workers in a bargaining unit, a union becomes the exclusive representative, with a duty to fairly represent all of them. That is the bedrock of our public and private sector labor laws.
Unless everyone is required to pay for those services, individual workers can easily become “free riders,” taking the benefits of collective representation without paying their fair share of the costs. Not only dissenters but any employee who wants to save a buck can “free ride.” The net result may be that the union cannot afford to represent workers effectively, and everyone suffers.
Consider the home-care providers at issue in Harris. These workers, who are in one of the fastest-growing and lowest-paid occupations in America, are generally employed solely by individual customers, even when their wages came from public funds like Medicaid. Alone, they were stuck with low pay and meager benefits, and states faced labor shortages and high turnover.
...
Notice that if the services that unions are providing are so valuable, most workers would pay voluntarily, and the unions would not have to use force to get them to do so -- people would be fighting to get in a union, rather than fighting for their right to stay out.
The ultimate contempt for workers is expressed in the quote above, in that the essential meaning is that workers are too stupid to see what's in their best interest, in that they will suffer, if they are not forced to pay union dues.
So there you have it. They have to control you -- it's for your own good.
But this is an obvious self-contradiction, since the union is controlled by it's members (at least that's the premise). It begs the obvious question, 'So how are a group of workers, that are too stupid to join an organization that serves their best interests and is obviously so valuable, going to run that organization with any effectiveness once they join?'
But more importantly, the issue of 'free riding' that has been raised repeatedly in cases like Harris v. Quinn is just a red herring fallacy in this context. The only critical point is whether the right of individuals to be free from coercion is being protected -- not whether individuals are supporting some organization that may be providing a valuable service, since individuals certainly have every right not to do that.
Organizations do not fail because of too many 'free riders' -- they fail because too few people are convinced it is in their interests to pay to support them.
Even using the term 'free riding' in this context begs the obvious question: 'How is it even possible that there are no dissenters that are not worse off as a result of union activities.'
Using the term 'free riding' with regard to dissenters treats union activities as if their value is beyond question.
There's also another glaring fallacy in all of these hyperbolic claims about union services, and their supposed unquestionable value -- a union can just as easily represent a small group of individuals as a large one in 'collective representation'.
There's nothing magical about 'collective representation' that requires the participation of every single individual in a particular field to make a union viable. Indeed, when union representatives are engaged in collective bargaining, the number of employees they're bargaining for is not relevant, and has no bearing on the things the union should be doing to represent the membership, however large or small.
The union isn't spending on a per employee basis to negotiate an agreement that covers a group, and the dissenters that don't want union services can just as easily be excluded from the negotiation and left to come to their own agreement with an employer. Negotiating an agreement for a group is the same, whether the group contains one hundred, or one million members -- the whole point is that all the individuals in the group will be subject to the same terms (treated as a single unit) -- collective bargaining would be impossible if this were not the case. That is, this 'all or none' claim that keeps getting repeated regarding union participation is absurd on it face.
The obvious problem for unions, that no one is willing to name, is that unions lose influence when the membership drops, because they can't do as much damage to an employer -- not that unions lose money to so-called 'free riders'.
All of these fallacious arguments that are being thrown out in an attempt to make it look unfair not to force dissenters to pay unions, are rationalizations to disguise the desire to give unions more power.
To that point, notice this perversely fascinating closing statement from the authors of 'The War on Workers' --
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/opinion/ruling-on-harris-v-quinn-is-a-blow-for-unions.html
...
Unions are already reeling. At a time when workers are losing economic ground, we should be looking for ways to strengthen their ability to join with co-workers and bargain collectively to improve their lot. Instead, the court in Harris sided with those who seek to weaken it further.
This is a total non sequitur. Nothing about Harris v. Quinn weakens the ability of workers to unionize.
The decision to prevent forced payments to unions from workers, in no way prevents workers from joining a union, if they wish. What a comically asinine comment to make, regarding a case that was brought by individuals in order to get a union organization to leave them alone.
The Harris v. Quinn decision gives workers more freedom and control -- not less.
No comments:
Post a Comment