The mechanics of right-to-work and mandatory union dues

Really? What? Did you miss the Blanchard and Granholm years with both having Democratic-controlled chambers??

Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Lansing, Benton Harbor, et al...?

Please stop talking about MI.

[

At least you have the honesty to show this is a blatant political act and has NOTHING to do with workers' rights.

Ah, but the employer will pay MORE than X-Y but LESS than X to non-union employees. There are far more advantages beyond the obvious financial savings to having non-union employees. Such employees are not encumbered by union work rules which add significantly to X but this additional cost is seen/borne only by the employer, not the employee which would see just X.

If all the inefficiencies and costs associated with unions are enumerated as Z, then the employer would pay X + Z to union employees while paying just X - A > X - Y where A is the non-union discount less than the union dues.

Of course it does. Workers should not be forced to, say, pay dues so the California teachers union can contribute to causes like homosexual marriage.

I know. But you didn't answer the question I asked you.
Yes, again, I know. I already said that. But you still have not answered my question.
Management cannot exclude anyone. Unions can petition and seek to organize who they want. Get a majority of votes and the union earns the right to represent all workers in that craft or shop.
But you still haven't answered my question.
Again, in response to your absolute (I called it universal before) statement, "Specifically, the duties of fair representation [wikipedia.org] apply to Unions quite strictly, the courts enforce the duty upon Unions and they are REQUIRED to represent ALL employees working in a CBA environment regardless of Union membership," I asked you "Please cite the relevant statutory provisions or court judgments that require unions to represent all workers in a cba environment."
Why will you not answer this question?
Your opening statement was an absolute statement.
I've actually negotiated contracts with both public and private sector employers. I know what a CBA is.
None of this refutes or otherwise contradicts my earlier statement that this case is representative of the courts recognizing members only contracts.
I didn't say that case was about personal contracts between an employer and unrepresented workers. I said what I said...the case is representative of courts recognizing members-only contracts.
I cited it because you claimed, "Specifically, the duties of fair representation [wikipedia.org] apply to Unions quite strictly, the courts enforce the duty upon Unions and they are REQUIRED to represent ALL employees working in a CBA environment regardless of Union membership. The Union doesn't get to choose to ONLY represent those paying dues."
This case demonstrates the the courts recognize members only contracts. This is important because it means that unions are not required to represent all employees. This directly contradicts your absolute statement about what unions are required to do.
Don't take my word for it...if you had actually read the case you would have read, "Members only" contracts have long been recognized. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U. S. 197."
Which is precisely what I stated.
Again, this doesn't contradict my reason for citing the case. Unless you can point out the case is not representative of the courts recognizing members-only contracts, which means that unions can exclude non-dues paying workers, your recitation of the case facts means nothing.
And you mock me and my supposed lack of reading comprehension. I didn't say you asserted it only applied to freeloaders.
Really?
Are you sure you want to stick by that? You're sure that such agreements were made illegal in 1947?
I wonder why the CBA between the City of Southfield, MI and the SFFA would contain the following Article titled, Agency Shop" and includes:
GASP!
This is what happens when you deal with someone that knows more than you...
Oh? May I refer to the example above that clearly proves my assertion regarding union security clauses, i.e., agency shop provisions exist and they act to require, as a term/condition of employment that workers join a union?
No?
From the same contract...
Ooops, I've done it, again...Yes, this clearly proves my point regarding administrative dues and, by paying only administrative dues, are refraining from fully joining, er, supporting the union's non-CBA activities.
Oh, and in case you want to argue that the contract I cited above is, um, unique, well, what about a AFSCME contract in a neighboring suburb - Royal Oak [mi.us]:
Article 7 - Union Security ~GASP~
Again, are you sure you want to call me a liar and claim I don't know what I am talking about?
Do you want to continue arguing that union security provisions are illegal and that workers cannot be compelled, as a condition of employment, to join a union?
Do you know or have you ever heard the phrases, "Union Shop" or "Closed Shop"?

The NLRA requires that employees must be given at least 30 days from the date of hire to join the union before they may be subject to being fired for failure to join the union or pay dues; shorter periods apply in the construction industry. The RLA gives employees 60 days to join the union. The union cannot, however, require that an employee become a member "in good standing": do more than pay dues or their equivalent. While a union shop agreement that, by its literal terms, requires an employee to become a member in good standing might appear to be unlawful on its face and therefore unenforceable, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the courts have uniformly interpreted such clauses to require no more than what the law permits (such as payment of dues).

The union cannot, on the other hand, use a union shop agreement to require an employer to discharge a member for failure to maintain membership in good standing unless that member has been expelled from the union for failure to pay uniformly required union dues and fees. If the union expels a member for some reason other than failure to pay dues, it effectively terminates any right it might have had to demand that the employee pay dues thereafter or request that the employee be discharged for failure to do so.

Bargaining with Minority Unions May be Unlawful
[littler.com]
The law is clear that an employer and a union both violate the law if the employer grants recognition to a union as the exclusive representative of the employees in a bargaining unit if the union does not represent a majority of the employees. In 1961 the Supreme Court enforced a Board order against both an employer and a union when such recognition was granted, even where the employer and the union in good faith mistakenly believed that the union represented a majority of the employees. However, in doing so, the Court noted that “the violation which the Board found was the grant by the employer of exclusive representation status to a minority union, as distinguished from an employer’s bargaining with a minority union for its members only.�

There is probably nothing unlawful about an employer meeting with a union official to discuss, and to even bargain over, work issues involving an employee who has openly requested or acquiesced to such representation, but there is no current case law that would suggest that an employer would have an obligation to bargain with the union on the employee’s behalf. We will follow closely the Pittsburgh NLRB charge to see whether the Board’s General Counsel dismisses the charge, or sets it for further hearing.

An employer also acts at its peril if it enters into a “members only� minority union contract that applies to, or even impacts, the working conditions of other employees who have not designated the union as their representative. Such bargaining and contract could very well violate Section 8(a)(2) of the Act which prohibits an employer from giving unlawful “support� to a union.

Furthermore, granting recognition to a union to bargain on behalf of employees who are union members could even violate the rights of the employee union members where such employee members have not specifically requested such recognition. Professor Morris may be right that minority union contracts were common place in the late 30’s and 40’s under the original Wagner Act, but the Act has undergone several changes. In 1947, amendments to the Act specifically added the right of employees “to refrain� from union activity, and the Board and the courts have consistently extolled the virtues of employee free choice and the right of employees to be free from unlawful restraints by both unions and employers in the selection of their bargaining representative. The Board has consistently noted that membership in a union does not by itself establish that the union member designates the union to represent him/her for purposes of bargaining with the employee member’s employer. If an employer agrees to bargain with a minority union for a “members only� contract, without obtaining the approval of the employee members, a member employee could very well file charges against the employer if he/she did not want such representation. Furthermore, the employer would be acting at its peril if it asks the employee members if they want such representation. Such questioning, without proper safeguards, could constitute unlawful interrogation.

Discrimination Unlawful

It should be remembered that an employer cannot discriminate against employees based on their union membership. If a minority union demands to bargain for a “members only� contract, or if union member employees request to have a minority union represent them in negotiations, the National Labor Relations Act may protect such conduct, and an employer acts at its peril if it disciplines or otherwise discriminates against the employee members because of such recognition requests. There is also no specific provision of the law that prohibits minority union picketing for recognition, although the law prohibits picketing for recognition if another union is certified, if an election has been held in the last year, or if the picketing continues for an unreasonable period, not to exceed thirty days, without filing for an election with the Board. If employees engage in a lawful strike, even if it is on behalf of a minority union, their conduct may be protected by the National Labor Relations Act.

jonsmith , please stop posting comments using quotes by me.

You've shown nothing, you've misconstrued a shitload of court decisions to say they support your argument when they completely contradict it.

You've contradicted yourself several times in the same post.

First stating Closed Shops are recognized - when the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 ABSOLUTELY made them illegal.

READ THE LAW - don't squat here telling me what you THINK the law says or should say - GO READ THE ACTUAL LAW.

Honestly, I don't know how much more clearly it can be stated.
THERE ARE NO LEGALLY ALLOWED CLOSED SHOPS IN THE UNITED STATES.
It is the continued misconstruction of every single court decision you've referred to that makes you THINK you have a case.
You DO NOT!
READ THE LAW!

Your problem arises from the fact that you do NOT understand the terms you are using.
A Closed Shop is not the same thing as Union Shop.
A Members-Only contract is simply a minority Union contract, it is STILL a CBA, it is not some special form of agreement that allows Unions to ONLY represent some of the people covered by their bargaining unit based on Union membership status.
If I want to work in a shop with a Members Only agreement in force, I have 2 choices - join the Union and pay dues or do not join the Union and pay dues.
There are no closed shops in the United States and no matter how many times you claim there are, it won't make it true.

Here is even MORE proof that your position is completely untenable:[/COLOR][/B]
The NLRB itself has held that employers need not bargain at all with a minority Union - in fact, likely are violating every law on the books in doing so and face a host of litigation issues for undertaking such an action even if BOTH SIDES agree to do so - and when it comes to labor law, even the Supreme Court gives deference to the NLRB's interpretations.

Stop making an ass of yourself by continuing to insist Unions exist that can compel membership.

[B][COLOR="Green"]Then you turn right around and say that the alleged Closed Shops don't force anyone to be a member and that a worker can pay a fair share amount of dues in lieu of joining the Union.
WTF?
Read yourself man, you speak with forked tongue, in consecutive paragraphs no less.
Are you so far gone around the bend you cannot see that?

Respectfully, STOP quoting me and STOP trying to make an argument out of whole cloth on a subject you clearly do not understand or know the first farking thing about.

The law is clear that an employer and a union both violate the law if the employer grants recognition to a union as the exclusive representative of the employees in a bargaining unit if the union does not represent a majority of the employees

Because if those dues were being paid to oppose gay marriage, it'd be a-ok. Right?

But the real political reason behind this is to kill the unions so that the dems have less money for elections, the unions can't help with the election ground game, etc. This has nothing to do with workers' rights. We get it.

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Why is the teachers union funding the homosexual agenda? If you concede that these unions are a political entity don't cry like a baby when the political process seeks retribution, especially when your guy in the white house is doing just that.

I'd need to know what you mean by "teachers union funding the homosexual agenda" before i could answer you.

At least i know you're willing to screw over American workers to help your political party. Country first? I knew McCain had it backwards...