The Right To Work is Unconstitutional in Wisconsin

[Weston White]

As mentioned in the article, the law required the union to provide union services to non-member employees. That's certainly designed to prevent their existence. Would you open a bakery if a law said that you had to give away bread regardless of whether your customer paid?

The union's elected board of directors votes on whether or not to help their coworkers. Fair share members have zero voice, even though they are still required to pay almost as much other union members. It is not that they are being provided services per se, but that they are supposedly benefiting from their MOU--which is largely subjective from one employee to the next.

It is constitutional for a private business owner to compel membership as a condition of employment.

It is not constitutional for the government to compel or restrain membership.

The difference is who is doing the compelling.

Could an employer require you to make donations or contributions to third-parties using their own personal compensation? Where is the line to be drawn:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

ETA:

Is this sort of like FedGov can compel labors to purchase benefits from third-parties? laff!

 

[AZJoe]

The employer is in not bound in any such way by the NLRA.

Guess again. Reread the NLRA. As I highlighted below:

The NLRB makes collective bargaining mandatory for the employer when a majority of workers vote for it. Thus they are forced into collective bargaining whether they wish to or not.

Further the NLRA makes it illegal for the employer to deal separately with workers who don't want to be represented by the union.

Additionally, the NLRA forces employers to bargain under coercion by imposing a threat of litigation and damages if they don't bargain in what government bureaucrats decide is "good faith."​

 

[TheCount]

Guess again. Reread the NLRA. As I highlighted below:

Guess again again. The NLRA specifically says:

For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession

The only requirement is to show up to the meetings and bargain "in good faith" but you don't have to actually accept any result of the bargaining.


In addition, this same obligation is put upon the union itself:

(3) to refuse to bargain collectively with an employer, provided it is the representative of his employees subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title];

 

[TheCount]

The union's elected board of directors votes on whether or not to help their coworkers.

That's not what Wisconsin law says.

6. If an employee does not pay union dues, then is the employee still represented by the union? Yes. The Right-to-Work legislation does not change the underlying obligation of the employer to negotiate in good faith with an exclusive collective bargaining representative over wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Further, the union still has a "duty of fair representation," which obligates the union to represent an employee's interests without regard to any decision the employee may make about paying dues to the union. The union must still represent the employee's interests at the bargaining table, and must be willing to enforce any contractual rights the employee may have while administering the contract on a day-to-day basis.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article...slation-answers-to-frequently-asked-questions


Thus, the law forces unions to represent non-paying employees, discouraging membership. This is like saying "I think that city fire fighting services should be a voluntarily paid service, but still be obligated to respond to non-payers." If you try to have it both ways, you will bankrupt the system by encouraging leechers to receive services without paying, similar to most public goods.

Could an employer require you to make donations or contributions to third-parties using their own personal compensation? Where is the line to be drawn:

You can't compare this to involuntary servitude when employment is by definition voluntary. The line is drawn at the fact that employees can leave at any time. If an employer wants to enforce onerous or unreasonable conditions of employment, the labor market will respond accordingly.

Is this sort of like FedGov can compel labors to purchase benefits from third-parties? laff!

Difference being you can't quit the government.

 

[Weston White]

Guess again again. The NLRA specifically says:



The only requirement is to show up to the meetings and bargain "in good faith" but you don't have to actually accept any result of the bargaining.

So the employer is in-fact obliged by the NLRA, yes? You are merely describing an impasse, ending frequently with a last, best and final offer.

 

[Weston White]

Thus, the law forces unions to represent non-paying employees, discouraging membership. This is like saying "I think that city fire fighting services should be a voluntarily paid service, but still be obligated to respond to non-payers." If you try to have it both ways, you will bankrupt the system by encouraging leechers to receive services without paying, similar to most public goods.

If the members feel the services are worthwhile they will gladly pay, which encourages union representatives to work and continue working hard--otherwise their operations will be unsustainable and will have to terminate the union, which is a process afforded to union members as well, to put up a majority vote to dissolve their union. Otherwise, you will have leeches sitting in a cushy job, doing nothing to the benefit of their members and yet somehow are always reelected to continue representing the union.

You can't compare this to involuntary servitude when employment is by definition voluntary. The line is drawn at the fact that employees can leave at any time. If an employer wants to enforce onerous or unreasonable conditions of employment, the labor market will respond accordingly.

Wearing clothing is by definition voluntary, yet go about your life in the nude, ...enjoy the results. No, working cannot be thought to be voluntary, so far as the average individual is concerned; however, whom you work for my likely be voluntary. The labor market cannot "respond" when the employment market is bottle-necked.

 

[TheCount]

So the employer is in-fact obliged by the NLRA, yes? You are merely describing an impasse, ending frequently with a last, best and final offer.

Not obliged in the way described by nobody's_hero, which is what I was replying to in the first place.

 

[TheCount]

If the members feel the services are worthwhile they will gladly pay

This is entirely contrary to human nature. Very few people will pay for a service that they can otherwise receive for free. Just ask my local independent public radio station, which will be going off the air at the end of the month.

Wearing clothing is by definition voluntary, yet go about your life in the nude, ...enjoy the results.

The government results, you mean? It's not voluntary when you'll go to jail otherwise.

No, working cannot be thought to be voluntary, so far as the average individual is concerned; however, whom you work for my likely be voluntary. The labor market cannot "respond" when the employment market is bottle-necked.

You proved the point in your own words: Whom you work for is voluntary. If there is more than one employer in a field and area, then if any one of them were to require something outrageous of their employees, the labor market absolutely would respond. This could be in the form of demanding higher pay or greater benefits from that employer in exchange for whatever is being required as part of the labor contract, by refusing to work for that employer altogether, or by offering their services at a lower rate to the other employers. Any of these possibilities will competitively disadvantage that employer when compared to the others.

 

[Weston White]

Not obliged in the way described by nobody's_hero, which is what I was replying to in the first place.

Yes such is the case for unionized employments, as the "NLRB makes collective bargaining mandatory for the employer."

This is entirely contrary to human nature. Very few people will pay for a service that they can otherwise receive for free. Just ask my local independent public radio station, which will be going off the air at the end of the month.

..."which will be going off the air at the end of the month." And such is the ultimate result of not paying for something you actually want. So the saying goes, in the end, expect to receive what you pay for. Nothing.

Otherwise, 7 out of 7 Americans would start claiming qualifications for EBT/WIC and other such "social justice" programs as opposed to just 1 in 7 Americans--then we could see how sustainable such an entitlement system actually is.

The government results, you mean? It's not voluntary when you'll go to jail otherwise.

Still it is voluntary, nobody is forcing you to--it all amounts to your own individual willfulness. And the same goes if you do not work, the police can W&I5150 you, place W&I300 holds on your children and place them with CPS, surrender your pets to the SPCA, etc., in cases where you cannot adequately care for yourself or your family (which can include lack of nutritious foods, gas and electric, water services, hygiene, shelter, etc.)

You proved the point in your own words: Whom you work for is voluntary. If there is more than one employer in a field and area, then if any one of them were to require something outrageous of their employees, the labor market absolutely would respond. This could be in the form of demanding higher pay or greater benefits from that employer in exchange for whatever is being required as part of the labor contract, by refusing to work for that employer altogether, or by offering their services at a lower rate to the other employers. Any of these possibilities will competitively disadvantage that employer when compared to the others.

This is only true to a degree, you may be under other contractual obligations, legal obligations, family obligations, and locality also comes into effect, such as living in Detroit and trying to find steady work (or local work around universities/colleges), for example. If the labor market is flowing over with the unemployed, they are compelled to capitulate to the tyranny of employers, just as crime rates--crimes of poverty--consequently increases. Further, the employee/employer relationship must maintain quid pro quo.