By Steve Gunn
EAGnews.org
    
STOWE, Vermont – Many teachers unions across the nation believe they’re owed something by the employees they represent.
    
They entitled to a portion of employee paychecks, from active members and non-members alike.
    
Their argument for non-members goes something like this: The unions are obligated to represent all employees at a given workplace, regardless of their membership status, and all employees benefit from the wages and benefits that the unions fight for at the bargaining table.
    
Therefore all employees should be forced to pay something to the union.
    
In Michigan, which just adopted right-to-work legislation, no employee will be forced to join a union, or pay any type of union fee, after their contracts expire, beginning March 26. Labor leaders are furious because employees who opt out of union membership will no longer be obligated to pay “agency fees” that equal a certain percentage of full union dues.
    
In Vermont, the unions are pushing for a law that would create “agency fees” in that state. If passed, those who forego union membership would still have to pay 85 percent of the regular dues rate.
    
Vermont English teacher Peter Berger, who is a union member, sees through this silly argument. He notes that the unions sought and were awarded exclusive rights to negotiate on behalf of all employees, whether they are union members or not. The employees were never given the option of representing themselves and negotiating their own terms of employment.
    
Therefore the employees have no moral obligation to pay anything to the union, according to Berger.
    
“If you don’t allow me to decide whether I want you to act as my agent, you don’t have the right to force me to pay a fee,” Berger wrote in a recent editorial that’s been published by various news outlets around the nation. “Compelling me to pay that fee is indefensible.”
    
Larry Sand, a retired teacher and former union member from Los Angeles, also wrote an editorial reminding everyone that unions choose to represent all employees in any given workplace. They have no legal responsibility to provide any service for non-members, and therefore no moral right to demand payment for it.
    
‘Do you like that picture?’
    
Berger, who belongs to the National Education Association, understands his responsibility to pay union dues as long as he’s a member. But he doesn’t believe those who choose non-membership should be forced to do the same, and he isn’t afraid to say so.
    
“If you enter a restaurant and choose to buy lunch, the owner has a right to charge you for lunch, and you would expect to pay for it,” Berger wrote. “If you choose not to buy lunch, you’d rightly expect that you wouldn’t have to pay for it. That’s because you have a choice.
    
“In the case of contract negotiations, teachers don’t have a choice. I’m not allowed to negotiate my own contract because long ago the union lobbied for and won the statutory sole right to negotiate for me.
    
“Having taken from me the right to negotiate my own contract, the union now wants to charge me for something I never wanted it to do. This is like having a customer decline to order a sandwich, allowing the proprietor to cram most of it down her throat, and then making her pay for 85 percent of it.
    
“Do you like that picture?”
    
Berger attacks the argument that union members pay too much when non-members are not forced to pay their “fair share.” He argues that the union simply wants more revenue, and has no interest in making the financial burden lighter on current members.
    
“In its press release to members, the association laments that my union ‘brothers and sisters’ and I have carried this ‘unfair’ burden for too long,” Berger wrote.
    
“Does anyone seriously believe that once all these nonmembers start paying this allegedly ‘faire share,’ the association will be ‘fair’ enough to reduce my membership dues since the union’s expenses will be divided among so many other teachers?
    
“I have a sister, thank you. And I have professional brothers and sisters. They are my fellow teachers, not my fellow union members. And as I would not reach into my sister’s pocket to steal from her, I would not steal from other teachers, who for whatever reason choose not to belong to an organization so reprobate and without conscience that it would stoop to picking working teachers’ pockets against their will.”
    
Berger also believes the unions want non-members to pay agency fees, because that will make them more likely to give in and join the union.
     
“Does anyone not realize that compelling teachers to pay almost full dues for virtually nothing – no liability insurance, no legal representation – will lead many to conclude that they might as well join the union and at least get something for their money?,” Berger wrote. “This is far from an inadvertent byproduct of the union’s lobbying for ‘fairness.’”
    
Free riders really forced riders
    
Larry Sand, president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network, also attacks the idea that non-members in union workplaces are freeloaders who should be forced to pay agency fees. He notes that unions have no legal responsibility to represent non-members, but choose to do so, anyway.
    
That’s because the unions want the exclusive right to represent employees in any given workplace. If they surrendered that right, another union or professional association may come in and compete for membership, which would erode union revenue.
    
Unions could choose to represent members only, and would therefore have no ground to demand agency fees from non-members, according to Sand.
    
“(The unions) try to gain sympathy by suggesting that those in right-to-work states who don’t voluntarily join are getting something valuable for free,” Sand wrote. “The AFL-CIO argues ‘unions are forced by law to protect all workers, even those who don’t contribute financially toward the expenses incurred by providing these protections.’ They contend they should not have to represent workers who do not pay their fair share.
    
“It is a compelling argument, but untrue. 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.
    
“Teacher union watchdog Mike Antonucci adds, ‘The very first thing any new union wants is exclusivity. No other unions are allowed to negotiate on behalf of people in the bargaining unit.’
    
“So those deemed ‘free riders’ by the union are really forced riders.”