You're looking for this post: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...187775-right_to_work_bill-10.html#post2504359[Regarding unions not being required to bargain on behalf of non-members] cite?
Which references this:
Bad Arguments Against Right-to-Work - By James Sherk - The Corner - National Review Online
The rest of the article is good too. Give it a read.Federal law does not obligate unions to represent non-members. The National Labor Relations Act allows unions to sign “members’ only” contracts that apply only to dues-paying members. This is legally uncontroversial. In 1938, the Supreme Court expressly upheld union’s ability to negotiate only on behalf of members. As William Gould, chairman of the NLRB under President Clinton, wrote, “the law now permits members-only bargaining for employees” — unions can exclude non-members from their contracts.
If it doesn't, your labor isn't worth what you think it is.Because without a contract, all that money would stay on the check? Seriously?
What do you mean it doesn't count? If a company wants to hire me and I want to work there but I can't take the job - even at a different wage than union members - unless I join the union ... isn't that being forced to join a union as a condition of employment?This doesn't count as, "forced to be a member". Again, the "I would quit, but I can't make this much elsewhere", doesn't hold water.
Or are you trying to joust some strawman argument that no one is making?
Did you type that with a straight face?Because, at the core, unions aren't just about union members. Unions are about improving the lives of anyone who works for a wage. The outcry isn't about lost members, it's about protecting wages and conditions for all working Hoosiers.
Plus, you keep saying that only a tiny number of people would leave their union anyway. If that's the case, how does fighting this law tooth and nail (as the unions and their bought-and-paid-for legislators have been doing) help do ... anything? If only a handful of people are going to walk away from their union and this law is really much ado about nothing, why are unions spending so much of their member's cash on fighting it? You've complained about all the legislative time wasted (personally, I prefer my government to be deadlocked, but that's just me) but this could have been all done and out the door if the unions didn't pay to bus in "protesters" and pressure the Democrats to run and hide.
figley, we've pretty much established that in your decade of following and studying this issue you haven't come up with a whole lot that wasn't a headline in the latest union flyer. What I'd like to know is this: what is your personal fear about what will happen if RTW passes in Indiana. Given your own reasoning that union membership will not decline significantly, what specifically are you worried is going to happen that will oppose the union's stated intention of "improving the lives of anyone who works for a wage"?