[lbo-talk] tactical abrogation of working-class solidarity

Arthur Maisel arthurmaisel at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 13:01:08 PDT 2014


A case now under review by the Supreme Court, Harris v Quinn, could undermine agency shop laws. As I understand it, the principle has been that nonunion workers who benefit from a union's negotiations with an employer (increase in benefits or wages, for example) can be forced to pay something to the union for this service even though they are not members. Just as it's supposedly "unfair" to force workers to support by dues those union activities that they may not agree with, it has had to be conceded that it is unfair for union members to pay for those union activities that benefit nonmembers.

This is now being challenged for public sector workers with what seems to me to be the screwy argument that since negotiations on behalf of such workers are inevitably political, to force workers to pay for the benefits they receive from the negotiations can considered the same as forcing them to pay for "political speech" with which they may disagree, contrary to the First Amendment.

If I am getting something wrong here, I know I can count on being corrected.

My question is this: Would it now be tactically appropriate for unions to violate worker solidarity and instead insist that nonunion workers be paid less than union members? It might be hard for employers to suddenly take the negotiating stance that they want to pay people more for their work than the union was asking for. It would also clarify the benefits of union membership to those who imagine that they are somehow better off availing themselves of a free ride.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list