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

[Arthur Maisel]

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.