|
 Government workers have been denied
First Amendment freedoms of speech and association for 40 years.
But that could change in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears Janus v.
AFSCME, an Illinois-based case seeking to restore First Amendment rights to
government workers. For the last four decades, government workers have been
forced to make an unfair decision: Pay fees to a union they may not support, or
lose their jobs.
If government-worker unions had their way, those violations would continue.
Instead of supporting worker freedom, these unions are disparaging their own
members by claiming they will be “free riders” – workers who supposedly reap the
benefits of union representation without paying for it – if the Supreme Court
restores workers’ rights.
 But any “free rider” claims are completely disingenuous. It was the
government-worker unions that fought for the right to represent all employees,
and it is the government-worker unions that lobby against changes to that law.
Unions lobbied for the right to represent all workers – not just members
Unions like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
lobbied for the monopoly to represent all government workers in Illinois – even
workers who are not union members.
Employer-employee relations for government employees in Illinois are controlled
by two statutes: the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (for educational
workers), and the Illinois Labor Relations Act (for other government workers).
Both hold that a union representing government workers in a bargaining unit is
the “exclusive representative,” meaning that union – and no one else – can
represent all workers in the unit. That applies to members or nonmembers.
This was a choice made by the unions themselves. Some of the state’s biggest
unions – including AFSCME, the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois
Federation of Teachers and the AFL-CIO – registered their support for the
legislation creating the laws.
In fact, their involvement in developing Illinois’ laws goes even further than
that. The IEA and IFT drafted the bill that would become the Illinois
Educational Labor Relations Act, and AFL-CIO was the primary author of the bill
that became the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.
Now unions are using that right – the right they fought for to exclusively
represent all workers – as a red herring argument against worker freedom.
[to top of second column] |
Unions lobby against
reforms that would allow nonmembers to represent themselves
Not only did
government-worker unions create the laws that grant them exclusive
representation of all workers, but they also stymie any efforts to
let workers break away from that forced representation.
Illinois could enact what is called “Worker’s Choice” – legislation
that would allow workers to opt out of union fees and union
representation. Instead, they would be allowed to represent
themselves when negotiating their employment arrangements.
That would solve the unions’ “free rider” claims. The employee
wouldn’t pay the union, but the union wouldn’t represent the
employee.
It should have full union support. But it does not.
In 2017, state Rep. Allen Skillicorn, R-Crystal Lake, sponsored
Worker’s Choice legislation for Illinois. But according to hearing
data on the Illinois General Assembly’s website, unions such as the
Fraternal Order of Police, the Chicago Laborers’ District Council
and the Laborers’ International Union registered their opposition to
the bills.
Opposing Worker’s Choice defies common sense. It also defies what
workers want. According to a 2017 nationwide survey, 77 percent of
union members agree that employees who do not pay dues should
represent themselves in negotiations.
But the unions aren’t giving their members what they want.
Unions’ “freeloader” claims disparage their own members
Not only are the unions’ “freeloader” arguments disingenuous, but
they also attack the very members the unions represent.
By assuming workers will immediately head to the exits and leave
their unions, union leaders are suggesting the worst in their
members. They are assuming their members would rather be alleged
“freeloaders” than stay loyal to their unions.
Or, perhaps, union leaders are admitting the worst in themselves.
Maybe they know their services simply aren’t worth paying for
anymore.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article |
