How morally sound is it to encourage people to refuse to pay for something that others are paying for?
The un-payers gain the same benefits and financial reward but get to opt-out to paying for it.
I don’t think GEICO will will have a humorous commercial about that.
Do you?
Although it sounds ridiculous to encourage someone to get something for nothing (that others pay for) so they can benefit from other people’s integrity, while being supported by the more ethical.
Let’s see. Read on.
“Leave My Union” (www.leavemyunion.com*) appears to be doing just that. Let’s see.
From the main page of www.leavemyunion.com*:
A new era of freedom for Illinois government workers
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision marked a new era for government workers in Illinois.
For decades, government workers had to make an unfair, unconstitutional choice: Pay fees to a union, or lose your job.
But that changes with the Janus v. AFSCME decision. The court ruled in June 2018 that paying fees to a union can no longer be a condition of employment. Now you can work for the government without paying fees to a union.
If you don’t like the way the union represents you or the way the union focuses on politics, or if you simply want to keep more of your paycheck to spend on things you care about, you can opt out of the union.
What is strikingly absent from the website is that supporting a Union is a free speech right of everyone too. But at least elsewhere on their site they show all the good that unions do. Except of course they still urge people to not pay for the gains but still get them. (?)
There are a lot of voices out there, and a lot of opinions. Here’s what you need to know to sort it all out:
True, this is a new era for Government workers. BUT . . . It sure seems that the hope of the website being reviewed here is that the union-employees will now quit paying into their unions. And then sooner or later, that Union (and all of their gains) will be gone.
You never hear a word about that.
What is also oddly missing is that Mark Janus isn’t really the founder of this anti-Union lawsuit. It was Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner. Rauner was told in lawyer talk that he lacked standing in the case.
He found Janus to lend a name to his anti-union agenda. (But of course you never hear that either.)
https://leavemyunion.com/#meaning:
What does the Janus v. AFSCME decision mean?
Janus v. AFSCME is about restoring freedoms to government workers. It is about giving government workers a voice and a choice.
What freedoms? It looks to be actually about taking away freedoms when Union Rights are gone like it does in “Right To Work,” states. Once Unions are gone, all employees return to At Will employment. Meaning of course that the boss runs everything. Everything.
Non-Union workplaces are”At Will” employers. Which means you do not have a voice or any choice what happens to you. No freedoms at all.
Actually, you “Opt Out” of free speech rights in a non-Union jobs. This is known as reality.
Just Cause rights are also gone.
Just Cause Rights . . . something that many highly paid executives seek in their employment contracts (bet you didn’t know this) is also gone.
No free speech rights to defend yourself in discipline or termination.
Of course, you can hire a Lawyer, but they do not believe non-dues payers getting services for free.
BTW, Just Cause Rights means, your supervisor has to have a real reason to discipline or fire you. Did “Leave My Union” neglect to tell you that?
This right, is one that is evaporated when Unions are eliminated.
But to be fired at the whim (or will) of your boss is certainly freedom for the boss. They don’t lose their free speech rights. But try exercising them at your boss and see where you get?
Is there freedom of speech in the unemployment line?
Unions bring freedoms and rights to employees to have a voice and assurances backed by a signed contract. A signed contract!!! (That needs to be said again.)
You can’t be fired at the whim of a boss or supervisor if you have a
The case was brought by Mark Janus, a child support specialist for the state of Illinois. Like many other government workers, Mark loves his job and works hard for the state.
Not really. The case was brought by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner. An avowed anti-Union multi-millionaire. “I’ve been at war with SEIU for 20-years,” Rauner told me at our meeting at the State Fair in Rauner’s first year.
“But I’m not anti-Union,” continued Rauner.
I have a photo of that meeting.
“At war,” doesn’t sound like a pro-union statement to me.
With a full disclosure:
I work for that Union Rauner told me he is at war with. I am a Conservative Republican too. And an elected official where I live. I met Rauner three-days after I was elected Village Trustee on April 7th 2015. A tornado had struck my town (Rochelle, Illinois). I was at the Red Cross HQ at the High School and Rauner was visiting. I have a picture of that meeting too.
And to be forthright, I was once anti-Union but after my wife suffered an injustice by the actions of a big boss at the workplace (I actually witnessed it), that when I learned about union contracts and all they do for Members, I was sold.
We are both pro-union now.
And still Republicans.
By the way, I told Mr. Rauner: “you’ve only been at war with me for 5-years.”
Now it’s been almost eight. I’m up for it whatever he meant. Honesty and moral soundness is on my side. War or no war. I believe in Unions and Union members.
End of disclosure. Leave a comment if you need anything more.
Back to the website/organization in question.
But he (Janus) didn’t agree with the politics and policies of his union. And he didn’t think he should be forced to give money to a union just to keep his job.
He didn’t have to pay fees to a Union to keep his job. He could have sent the “dues” to a charity of his choice. (The website in question admits to that) All the while still reaping the financial benefits from being a Union member. Albeit as a free rider.
Dear You,
Try hiring Rauner’s lawyers and telling them you have the “Right To Law” and then say to them in your best free speech voice: “I’m opting out of paying your fees.”
Guess who won’t get services? But Unions have to provide all their services to those that “opt out.”
Who came up with this stuff? This can’t possibly qualify as morally sound advice.
Now granted, Janus probably didn’t pay the Janus Lawyers arguing the Janus Case any money.
Because ulterior motives are worth more than their weight in gold.
That fact hasn’t changed since the Garden of Eden.
But for 40 years, (note: That’s a link to rabid union hate group called the Illinois Policy Institute) government employers and government unions colluded to force government workers into an unfair choice: Pay the union, or lose your job.
How can Unions “collude” with government negotiators representing the employer?
And also, call the Illinois Policy Institute and ask them for your next raise. Or ask them for benefits and pensions.
See what they say.
Mark challenged that unconstitutional choice – and won.
Not really. That’s just disingenuous. Janus came along late in the game. Right-To-Workers have been at this for decades and decades. Janus was just the face they used for this round. And it was used per moniker well.
That means government workers finally get to choose where to direct their hard-earned money.
Hard-earned money the level of which the Unions got them.
Ask Rauner what he wants to do to that “hard earned money? Isn’t it to lower it, raise costs of insurance and take away the Pensions and trade them for a 401K.
Rauner’s free speech right to take away hard-earned money from Government workers’ paychecks? Far more than that cost of union dues isn’t it?
Got a calculator?
I’m guessing someone’s paycheck is going to be smaller when unions are gone.
I have a calculator.
If workers want to remain union members and pay union dues, they are free to do so. But if workers want to opt out of the union, and keep their money or send it to other organizations they support, they are free to do that as well.
That is true. But “opting out” and paying other organizations will NOT get you better wages and benefits or defend your pensions.
Riding on the backs of co-workers paying for your gains is just immoral isn’t it?
Ever had a free-loader staying at your home?
Janus seems to be saying that the free-loader has the right to live at you home, not pay for anything, and then ask you if they can go shopping with your money.
Doesn’t it?
Why Would I Want To Opt Out Of My Union:
Whether to opt out of a union is a deeply personal choice.
Paying for something that others won’t, while they get the same beneficial outcome is a very personal matter too.
Government workers who have chosen not to be union members have done so for a number of reasons, including the following:
Illinois government unions spend too much money on political causes.
And Bruce Rauner doesn’t? Super rich business owners pay lots and lots of money for politics. Do you think the Janus lawyers did all that for free? Somebody paid for the lunches.
Union “Members” get to challenge their Union on where the money goes. Try challenging your boss or company owner on where the money goes?
You won’t hear the answer in the unemployment line.
Again, no free speech at work without a union.
The union isn’t representing me well.
You can get Union employees fired for not representing you well. Don’t you wish you could do that with an incumbent politician? Or your nasty supervisor?
No Union, no free speech rights.
Janus didn’t tell you that?
I would like freedom to make choices that benefit my family and me without fear of union punishment.
Union Members cannot be harmed by their Union. It’s the other way around.
Try not paying Rauner’s lawyer for services rendered. They will harm your credit rating when they take you to collections or court for not paying their “dues.” You will be harmed when your credit rating goes into the tank. You will be harmed when you are paying “garnishment dues” for opting opt.
My family budget is tight, and it would really help if the union wasn’t taking dues money from me every paycheck.
How “tight” will your budget be when your insurance premiums are doubled or tripled when the Opter-Outers force the Union out?
Do a test case: How are things going for Walmart staff?
I wonder how many Big Box Store employees wish they had the same freedom of speech rights as Janus to “opt in” for a Union?
But Walmart takes great steps to deny that to American citizens working their stores.
I wonder why the Illinois Policy Institute, Rauner and Janus don’t think First Amendment rights work FOR Unionization?
Nah, never mind. We all really know why.
Illinois government unions spend too much money on political causes.
Corporations are people my friend. People have First Amendment Rights.
Right Mr. Janus?
Unions are inherently political.
Because one political party hates unions and wants to end their existence. That would make anyone “inherently political” to the other political party that doesn’t want to end union existence.
And member dues fund politicians and causes that workers may oppose.
Union members can challenge that. But they do not have freedom to challenge what politicians do with the hard earned tax dollars funding the politicians’ employment and financial machinations.
Can you “opt out” of paying taxes that politicians use to spout their reelection free speech rights?
Opting out allows you to determine where your hard-earned money goes.
That positions defies logic. Opting out simply harms your organization and everyone in it. It also defines the very term: Free Rider. Or better yet, Shop Lifter.
Again ask Rauner’s lawyers when their clients “opt out” of paying them for services rendered if “Free Rider” is an OK option?
Also, it is ONLY the Union deduction that is protecting an employees’ hard earned money.
Look up “At Will employment.” AT WILL,” is the very driving force of the anti-Union forces. C’mon now, let’s have a little honesty huh?
Take a look at the following examples from four of the main government unions in Illinois and their national counterparts:
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31/AFSCME headquarters:
- AFSCME Council 31 and AFSCME headquarters spend millions on politics. Between 2013 and 2017, they spent over $213 million on political activities and lobbying.
- AFSCME headquarters frequently spends more on politics than it does on representing workers Federal reporting documents reveal that AFSCME headquarters spent, on average, over $50 million a year on political activities and lobbying in the last 10 years – but under $42 million a year on representational activities.
- Council 31’s PAC spends millions on Illinois Democrats. Between 2013 and 2017, it directed over $6.8 million to election committees and other political action committees in Illinois. Of that amount, 74 percent was directed toward Democratic committees or organizations, with just 6 percent toward Republican committees or organizations. The remainder went to committees or organizations not necessarily tied to a political party.
Illinois Federation of Teachers/American Federation of Teachers
- IFT and AFT spend millions on politics. Between 2013 and 2017, IFT and AFT spent over $164 million on political activities and lobbying.
- AFT sends millions of dollars to its political account.In the 2016 election cycle, AFT PAC’s contributions to federal candidates topped $1.7 million to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Sen. Tammy Duckworth D-Ill.; and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. It spent just $5,500 on Republican candidates.
- IFT sends millions to Chicago affiliates – but a relative pittance to downstate affiliates. In 2016 , IFT sent over $2.5 million to the Chicago Teachers Union and over $962,000 to other affiliates in Chicago and the Chicago suburbs for representational purposes – but less than $81,000 to affiliates south of I-80.
Illinois Education Association/National Education Association
- IEA and NEA spend millions on politics. Between 2013 and 2017, IEA and NEA spent over $219 million on political activities and lobbying.
- NEA has been known to spend more on politics than on representing workers. Federal reporting documents reveal that twice in the last five years, NEA has spent more on political activities and lobbying than it has on representational activities.
- IEA’s PAC spends millions on Illinois politics. Between 2013 and 2017, it directed over $11.3 million to election committees and other political action committees in Illinois.
So this is really about coveting? Jealousy? Envy? Pouting?
Republicans and the GOP are dedicated to stamp out Unions?
Look at Wisconsin for verification.
No wonder that most, if not all Unions back Democrats.
Why would anyone give money to those trying to put you out of business?
That would be like asking the Christians in ancient Rome to take care of the lions.
But then again, that might be an appropriate metaphor for those that Opt Out.
With over 40 percent of union households voting Republican in the last presidential election, the unions’ reported spending appears inconsistent with the political leanings of many rank-and-file members.
What this says is that union households are declaring that their First Amendment rights are not trampled on in any way.
That they are free to “vote their conscience” without any “fear of union punishment.”
Anyone thinking of Pinnochio is working over at the Illinois Policy Institute?
Is Dan Proft made of wood?
The Union isn’t representing me well.
Millions and millions of Illinois tax payers feel the same about Rauner and other politicians but have to (are forced to) pay taxes none the less. And unlike a bad political leader . . . Union members can have bad Union Rep’s fired.
There’s a good chance you never voted for your union. In fact, many of Illinois’ government worker unions were in place before current workers were even born.
And those that “voted in the Union” have left a legacy of a better workplace. There was good reasons to bring in a union. Not much has changed. Isn’t this the time to encourage being a supportive Union member?
Those that forget history are doomed to pay higher insurance premiums and make less money.
Perhaps the union failed to provide adequate support when you filed a grievance.
You know a Grievance in a non-union workplace is career suicide right?
Without a Union, you are at the mercy of the Boss that you needed a Grievance filed on. Without a union, who dares grieving a boss? That’s like advocating Napoleonic Law isn’t it?
Maybe the union’s priorities no longer reflect the priorities of its members.
Good pay and great benefits are not always in vogue for anyone seeking a job and career that can provide for they and their family?
That’s out of style where?
Cambodia or Haiti?
Is that the fate of US employees in post Janus?
You do know that a Supreme Court Justice gets a guaranteed pension right?
Or perhaps you don’t oppose the politicians the union supports, but think the union’s job is to represent you – not to engage in highly political activities.
This sounds like sour grapes causing the condition known as “Green with envy.”
Maybe Republicans should stop hating Unions and working hard to put them and their members out of business?
Remember “40% of union households are Republicans.” IPI forget that so soon?
With a Union Contract in place: “The Union” is representing its members 24/7/365.
ALL of them.
Opting out allows you to retain your dues if you don’t think the union is representing you well. And it sends a message that the union needs to work harder to support the workers it represents.
Who believes this crap? “Leave My Union” is not about helping unions serve members better. Without dues, there is no union.
You don’t even need an MBA to know this.
Opting out is getting something for nothing. In the case of what Unions gain for you, the financial support (dues) is a great return on investment. What morally sound person encourages another to be a free loader? Even in corporate reality, no one can get something for nothing.
Partners and partnerships are in this together. That is a reality of union membership. People caring for others.
And in the case of Union membership, the member is really in a partnership with the Union because unions are its members.
I would like more freedom to make choices that benefit my family and me – without fear of union punishment.
Fear mongering is common political propaganda tactic. Member’s run their Unions. Unions are actually overseen by a government agency known as the Labor Board. Where a union member can have the union punished.
Did the “Leave My Union” organization leave that part out?
Government worker strikes are not uncommon in Illinois. In fact, the state is home to two of the nation’s biggest government worker strikes in the last decade.
Union strikes are voted on by members.
It is an exercise of free speech rights.
Encouraging opting out as the “Leavemyunion.com” org is clearly doing is actually contradictory to free speech rights. Any straightforward thinking leaves one with the impression that
“Leave My Union” is not really advocating for joining a union.
This is where a person with a PhD can appropriately use the word “Duh.”
The company has all the rights to free speech without a Union. Again, look up “At Will” employment. Or just go get a job somewhere.
And that means government workers in Illinois frequently have to make an intensely personal and stressful decision: 1) Go to work and get paid – and risk fines or other punishment by the union, or 2) Go on strike – and risk not only your paycheck, but, unbeknownst to many workers, maybe even your job.
It’s not stressful or intensely personal to take the gains that the Union brings to an employee and their family but not paying for them?
Guilt is a stressful emotion.
It works both ways. “Opting out” causes great stress to those that have to support Free Riders.
It’s like watching cancer eat away at your body.
AND, the need to strike is the fault of the “other side,” not the Union.
Because the union has no disciplinary authority over nonmembers, opting out provides you more freedom to make the choice that is best for you and your family.
That contradicts what “leaveyourunion.com” just stated above about union “punishment.” With no authority over nonmembers – that are still members that just don’t pay their dues – it proves that Unions don’t “punish” people.
It once again established that there is no fear of punishment from your union. But without doubt, without Union contracts in place, there IS punishment for employees that are targeted for termination by “At Will” employers, bosses and supervisors.
Free speech and all.
My family budget is tight, and it would really help if the union wasn’t taking dues money from me every paycheck.
Having higher health insurance premiums and lower pay makes the family budget much tighter.
Working in a Wal-Mart environment makes the family budget tight too. Very tight.
An Illinois government worker directs hundreds of dollars – or more – every year to his or her government union. That is money the worker earns, but never gets to see.
Union dues were tax deductible. But the Republicans just took that right away. Now you really never get to see.
Unions and higher wages and better benefits – especially pensions – are the very things that are driving the anti-Union forces to attack unions.
You can’t hide a wolf under RTW wool.
And of course, only the boss has free speech rights in “At Will” employment.
Opting out of the union allows you to keep more of your hard-earned money.
Does anyone really believe that?
Really?
While people who are not opting out are paying for the Free Rider’s pay and benefits.
And when the union is weakened or eliminated by the propaganda driving the Opt Out campaign makes the union weak, then families will really experience hardships when their “hard-earned money” is smaller and smaller.
Go ask a Walmart family member?
What happens when I opt out of the union?
Other people, those that do not “opt out,” pay for and secure your salary and benefits and anything else brought to you by membership in a union.
You get something you don’t pay for.
That’s just a fact.
When you opt out of a union, you stop paying fees to the union. But you are guaranteed the benefits provided in the collective bargaining agreement.
How can anyone that claims they are morally sound encourage the above?
Try that with your car insurance company? Opt Out of paying your mortgage. C’mon now, their are lot’s of other people paying your mortgage company their dues but don’t expect to pay yours because you “Opt Out” of paying your mortgage. You get truly punished by Mortgage Companies for “opting out.”
And . . .
Unions cannot and do not report dead beat members to the Credit Bureaus. You get other people’s cake and get to eat it too.
Again, Rauner’s lawyers would be the first to sue a “Free Rider” for opting out of paying for services rendered. In the honest world, honest people do not encourage someone to take benefits others are paying for. But here it seems that www.leavemyunion.com is showcasing that very thing.
Examples may include the following:
Examples of what you are getting for free as a Opter-Outer:
- Salary and raises
- Health insurance
- Pension
- Vacation days, holidays
- Overtime pay
- Seniority
- Leaves of absence (including sick leave)
- Representation in a grievance
Wouldn’t any thinking person see this as an advertisement of why you should support Unions? Even if they are Republicans they benefit from Union presence. www.leaveyourunion.com proves that.
Yet, please note, www.leavemyunion.com and the Illinois Policy Institute, the Liberty Justice Center Law Firm (co-founded by radio host and Conservative activist Dan Proft) that brought the Janus case to the Supreme Court, and Rauner and Janus seem to be encouraging union employees to gain all these benefits without financially supporting these gains.
How is that morally sound?
On the other hand, nonmembers are not entitled to perks guaranteed to members through the union’s internal rules or membership agreement. Examples may include:
- Voting (on ratification of contract, strike authorization, etc.)
- Holding union office or representing the union as a delegate to the convention
- Utilizing union-negotiated discounts (for things such as additional life insurance, health clubs, tickets to events, etc.)
- Maintaining any liability insurance the union provides, as opposed to insurance provided by the government employer
- Receiving newsletters or other union publications
- Attending special union events (such as meetings, picnics, Christmas parties, etc.)
Christmas Party?
Seriously?
How can an honest person encourage someone to expect to have the same benefits as someone that pays for the right to have them?
Ever heard of Costco? Or even Sam’s club for that matter? And Sam’s Club is a Wal-Mart invention.
Try calling AAA to tow your car if you are not a paying member.
Free riders get to walk.
You can’t call Geico after your accident for the benefits offered if you are not paying for those benefits.
Etc., etc., etc., in the morally sound world.
Which workers can opt out of their unions?
The Janus v. AFSCME decision applies to government workers at the state and local level. These workers include teachers in public schools as well as workers employed by cities, towns, villages, counties, townships or the state.
It does not apply to federal government workers or workers in the private sector.
Free Riders -those that Opt Out – are still and always will be those people that get financial gains for free, while others support them financially.
I keep hearing about “free riders” – what does that mean?
In the world of conservative moral speech they are called Dead Beats. But that just won’t do in propaganda world.
Free Rider it is a highly accurate label. When one gets for free what others are paying for, they are Free Riders. No different than someone living at a home and not paying for anything that they get. It is not complicated. Just honest definitions.
Government unions claim that providing workers with a choice whether to pay fees to a union will produce “free riders” – workers who reap the benefits of union representation without paying for it. But that claim is disingenuous.
Bull. That claim is 100% accurate. How is it “disingenuous?” Honesty and reality are the witnesses here.
What the government unions really want is absolute control over workers, even if it means some workers don’t pay for representation.
Bull. Again. Unions, Government or otherwise should not have to ignore what a Free Rider is.
Absolute control is what the Government and Big Business (or small business) bosses seek. And why getting rid of Unions gains that control.
Who’s kidding who?
Look up “At Will Employment?” Please.
First, government unions in Illinois lobbied for the right to represent all workers – not just members. Unions such as AFSCME lobbied for – and won – the monopoly on representing workers. Some even wrote the laws that gave them this power.
If you are not in a Union, then a Union has no way of representing you. Whether Free Rider or morally sound dues-paying member.
But as can be seen by the leave your union advocates, Unions have to represent their free riders.
Second, government unions fight against legislation that would allow non-dues-paying workers to represent themselves and stop being subject to union representation.
What unions fight against is disingenuous legislation aimed at destroying unions. Just as any free market business has a right to do.
This sounds similar to demanding ALL drivers have to have insurance. but now allowing people to be responsible for their own accidents to “Opt Out” of having to pay for insurance as a free speech right.
Unions want complete dominance over the workforce.
Is this transference or projection?
Government workers who don’t want the unions’ control over their livelihoods shouldn’t be forced to pay for it.
But they should be able to gain ALL the benefits but force the Unions to represent them? What business allows this?
How long would the Liberty Justice Center exist if everyone demands that not paying for its legal services as a Freedom of Speech right?
They would go out of business.
Encouraging “opting out” seems quite morally unsound.
FYI:
Leavemyunion.com is operated by the Illinois Policy Institute.