Difference between revisions of "Forced union dues"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (category merge) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Forced dues''' means being required to pay dues to a [[labor union]] as a condition of employment. According to Professor [[Charles Baird]]:<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-174.html Cato Policy Analysis No. 174] - The Permissible Uses of Forced Union Dues: | '''Forced dues''' means being required to pay dues to a [[labor union]] as a condition of employment. According to Professor [[Charles Baird]]:<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-174.html Cato Policy Analysis No. 174] - The Permissible Uses of Forced Union Dues: | ||
From Hanson to Beck</ref> | From Hanson to Beck</ref> | ||
| − | * the Supreme Court ruled in 1988 "that employees forced to pay union dues under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) do not have to contribute to a union's partisan political activities" | + | * the Supreme Court ruled in 1988 "that employees forced to pay union dues under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) do not have to contribute to a union's partisan political activities". |
| + | |||
| + | Notably, although many Federal employees are covered by union agreements, they cannot be forced to pay union dues. Instead, they must choose to join. | ||
See also: | See also: | ||
Latest revision as of 21:13, May 9, 2024
Forced dues means being required to pay dues to a labor union as a condition of employment. According to Professor Charles Baird:[1]
- the Supreme Court ruled in 1988 "that employees forced to pay union dues under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) do not have to contribute to a union's partisan political activities".
Notably, although many Federal employees are covered by union agreements, they cannot be forced to pay union dues. Instead, they must choose to join.
See also:
Notes
- ↑ Cato Policy Analysis No. 174 - The Permissible Uses of Forced Union Dues: From Hanson to Beck