by bretylium
I realize that the collective bargaining agreement for Norfolk-Southern requires employees to join one of the Union: BLET or the UTU. However, I do know that under the following case precedent (excerpt) one can limit dues paid to such a Union:
"The Supreme Court, in Ellis v. BRAC, 466 U.S. 435 (1984), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonnmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.
Except in extraordinary cases, the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment do not equal the dues amount.
Ellis makes clear that nonmembers required to pay union fees as a condition of employment have a right under the RLA to object and obtain a reduction of their compulsory payments so that they do not include union expenses for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment."
And this also:
"Under the RLA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.
Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee").
"
So my question is- has anyone exercised the option to refuse excess Union dues to pay for non-exempted uses (political causes, lobbying, ect)? I have a feeling that there would be some blowback by all the "Union Men" at the workplace if I tried to do this. Personally I despise the Unions and the way they are run, but have to be in one as part of the bargaining agreement. Any experiences or advice on the matter would be helpful....
"The Supreme Court, in Ellis v. BRAC, 466 U.S. 435 (1984), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonnmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.
Except in extraordinary cases, the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment do not equal the dues amount.
Ellis makes clear that nonmembers required to pay union fees as a condition of employment have a right under the RLA to object and obtain a reduction of their compulsory payments so that they do not include union expenses for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment."
And this also:
"Under the RLA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.
Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee").
"
So my question is- has anyone exercised the option to refuse excess Union dues to pay for non-exempted uses (political causes, lobbying, ect)? I have a feeling that there would be some blowback by all the "Union Men" at the workplace if I tried to do this. Personally I despise the Unions and the way they are run, but have to be in one as part of the bargaining agreement. Any experiences or advice on the matter would be helpful....