Why should anyone pay more than 100 percent to be a member?

By Matthew Hayward

Before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, public employees could opt out of the non-representational portion of their dues, primarily political and ideological causes that were essentially an overcharge.

In some cases, this portion of dues (overcharges) amounted to 40 percent of their total dues.

Of course, exercising their right to opt out of the political portion of their dues meant opting out of their membership, too. Opting out as a member meant the employee was paying 100 percent of his or her representation share but opting out of the “overt” political portion. Thus, these workers surrendered their membership, which prevented them from voting in union elections, including contract votes, and prevented them from attending union meetings to stay informed about their representation — even though they were still paying for the privilege.

In the post-Janus world, public employees no longer have the option to opt out of the “overt” political portion and continue to pay a representation portion.

There’s nothing stopping unions from offering that same arrangement now, and I think they should. But this time, they should allow workers to pay their “fair share” — 100 percent of the representational costs — to be considered a member with the right to vote and participate in the union.

I’ve talked to hundreds of people willing to pay their “fair share” but refuse to pay the additional portion. Why won’t unions stop overcharging, demanding more than 100 percent?

Why do unions insist on the all-or-nothing financial arrangement that requires members to pay for more than representational activities?

Unions should only charge membership rates that are equal to representational expenses. Unions could then ask members to donate to their PAC for direct political action. If the unions wanted to, they could even transition the “members-plus-benefits” offered by the union to only those who donated to the PAC.

And what about employees who love their local union but are unhappy with its state or national component?

All public-sector unions are voluntary, so why not allow the members to determine how they want their money spent? If someone is willing to give their local $55 a month but doesn't want to give money to the state or national, isn't it better to get that $55 a month than nothing?

It’s their money and choice, but that choice is all or nothing for the moment. One day, unions may wise up and offer tiered membership levels or stop overcharging altogether.

Then again, what union is going to provide transparent financial records to its members explaining how their dues are spent?

Public employees should stop paying more than their fair share; no one should be required to pay over 100 percent for union membership. Public employees should visit OptOutToday.com and learn more about local union options and how they can stop paying for more services than they are getting.