Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it is time to get on board with other progressive and forward-thinking states that have gone this route. A NJ state law that basically states that union membership cannot be made mandatory as a condition of employment.
Unions could still organize workers, but they would have to use rational persuasion, rather than legal compulsion. This would make unions have to perform well to get workers to join. Sort of like a free market for unions.
Right to work is a great law, hence why Unions hate it because a lot of people who are in a union are completely forced and that is certainly not freedom. You saw the backlash asking teachers to pay 1.5% of their salary towards healthcare. I can't imagine what the battle would be like for Right to Work, but it would be worth it.
I think it is time to get on board with other progressive and forward-thinking states that have gone this route. A NJ state law that basically states that union membership cannot be made mandatory as a condition of employment.
Unions could still organize workers, but they would have to use rational persuasion, rather than legal compulsion. This would make unions have to perform well to get workers to join. Sort of like a free market for unions.
I agree with Marc. People should not be forced to be a member of a union in order to simply be employed. Union membership should be voluntary and that means that unions would need to actually provide a benefit to their members and advocate more directly for their interests.
For instance, the NJEA is not as powerful as it is because all of the teachers are proud members and supporters. The NJEA is as powerful as it is because all teachers must essentially be members of the union. Many teacher's would love to not have to pay the $791 a year in due's to the NJEA. However, while they can "opt out" they are still legally required to pay approximately 85% of the fee ($672) to the union because they, "benefit directly from collective bargaining". Most unions in NJ work this way. If you are in a union "shop" you may choose not to join, but you still have to pay a percentage of the dues. This creates a situation where there is virtually zero incentive to not join.
In the case of our teachers, the 15% differential is based on the cost of the "free" liability insurance policy the NJEA provides to each of its members among some other minor "benefits" like newsletters and the convention. Basically, teachers get back around .15 cents of every dollar they give the NJEA in some sort of service. Teachers who choose not to join still need an insurance policy, but buying that on the open market is easily more expensive then just giving the NJEA the extra 15% especially in light of the fact they still must pay union dues.
The NJEA takes in $130 million a year in membership dues. If we assume that 15% goes towards providing services to members, that leaves $110.5 million a year for other activites. No one knows exactly how they spend their money because they are a non-profit entity and so do not to disclose anything. Certainly a chunk of that $110.5 million goes towards salaries of NJEA officers and staff as well as their offices (conveniently located near the State House). However, it is very obvious that the vast majority of their money goes for nothing more then lobbying and operating their PAC solely to support candidates who will in turn reinforce their iron grip and let the gravy train role.
Think about this. Our taxes pay 100% of the salaries of teachers. Teachers in total contribute $130 million of OUR TAXES to the NJEA who then turns around and uses the vast majority of that money to do nothing but engage in lobbying and run their PAC. A large amount of teachers are not happy with the situation, but they are basically legally forced into being members. "Right to Work" would eliminate this stranglehold.
If all corporate welfare is ended & they must pay all taxes due to the US Treasury & not off-shore profits in conjunction with Marc's proposal (think Panasonic moving a few miles), I might be for it. Write the bill up, Marc.
NJGOAT...Teachers Union maybe but our taxes do not pay the dues to unions like teamsters,electrical, pipefitters etc so that teacher comparison does not hold water for me.
You will never end labor unions in NYC or Philly and since we are sandwiched in between don't think it would happen here..in any case it should not be Trenton's choice but put to the voters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
