Should a person be forced to pay money to an effort he opposes? Should a person benefit from an effort to which he has not contributed?
Most people would answer no to both questions. The former scenario is unfair to the individual; the latter is unfair to a group of individuals. Is there a way to be fair to both?
In the case of union dues, Colorado鈥檚 83-year-old Labor Peace Act attempts to do just that. Gov. Jared Polis was right to preserve the law from legislation to overturn it. He was right to veto House Bill 1005.
When it comes to unionization laws, Colorado is unique among the 50 states. Twenty-six states, including most of our neighbors, do not allow employers to extract mandatory dues or fees from employee paychecks to give to the union. In these right-to-work states, employees can establish a union, but payment of dues and fees must be voluntary. Although some right-to-work states like Nevada have robust union membership, most right-to-work states have lower rates of unionization.
It is understandable that unions oppose these laws. Their members contribute their hard-earned money to try to increase pay and benefits. When they succeed, employees who do not contribute reap the benefits as well.
In the non-right-to-work states, when employees vote to unionize, the union representative and the company negotiate mandatory dues and fees to be taken out of paychecks. While non-union member employees do not have to pay dues, they must pay agency fees to support the union鈥檚 efforts on their behalf.
There are some exceptions. The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that public-sector unions cannot take fees from nonconsenting non-union member employees. Also, employees with personal religious objections to paying funds to the union can receive an accommodation to donate the amount to a mutually agreed-upon charitable organization. Some unions, however, make getting an accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act difficult, and the employee has to seek legal counsel.
The ability to object is important since some unions are overtly political. Although they cannot legally contribute dues directly to campaigns, they can spend employee contributions on donations to SuperPACs, independent expenditure committees, lobbying activities, and advocacy. One study found that the four largest public-sector unions sent 95% of PAC donations to Democrats. This is unfair to Republican and unaffiliated voters and others who do not wish to donate to causes and candidates involuntarily.
Finding middle ground is not easy. Right-to-work states protect individuals from having to contribute to efforts with which they disagree. Non-right-to-work states protect individuals who contribute from free riders who benefit from their efforts. All of these laws are, in some way, fair and unfair.
Colorado鈥檚 Labor Peace Act attempts to solve this conundrum by requiring two votes. A simple majority of employees can vote to unionize, but it takes a second vote to institute mandatory agency fees. In that second vote, a supermajority (75%) has to show they have enough faith in the union that they are willing to subject themselves to mandatory collective bargaining agency fees.
It抖阴ap not a perfect solution, but it does provide some protection against forcing a large minority to contribute against their will and some protection for the majority who are willing to contribute and understandably resent those who benefit without contributing. The Labor Peace Act is a good compromise worth preserving.
Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
