Union fees legal case raises new questions

first_imgCategories: Letters to the Editor, OpinionGeorge Will’s Feb. 25 column, “On Coerced union fees, Supreme Court can correct itself,” in regards to Janus vs AFSCME: I must say I agree in part with Mr. Will in regards to not having to contribute to funding any political lobbying if it is against one’s beliefs to do so. We must keep in mind that “lobbying” government can be to the benefit of all government workers.But what Mr. Will failed to mention is that some unions return a person’s portion of their “agency fee” that would have gone for that lobbying. He also failed to mention that portions of the “agency fee” are used to negotiate that person’s fair wage, health insurance and other benefits.Let’s go under the assumption that Janus wins. With this win, should those that are no longer fee payers negotiate their own contracts with the government entities? Should they negotiate the cost of their health insurance?If Janus wins, I feel it only fair to consider these people as non-union and not entitled to the benefits the union negotiate. Why should someone who doesn’t participate, even if it is a monetary contribution, benefit?Deborah BenderSchoharieMore from The Daily Gazette:EDITORIAL: Urgent: Today is the last day to complete the censusEDITORIAL: Find a way to get family members into nursing homesEDITORIAL: Thruway tax unfair to working motoristsEDITORIAL: Beware of voter intimidationFoss: Should main downtown branch of the Schenectady County Public Library reopen?last_img read more