A union's clout

To the editor:

Under the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in favor of Illinois child support specialist Mark Janus, non-members of public-sector unions are not obligated to pay union dues. The "logic" is that if a worker disagrees with any of the union's positions, then his First Amendment rights are violated by being forced to financially support those positions.

     Since nobody agrees with everything the government does, under this thinking, taxes would be abolished. Then even conservative judges would not get paid.

     Janus profits from raises and benefits that the union won in negotiations with management.

     The misnamed Freedom Foundation is mailing out flyers urging public employees to quit their unions. They tout an average savings for public employees of $900. But without union representation, the loss in salaries alone, not to mention benefits, would be sure to exceed $900.

     They don't mention that the union is not obligated to defend non-members in disciplinary cases. If you're fired, you won't be able to save $900 from $0. Those without union representation have the freedom to work for less or not at all.

     The Freedom Foundation officials conducting this campaign are not exactly competent. They don't know that since I'm retired, I no longer pay union dues. Also, as a transit worker, I was never a member of Teamsters Local 237.

     A union representing all workers obviously has more clout than Janus, or anyone else, representing only him or herself, even when your union's leadership leaves much to be desired.

     Ask those working for poor pay in poor working conditions in Amazon warehouses. That company currently touts its health care program for only $5 a week and $5 copays.

But workers also need money for such things as housing, food, clothes, etc. That actually requires better pay.

Richard Warren