Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Does Compelling Unions to Represent Non-Members Violate the Takings Clause?

WhitneyCatherine Fisk has argued that Harris v. Quinn, taken to its logical conclusion, means that the duty of fair representation violates the free speech rights of unions by compelling them to represent non-members. Does it also violate the Takings Clause? There's an ongoing debate of the issue, initiated by Heather Whitney (Chicago) over at onlabor. Hat tip: Tom Cochrane.



Labor Law | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does Compelling Unions to Represent Non-Members Violate the Takings Clause?:


Of course, the suggestion is a little nonsensical, because unions lobby for and jealously guard the PRIVILEGE of monopoly bargaining, and in that VOLUNTARILY-ASSUMED context, the duty of fair representation is the only way of protecting nonmembers against abuse.

As usual, though, unions have a simple solution if they find the crown of monopoly bargaining too burdensome: surrender that privilege, and represent only their members.

Posted by: James Young | Sep 11, 2014 8:06:19 PM

Of course, Ms. Whitney studiously ignores that unions remain free to represent only their members.

Little wonder that her post does not allow comments.

Posted by: James Young | Sep 11, 2014 8:10:39 PM

James, what point of law permits a union to make demands on behalf of only members? Are you saying it would be legal for a union to negotiate with an employer a CBA that provides for benefits that only apply to union members?

Posted by: Jared Gross | Sep 22, 2014 8:45:22 AM

Post a comment