SC going to decide fate of union "fair share" fees once again

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Shouldn't any one of those 20 employees who wants to bargain on their own be able to?

You're adorable.

In forced unionization states, they are required to pay union access fees, if they choose to opt out of the union, whether they wish to be represented by said union or not.

In "forced unionization" states, as you so soberly and non-hackishly call them, employers and unions are allowed to set rules on that for themselves. One who doesn't like it is, as the free market über alles types are always reminding us, free to find a job elsewhere.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But enjoy your myth of a dissenter having actual say in this process

Again, "dissenters" in pro-worker states have just as much of a right to seek employment elsewhere if they don't like their contract as you people keep insisting "dissenters" in right-to-scab states do.

I'm also going to need some sort of source or citation on employers having no say in negotiating union security agreements, because I've literally never heard that before even from other right-wing hacks except about other countries and my inclination is to believe you're either misinformed that that dynamic is present in America or simply making it up.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the government literally prevents people from not funding unions in forced unionization states.

No it doesn't. Union security agreements do, and the state can best protect freedom of association and freedom of contract by neither requiring nor prohibiting those. Which is the case in every non-right-to-scab state.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the government literally prevents people from not funding unions in forced unionization states.

No it doesn't. Union security agreements do.

Union security agreements are dependent on state law.

In the US we have agency shops and fair share, that's it since Taft Hartley.

Fair share are negotiated between employer and union, this is probably why you are familiar with it, (assuming you are public sector) agency fees however are set by the union as their "cost of collective bargaining." The employer doesn't have a say in how much this is, just as the employer doesn't have a say in how much dues are.

1. Of course employers don't set agency fees.
2. This thread is about fair share fees.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

government forces them to.

I give up.