[rayiner]

The issue is that public unions are highly political animals. Being forced to fund them, just to have a government job, is akin to being forced to donate to a political party. We're not talking about neutral entities just looking out for worker's rights, but partisan entities typically in bed with the Democratic party.

[sykh]

There is no distinction between public employee unions and private employee unions. People are not forced to join unions. They are, for the time being, in some states required to pay for fair share dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining, grievances, and other administrative costs. People who join the union can get a refund of the portion of their dues that go to political activities.

Since you are making a distinction about public vs. private unions it appears that this is not a constitutional issue. It seems to be one where you don’t like that they generally endorse and support one party over the other. There are very few entities that are neutral. All sufficiently large entities become political to some degree.

[chimeracoder]

> People are not forced to join unions.

This is completely false. People absolutely are forced to join unions.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of union members - over 90% - never voted in a certification or authorization election. That means that, even if they're members of the union, their membership cannot in se be considered an endorsement of the union by the bargaining unit. Because it's all-but-impossible to successfully decertify a union in practice[0], it's not uncommon to have the majority of employees oppose union membership, but still be compelled into membership.

> They are, for the time being, in some states required to pay for fair share dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining, grievances, and other administrative costs

People within the bargaining unit are usually forced to pay dues whether or not they are members.

[0] The NLRB has the power to overturn the results of decertification, and a very strong incentive to do so. In addition, unions have learned that they can change the definition of the bargaining unit after an election is held in order to invalidate the election retroactively.

[s73v3r_]

Why is it that conservatives, when discussing any other aspect of a job (pay, working conditions, abuse, etc) will say that "you have a choice; you don't have to take the job," but when it comes to unions, suddenly everyone is forced?

[rayiner]

When it comes to public unions the "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine comes into play. The Supreme Court has long held that the government cannot indirectly infringe free speech rights by imposing conditions on government employment, such as requiring employees to contribute to or join a particular political party. As Rehnquist pointed out, those cases are "indistinguishable" from situations where public employees are required to join particular unions. The public unions in Janus, for example, which are given special status and powers by state law, are nothing more than adjuncts of the Democratic party.

[s73v3r_]

"The public unions in Janus, for example, which are given special status and powers by state law, are nothing more than adjuncts of the Democratic party."

This is absolutely not true in the least. Unions tend to support candidates that will help and support them, just like anyone else who backs any other candidate.

[chimeracoder]

> Why is it that conservatives, when discussing any other aspect of a job (pay, working conditions, abuse, etc) will say that "you have a choice; you don't have to take the job," but when it comes to unions, suddenly everyone is forced?

Why are you asking me? Go find some conservatives and ask them.

[sykh]

OK, so you are not a conservative. The essence of the question remains. Perhaps answering it would be helpful instead of the response you gave.

[chimeracoder]

> OK, so you are not a conservative. The essence of the question remains. Perhaps answering it would be helpful instead of the response you gave.

Perhaps asking someone who has actually made both those statements would be more helpful than asking me.

[rayiner]

> Since you are making a distinction about public vs. private unions it appears that this is not a constitutional issue.

Private entities can limit free speech all they want; public entities cannot.

[sykh]

AFSCME is not a public entity. NEA is not a public entity. These unions do not in any way limit speech.