This would be a positive for the country. (Though some will of course wail.) Unions shouldn’t be able to just take money out of people’s paychecks just because a particular union says that it represents a particular worker. That’s crazy.
I am of the opinion that in theory private sector unions can actually be valid tools within the marketplace. They help to set expectations for employees and management alike while also creating some degree of employment stability for workers. So long as such a private union is based upon free association and not a tool of cronyism (this is of course the rub), and doesn’t coerce fees from its members, I can see how a private union, again in theory, can be a perfectly good thing. However, in a government situation, where the taxpayers are the employers, unions shouldn’t be allowed. Governments are nearly always hijacked by public sector unions which “negotiate” with politicians who are elected with money from the public unions. Even FDR thought public unions were a bad idea.
(From The Economist)
The tenor of the hearing suggested that a majority of the justices are keen to abandonAbood and end the mandatory fees—freeing Ms Friedrichs and tens of millions of public-sector workers from the duty of writing cheques to the unions who negotiate on their behalf. Justice Samuel Alito sent strong hints of this willingness in two recent cases, calling Abood“something of an anomaly” in 2012. This view earned the apparent endorsement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who noted that under the current regime teachers who oppose seniority-based salaries nevertheless must fund a union’s “public relations campaign to protest merit pay”. It “makes no sense”, Justice Kennedy complained, to tell teachers who “strongly, strongly disagree with the union position on teacher tenure, on merit pay, on merit promotion, on classroom size” that they must pay to support those positions but are otherwise “free to go out and argue against” them.