Right to Work Legislation
vim_n_vigor
Posts: 4,089 Member
Michigan is about to become the 24th state that has passed right to work legislation. Basically, joining a union or paying union dues can no longer be a requirement for a job. This is causing quite a stir in the state and is dividing families - even mine. Some are saying this is a huge blow to unions while others are saying that the union leaders will now truly be force to work for the people paying the union dues. What do you think?
The Republican-controlled Michigan House has passed one of two contentious "right-to-work" bills, as union protesters flooded the capital and hundreds of teachers called out of work to participate in the demonstrations.
The measure approved Tuesday morning deals with public-sector workers. Another bill focusing on the private sector was approved last week, when the Senate OK'd both bills.
When final versions have cleared the House, they'll go to Republican Gov. Rick Snyder for his expected signature as early as Wednesday.
Coinciding with the votes were massive and noisy protests both inside and outside the Capitol from pro-union demonstrators. Thousands descended upon downtown Lansing to rally against the legislation that prohibits requiring nonunion employees to financially support unions at their workplace. The move would make Michigan the 24th "right-to-work" state and strike a blow to organized labor in the heart of the U.S. auto industry.
Earlier in the day, two state school districts closed after hundreds of teachers called out.
FoxNews.com confirmed that the Warren school district had to close Tuesday after so many teachers called out absent; WDIV in Detroit reported that the Taylor school district had to do the same. A statement from the Warren system said that by 8 a.m. local time, 750 staff members had called out.
"Our decision to close school was based solely on student safety given the number of staff who called in absent today," the school district said in a statement.
Snyder, in an interview with Fox News, said it was "unfortunate" that teachers called out.
"Too often the educational system's all about the adults," he said. "To see schools shutting down because of an issue like this is not appropriate in my view."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/teachers-call-out-as-protests-rev-up-against-michigan-union-bill/#ixzz2Ele95CVE
The Republican-controlled Michigan House has passed one of two contentious "right-to-work" bills, as union protesters flooded the capital and hundreds of teachers called out of work to participate in the demonstrations.
The measure approved Tuesday morning deals with public-sector workers. Another bill focusing on the private sector was approved last week, when the Senate OK'd both bills.
When final versions have cleared the House, they'll go to Republican Gov. Rick Snyder for his expected signature as early as Wednesday.
Coinciding with the votes were massive and noisy protests both inside and outside the Capitol from pro-union demonstrators. Thousands descended upon downtown Lansing to rally against the legislation that prohibits requiring nonunion employees to financially support unions at their workplace. The move would make Michigan the 24th "right-to-work" state and strike a blow to organized labor in the heart of the U.S. auto industry.
Earlier in the day, two state school districts closed after hundreds of teachers called out.
FoxNews.com confirmed that the Warren school district had to close Tuesday after so many teachers called out absent; WDIV in Detroit reported that the Taylor school district had to do the same. A statement from the Warren system said that by 8 a.m. local time, 750 staff members had called out.
"Our decision to close school was based solely on student safety given the number of staff who called in absent today," the school district said in a statement.
Snyder, in an interview with Fox News, said it was "unfortunate" that teachers called out.
"Too often the educational system's all about the adults," he said. "To see schools shutting down because of an issue like this is not appropriate in my view."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/teachers-call-out-as-protests-rev-up-against-michigan-union-bill/#ixzz2Ele95CVE
0
Replies
-
I read about this this morning in today's Toronto Star:
"For all the shouting, the actual benefit or harm of such laws is not clear. Each camp has pointed to studies bolstering their claims, but one labor expert said the conclusions are inconclusive.
“Very little is actually known about the impact of right-to-work laws,” Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Massachusetts, said Monday. “There’s a lot of assumptions that they create or destroy jobs, but the correlation is not definite.”
Democrats contend Republicans, who lost five House seats in the November election, wanted to act before a new legislature takes office next month. In passionate floor speeches last week, they accused the majority of ignoring the message from voters and bowing to right-wing interest groups.
Criticism of the legislation has come from all the way up the Democratic food chain.
“These so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have anything to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics,” Obama told cheering workers Monday during a visit to an engine plant in Redford, Mich. “What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”
I can't find the other article at the moment, but a protracted lock out by Caterpiller in southwestern Ontario last year occurred because they were determined to cut the wages in half. They locked the workers out, waited until Indiana passed "Right to Work" legislation and closed up the engine plant and moved it there. Shortly thereafter they were recruiting the workers they'd locked out to come to Indiana on generous contracts because their new workforce wasn't skilled enough to do the work. Some went, many didn't. They were being asked to train their lower paid replacements.
There's no doubt that unions have partially made their own beds, but the perception that all union workers are lazy and overpaid is just wrong. It's always about the money...profits, on the backs of the people who do the work.
I think the trend to lower wages and benefits will continue until people realize that the wealth is not trickling down. I just hope the result isn't too much violence.0 -
I live in a right to work state. We have no unions. The wages and benefits are crap. We are one of the worst states in the nation for health, life expectancy, and education.
So yeah, based on my experience, I'm against so called right to work. The pocket change president said it really means 'right to work for less money' and he's right.0 -
I live in a right to work state. We have no unions. The wages and benefits are crap. We are one of the worst states in the nation for health, life expectancy, and education.
So yeah, based on my experience, I'm against so called right to work. The pocket change president said it really means 'right to work for less money' and he's right.
Up until yesterday, Michigan was considered one of the union stronghold states. Look at our unemployment, average wages, and benefits across the state. The unions haven't exactly been making this a great place to be. They have also halted incoming industries and new jobs to the state that actually could have benefited the people of this state. I believe both have their advantages and disadvantages, but in Michigan the unions have been more of a detriment to our economy than a boost for a very long time.0 -
I don't understand why the unions are so mad. If being in a union is so desirable, why should it matter *AT ALL* that it's now optional? That's all that really happened, people get to decide for themselves. If workers think union dues purchase them benefits that are worthwhile, they'll join. Unions shouldn't be able to force anyone to join. And if they were worth the money, they wouldn't have to.
I'm a (proudly non-union) teacher, and the behavior of the hundreds of teachers who've called out and left the kids hanging is appalling. Only the protection of the union allows them to take such actions. I hearken back to the days of Ronnie, who told the air traffic controllers to show up for work or else they would be replaced. They didn't believe him, and they WERE replaced. I wish the same would happen here. How many pink-slipped teachers would love to take those abandoned classrooms? LOTS.0 -
I live in a right to work state. We have no unions. The wages and benefits are crap. We are one of the worst states in the nation for health, life expectancy, and education.
So yeah, based on my experience, I'm against so called right to work. The pocket change president said it really means 'right to work for less money' and he's right.
What state?
I'm in Florida, which is a right to work state. We still have unions. I have great pay and benefits, even though I opt not to belong to a union.
The BF, on the other hand, works for the airlines and they are exempt from right-to-work laws. His company voted two years ago to unionize. He has a smaller paycheck thanks to the dues, but has received absolutely no benefit from membership, He makes considerably less money than I do and his benefits are crap.0 -
I live in a right to work state. We have no unions. The wages and benefits are crap. We are one of the worst states in the nation for health, life expectancy, and education.
So yeah, based on my experience, I'm against so called right to work. The pocket change president said it really means 'right to work for less money' and he's right.
Up until yesterday, Michigan was considered one of the union stronghold states. Look at our unemployment, average wages, and benefits across the state. The unions haven't exactly been making this a great place to be. They have also halted incoming industries and new jobs to the state that actually could have benefited the people of this state. I believe both have their advantages and disadvantages, but in Michigan the unions have been more of a detriment to our economy than a boost for a very long time.
What VIM said....Michigan has had the highest unemployment rates for how many years now?
There was zero population growth from 2000-2010 because so many people left the state and soon I will be one of them.
Our crime rates have gone up and frankly, if you live in SW or Eastern Michigan, it's pretty damn depressing most the time.0 -
What people are missing here is that right to work isn't simply about choosing whether you want to be in a union or not. It's about weakening unions by allowing workers to freeload off of union paying members. It allows non-union members to work the same contracts and benefits that were negotiated using other people's union dues, giving the same benefits of being in the union without having to pay in. It's a freeloader law.
It's all about weakening the political power of unions since less dues paying members = less political influence. You want to know how easy to tell it's politically motivated, and not about the worker? The two unions that are exempt from this law are the police and firefighters, the two unions that traditionally back Republicans.
Right to Work is a politically motivated scam, and the Michigan Republicans are cowards for pushing it through with no debate, and no public comment.0 -
What people are missing here is that right to work isn't simply about choosing whether you want to be in a union or not. It's about weakening unions by allowing workers to freeload off of union paying members. It allows non-union members to work the same contracts and benefits that were negotiated using other people's union dues, giving the same benefits of being in the union without having to pay in. It's a freeloader law.
It's all about weakening the political power of unions since less dues paying members = less political influence. You want to know how easy to tell it's politically motivated, and not about the worker? The two unions that are exempt from this law are the police and firefighters, the two unions that traditionally back Republicans.
Right to Work is a politically motivated scam, and the Michigan Republicans are cowards for pushing it through with no debate, and no public comment.
So you're OK with forcing people to give money to a union in order to be allowed to even have a job?
I'm not.
If things got bad enough that a union was necessary, if unions did so many great things and not having one meant so many bad things, right to work wouldn't affect them at all. Everyone would want to join and make sure the union was strong.0 -
What people are missing here is that right to work isn't simply about choosing whether you want to be in a union or not. It's about weakening unions by allowing workers to freeload off of union paying members. It allows non-union members to work the same contracts and benefits that were negotiated using other people's union dues, giving the same benefits of being in the union without having to pay in. It's a freeloader law.
It's all about weakening the political power of unions since less dues paying members = less political influence. You want to know how easy to tell it's politically motivated, and not about the worker? The two unions that are exempt from this law are the police and firefighters, the two unions that traditionally back Republicans.
Right to Work is a politically motivated scam, and the Michigan Republicans are cowards for pushing it through with no debate, and no public comment.
I know what the benefits are for the people working in union shops. I'd rather have no benefits. Anyone besides union leadership that thinks that the majority of unions around here are actually doing them any favors are blind to what other workers have. The union shops in my town didn't protest, they aren't fighting the change and their leadership isn't pushing it. You know why? The union shops here are actually getting benefits from their union and while I am sure there are a few that are planning not to continue paying their union dues, the vast majority plan on continuing in their unions and paying their dues because their unions are actually gaining them real benefits. What the auto workers get is shameful.0 -
What people are missing here is that right to work isn't simply about choosing whether you want to be in a union or not.
Um, yeah, it really is that simple. This is America, chief. People ought to have the ability to decide whether or not to hand over part of their paycheck to a union. It shouldn't be a condition of their employment. Get serious.It's about weakening unions by allowing workers to freeload off of union paying members. It allows non-union members to work the same contracts and benefits that were negotiated using other people's union dues, giving the same benefits of being in the union without having to pay in.
If there are no extra benefits to being in a union, then why do unions exist? Could it be to steal money from middle-class folks to line the pockets of rich thugs and politicians? Food for thought.It's a freeloader law.
Oh NOW libs are against freeloader laws. Where was all this righteous indignation when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats? Don't even talk to me about freeloading until we've addressed entitlement programs.
I would have a lot more respect for you libs if you'd just be honest ... your problem is that when people have a choice, they are likely to choose something that doesn't work for you.0 -
Unions had a purpose several decades ago protecting the rights of the worker. They are no longer necessary. Once the value was geared more for the benefits of the union itself, than it's members, they became antiquated.
A person should be paid based on his or her performance and merit, not union mempership, tenure or time in service.
I believe someone's longevity should be a reward rather than a right.
I've been on both sides. In several unions and out. I am currently salaried and if I want to keep my job in hard times, it's because I am working hard at it. I'm not "bumping" some guy because I've been here longer than they have.0 -
Unions are problematic, but so is not having them. It may be that we are having the wrong argument entirely.0
-
I live in a right to work state. We have no unions. The wages and benefits are crap. We are one of the worst states in the nation for health, life expectancy, and education.
So yeah, based on my experience, I'm against so called right to work. The pocket change president said it really means 'right to work for less money' and he's right.
Right to work passed here lat year. There were job with crappy wages and benefits BEFORE RTW passed, so I don't blame the legislation. There has been a steady increase in jobs here since it passed. Locally we have had a few great foreign companies bring nice technology and industrial jobs.
Subaru is one of our biggest employers. They are non-union, have record profits every year and people would kill to get a job there for the pay and benefits. But I find it humorous that the people who are complaining about low wages here are the people working for the factories that have a 70% weekly turnover rate and will hire literally ANYONE. They go through training and orientation and the first day they have to spend putting stickers on the side of semi-trailer, they walk out and go back to their Section 8 apartments.0 -
The unions are pretty gutted as it is. Jobs are outsourced because corporations want to operate in places where workers have few rights and protections. Because of this most of the jobs that remain in the US are non-union service jobs. So people who complain that a union does nothing for workers might be blaming the unions when they should be blaming all of us for electing politicians that allow outsourcing to continue and that don't require companies who make billions of dollars off of America to give anything in return.
A ban on some outsourced products (particularly ones from countries where workers live under dictators and have been murdered for trying to organize) and heavy tariffs on the rest will certainly give some power back to workers in the US.0 -
I live in a right to work state. We have no unions. The wages and benefits are crap. We are one of the worst states in the nation for health, life expectancy, and education.
So yeah, based on my experience, I'm against so called right to work. The pocket change president said it really means 'right to work for less money' and he's right.
What state?
I'm in Florida, which is a right to work state. We still have unions. I have great pay and benefits, even though I opt not to belong to a union.
The BF, on the other hand, works for the airlines and they are exempt from right-to-work laws. His company voted two years ago to unionize. He has a smaller paycheck thanks to the dues, but has received absolutely no benefit from membership, He makes considerably less money than I do and his benefits are crap.
May I ask why you choose not to join the union even though you benefit from it? Personal financial reasons?0 -
I live in a right to work state. We have no unions. The wages and benefits are crap. We are one of the worst states in the nation for health, life expectancy, and education.
So yeah, based on my experience, I'm against so called right to work. The pocket change president said it really means 'right to work for less money' and he's right.
What state?
I'm in Florida, which is a right to work state. We still have unions. I have great pay and benefits, even though I opt not to belong to a union.
The BF, on the other hand, works for the airlines and they are exempt from right-to-work laws. His company voted two years ago to unionize. He has a smaller paycheck thanks to the dues, but has received absolutely no benefit from membership, He makes considerably less money than I do and his benefits are crap.
May I ask why you choose not to join the union even though you benefit from it? Personal financial reasons?
I can't say I've benefitted from it at all.
However, at the moment, I can barely pay my own bills, so adding another expense isn't going to happen.0 -
You said it all very well. Thank you.What people are missing here is that right to work isn't simply about choosing whether you want to be in a union or not.
Um, yeah, it really is that simple. This is America, chief. People ought to have the ability to decide whether or not to hand over part of their paycheck to a union. It shouldn't be a condition of their employment. Get serious.It's about weakening unions by allowing workers to freeload off of union paying members. It allows non-union members to work the same contracts and benefits that were negotiated using other people's union dues, giving the same benefits of being in the union without having to pay in.
If there are no extra benefits to being in a union, then why do unions exist? Could it be to steal money from middle-class folks to line the pockets of rich thugs and politicians? Food for thought.It's a freeloader law.
Oh NOW libs are against freeloader laws. Where was all this righteous indignation when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats? Don't even talk to me about freeloading until we've addressed entitlement programs.
I would have a lot more respect for you libs if you'd just be honest ... your problem is that when people have a choice, they are likely to choose something that doesn't work for you.0 -
I live in a right to work state. We have no unions. The wages and benefits are crap. We are one of the worst states in the nation for health, life expectancy, and education.
So yeah, based on my experience, I'm against so called right to work. The pocket change president said it really means 'right to work for less money' and he's right.
What state?
I'm in Florida, which is a right to work state. We still have unions. I have great pay and benefits, even though I opt not to belong to a union.
The BF, on the other hand, works for the airlines and they are exempt from right-to-work laws. His company voted two years ago to unionize. He has a smaller paycheck thanks to the dues, but has received absolutely no benefit from membership, He makes considerably less money than I do and his benefits are crap.
May I ask why you choose not to join the union even though you benefit from it? Personal financial reasons?
I can't say I've benefitted from it at all.
However, at the moment, I can barely pay my own bills, so adding another expense isn't going to happen.
Some would probably argue that the fact that you have great pay and benefits is because of the union bargaining. I don't know the specifics of your situation, so I won't argue that.
I don't believe at all that politics have nothing to do with the situation. Does anyone really think that a republican governor isn't happy about financially choking a democratic organization?0 -
Oh NOW libs are against freeloader laws. Where was all this righteous indignation when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats? Don't even talk to me about freeloading until we've addressed entitlement programs.
Freeloaders? I guarantee there are people who work harder than you ever have or ever will in your life who have no healthcare.0 -
Well explain to me, why ANYONE should be foreced to join a union?0
-
Well explain to me, why ANYONE should be foreced to join a union?
Because in some situations you would be benefiting from all of the bargaining that the union does on your behalf. You could look at it like paying taxes. The money goes to things that are (supposed to) benefit you.
ETA: That's a possible argument. I don't know where I stand on the issue.0 -
I was in a union back in the early 70's. Culinary, Cooks and Waitresses. I worked at a Ramada Inn. Every payday a union representative would be out in the Restaurant looking for employees. This was way before automatic paycheck debits and such, so, if you could avoid them that day, you didn't have to pay union dues. They didn't do anything for anyone, except collect your money. I think I was making about 1.65 an hour. They managed to corner me once in 18 months.0
-
Oh NOW libs are against freeloader laws. Where was all this righteous indignation when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats? Don't even talk to me about freeloading until we've addressed entitlement programs.
Freeloaders? I guarantee there are people who work harder than you ever have or ever will in your life who have no healthcare.
Thank you. You were much better at addressing that little snide remark than I would have been, Mara.
0 -
Oh NOW libs are against freeloader laws. Where was all this righteous indignation when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats? Don't even talk to me about freeloading until we've addressed entitlement programs.
Freeloaders? I guarantee there are people who work harder than you ever have or ever will in your life who have no healthcare.
Work smarter, not harder??!
I am not going to get into the entitlement debate. There are people that need the help and have no other options. There are people that take advantage of it. Whatever....
That said... Only someone on the left would consider a hardworking person who pays their taxes and payroll deductions and chooses not to pay union dues for whatever reason a freeloader. If the union is worth a damn, people will pay dues without being forced into it.0 -
Oh NOW libs are against freeloader laws. Where was all this righteous indignation when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats? Don't even talk to me about freeloading until we've addressed entitlement programs.
Freeloaders? I guarantee there are people who work harder than you ever have or ever will in your life who have no healthcare.
Work smarter, not harder??!
I am not going to get into the entitlement debate. There are people that need the help and have no other options. There are people that take advantage of it. Whatever....
That said... Only someone on the left would consider a hardworking person who pays their taxes and payroll deductions and chooses not to pay union dues for whatever reason a freeloader. If the union is worth a damn, people will pay dues without being forced into it.
I disagree with the statement that if the union was worth a damn that people would choose to pay dues. Some people would, but not all. I doubt even most would. It's human nature to try and game the system, and lots of people figure that others will do it. People try their hardest to pay as little tax as possible, even though they benefit from it (I'm not going to debate that statement). More people consume public radio/television than actually pay to keep it going.0 -
I disagree with the statement that if the union was worth a damn that people would choose to pay dues. Some people would, but not all. I doubt even most would. It's human nature to try and game the system, and lots of people figure that others will do it. People try their hardest to pay as little tax as possible, even though they benefit from it (I'm not going to debate that statement).
If people are not willing to pay to belong to an organization then it has no value to them even if they indirectly benefit from the organization's work. In the case of unions, a person that chooses not to pay dues would still be covered by the collective bargaining agreement made with the employer. They would not be able to take part in any union activities or vote on new agreements with the employer. As far as I know, unions can force non-members to pay their share of the collective bargaining process and contract administration which is not considered dues. This is not gaming the system.
If unions in right to work states want to keep people paying dues they need to offer something to the individuals other then having them watch their dues money funneled to union backed politicians or redistributed to union officials.More people consume public radio/television than actually pay to keep it going.
If public radio/television disappeared tomorrow the only ones that would care are those that currently pay for them. Again... value to the consumer. Those same people will turn to something they already value and pay for.. Cable TV? Satellite Radio? Etc...0 -
If people are not willing to pay to belong to an organization then it has no value to them even if they indirectly benefit from the organization's work.
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I just disagree with that statement. I just believe that people will choose not to pay more often than they will choose to pay, whether they realize they benefit from it or not (for the sake of this argument, I'm assuming the people not paying do benefit). It's the reason people are threatened with jail for not paying taxes. It's (at least one of) the reason the music industry is shifting from music sales to streaming.As far as I know, unions can force non-members to pay their share of the collective bargaining process and contract administration which is not considered dues.
Are you sure about this? I don't think this is the case. Can you provide some examples?If unions in right to work states want to keep people paying dues they need to offer something to the individuals other then having them watch their dues money funneled to union backed politicians or redistributed to union officials.
Union dues do go to more than that. From wikipedia:
"Union dues may be used to support a wide variety of programs or activities, including: Paying the salaries and/or benefits of full-time or part-time union leaders and/or staff; union governance; legal representation; legislative lobbying; political campaigns; pension, health, welfare, and safety funds; and/or the union strike fund."
I see no problems with unions backing politicians. Organizations of all types support politicians who advocate their members' interests.0 -
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I just disagree with that statement. I just believe that people will choose not to pay more often than they will choose to pay, whether they realize they benefit from it or not (for the sake of this argument, I'm assuming the people not paying do benefit). It's the reason people are threatened with jail for not paying taxes. It's (at least one of) the reason the music industry is shifting from music sales to streaming.
Union dues are not taxes. No reason to continue using that example.
There are plenty of organizations that people pay toward that are valuable to them. Again... If they don't pay, even if they derived some value, they don't care enough about the organization and would not miss it if it went away. The music industry is adjusting to market conditions (AKA adding value for tech savvy consumers)As far as I know, unions can force non-members to pay their share of the collective bargaining process and contract administration which is not considered dues.
Are you sure about this? I don't think this is the case. Can you provide some examples?
I pulled this quote from the SEIU page.
http://www.seiu503.org/about-seiu/join-seiu/why-join-a-union/unions are legally obligated to represent everyone within the bargaining unit, whether or not they are union members. Non-members are covered by the contract, may file grievances, are represented by the union, and are even represented by a union attorney in arbitration hearings.
For this reason, in most unions, those who choose not to become union members have to pay a “fair share” fee — their fair share of the cost of bargaining and administering the contract that protects everyone.
Your "gaming of the system" claim falls apart with that quote.Union dues do go to more than that. From wikipedia:
"Union dues may be used to support a wide variety of programs or activities, including: Paying the salaries and/or benefits of full-time or part-time union leaders and/or staff; union governance; legal representation; legislative lobbying; political campaigns; pension, health, welfare, and safety funds; and/or the union strike fund."
Yes.. union dues pay for a lot of things. Most union dues go towards the salary and benefits of union leaders and staff.
Teamsters members do not make a lot of money. They are certainly not making 150k per year and yet the Teamsters are flush with officials making more. How does this provide value to the average teamster's member???? If I were in a right to work state and a member of the teamsters union you can be damn sure I would opt out.
http://www.tdu.org/files/150-club-report-2010.pdfI see no problems with unions backing politicians. Organizations of all types support politicians who advocate their members' interests.
I see no problem with any organization providing support to politicians as long as I have the option to opt out if I do not agree with what my organization is backing.
To use a previous example we have discussed on this board before...
If Chick-Fil-a provides support to hate groups I have the option to no longer provide them with my money.
If I live in a non-right to work state, and belong to a union that is donating money to a cause I do not agree with my only choice to stop my money going to that cause is to quit my job. How is that a choice?0 -
I pulled this quote from the SEIU page.
http://www.seiu503.org/about-seiu/join-seiu/why-join-a-union/
Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the fair use fee. I'm glad to see it exists.
I still don't have an opinion either way about right-to-work legislation as the statistics are mixed, but you've made some great points.0 -
Lour444, if you're still paying attention, here's an article from Forbes that says something different than what you said (i think) about RTW. It basically says that RTW laws being pushed today will force unions to offer non-union members all of the benefits of a union (collective bargaining, legal representation) without having to pay a single penny, including any fair use fee. The non-paying person could even turn around and sue the union if they felt they didn't do a good enough job of representing them, even though it was free.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/11/right-to-work-laws-explained-debunked-demystified/0
