SEIU Fair Share Payer, Agency Fee Payer, or Non-Member Union Rights

How Union Members Can Fight Back Against Union Thugs

If you are a union member and you’re angry about your union using your money that is taken under threat of force (termination) to support criminal politicians, read on.

I’m writing this post to inform people of their right to not be compelled to subsidize  non-collective bargaining operations of unions like the SEIU.  I know many people out there feel they are forced into union membership against their will and would opt not to be members if given the choice.  Most are unaware that opting to become a “fair share payer” or “non-member” still entitles them to union representation.

A so-called “Fair Share Payer”, “Non-member”,  or “Agency Fee Payer” of a labor union, such as the SEIU, still receives full bargaining unit representation.

Their wages, benefits, and job obligations are all bargained for under the union’s bargaining unit, even if one chooses not to be a full union member.

Fair share payers are also entitled to grievance resolution under the union.

However, such fair share payers are not entitled to vote in union elections, run for union  office, or attend union meetings.

Should you choose this option, you will be paying your fair share only and you will not be denied representation by your union. The union will have to continue to represent you fairly and without discrimination in all matters subject to collective bargaining and you can not be denied any benefits under the labor contract with your employer because of non-membership.

California has ruled (Don Hagopian v. San Francisco Federation of Teachers Local 61 CFT/AFL-CIO case No. SF-CO-70 PERB Decision No. 222 Section 3543),

there can be no conditioning of quality of representation for agency fee payers.

The Supreme Court has ruled that employers and unions can force a person to become a member of a collective bargaining unit under threat of termination and that the union may forcibly confiscate bargaining unit dues from all employee’s paychecks to subsidize the bargaining unit.

Under the Supreme Court Ruling Communications Workers of America v. Beck, the court ruled that so-called “agency fee payers”  (fair share payers) in private sector unions may not have their money used for any other purpose other than the cost of bargaining unit administration, unless authorized to do so by the employee.  Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) protects public sector union workers in a similar manner.

If your union is caught spending dollars allocated to administrative costs for political campaigns, and you are a “non-member”, you may sue them for damages.

To summarize, the entire union establishment of forced dues that are confiscated from ones paycheck is criminal on its face; however, if you wish to at least prevent the fascist tyrants called union pacs from absconding with your labor and using it to promote fascist politicians against your will, you can opt to become a “non-member.”  Thus preventing them, at least legally, from doing so.

Until such time as the Supreme Court stops supporting unconstitutional tyranny, choosing the non-member option is the best you can do to prevent further tyranny from encroaching.

Contact NRTW.org for more information


The First and Fourteenth Amendments, prevent unions from exacting agency fees from the wages public employees unless the union (and employer, if via compulsory payroll deduction) comply with the dictates of Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (before unions demand the payment of an agency fee in the public sector, unions must provide non-members: 1) an adequate explanation of the basis for the agency fee; 2) a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the fee amount before an impartial decision maker; and, (3) an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute).

Union non-members cannot be forced to pay for non-bargaining activities. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (union cannot charge non-members in the public sector with expenditures not germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment). See also Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507 (1991) (discusses the chargeable expenses that a union may charge non-members for an agency fee in the public sector).

  • http://None Mark

    Your commentary is slightly inaccurate: Beck only applies to select private sector employees. The First and Fourteenth Amendments, however, prevent unions from exacting agency fees from the wages public employees unless the union (and employer, if via compulsory payroll deduction) comply with the dictates of Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (before unions demand the payment of an agency fee in the public sector, unions must provide non-members: 1) an adequate explanation of the basis for the agency fee; 2) a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the fee amount before an impartial decision maker; and, (3) an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute).

    Moreover, union non-members cannot be forced to pay for non-bargaining activities. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (union cannot charge non-members in the public sector with expenditures not germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment). See also Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507 (1991) (discusses the chargeable expenses that a union may charge non-members for an agency fee in the public sector).

    Contact NRTW.org for more information.

  • http://None Mark

    Your commentary is slightly inaccurate: Beck only applies to select private sector employees. The First and Fourteenth Amendments, however, prevent unions from exacting agency fees from the wages public employees unless the union (and employer, if via compulsory payroll deduction) comply with the dictates of Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (before unions demand the payment of an agency fee in the public sector, unions must provide non-members: 1) an adequate explanation of the basis for the agency fee; 2) a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the fee amount before an impartial decision maker; and, (3) an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute).

    Moreover, union non-members cannot be forced to pay for non-bargaining activities. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (union cannot charge non-members in the public sector with expenditures not germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment). See also Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507 (1991) (discusses the chargeable expenses that a union may charge non-members for an agency fee in the public sector).

    Contact NRTW.org for more information.

  • http://None Mark

    Your commentary is slightly inaccurate: Beck only applies to select private sector employees. The First and Fourteenth Amendments, however, prevent unions from exacting agency fees from the wages public employees unless the union (and employer, if via compulsory payroll deduction) comply with the dictates of Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (before unions demand the payment of an agency fee in the public sector, unions must provide non-members: 1) an adequate explanation of the basis for the agency fee; 2) a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the fee amount before an impartial decision maker; and, (3) an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute).

    Moreover, union non-members cannot be forced to pay for non-bargaining activities. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (union cannot charge non-members in the public sector with expenditures not germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment). See also Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507 (1991) (discusses the chargeable expenses that a union may charge non-members for an agency fee in the public sector).

    Contact NRTW.org for more information.

  • http://None Mark

    Your commentary is slightly inaccurate: Beck only applies to select private sector employees. The First and Fourteenth Amendments, however, prevent unions from exacting agency fees from the wages public employees unless the union (and employer, if via compulsory payroll deduction) comply with the dictates of Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (before unions demand the payment of an agency fee in the public sector, unions must provide non-members: 1) an adequate explanation of the basis for the agency fee; 2) a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the fee amount before an impartial decision maker; and, (3) an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute).

    Moreover, union non-members cannot be forced to pay for non-bargaining activities. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (union cannot charge non-members in the public sector with expenditures not germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment). See also Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507 (1991) (discusses the chargeable expenses that a union may charge non-members for an agency fee in the public sector).

    Contact NRTW.org for more information.

  • http://None Mark

    Your commentary is slightly inaccurate: Beck only applies to select private sector employees. The First and Fourteenth Amendments, however, prevent unions from exacting agency fees from the wages public employees unless the union (and employer, if via compulsory payroll deduction) comply with the dictates of Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (before unions demand the payment of an agency fee in the public sector, unions must provide non-members: 1) an adequate explanation of the basis for the agency fee; 2) a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the fee amount before an impartial decision maker; and, (3) an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute).

    Moreover, union non-members cannot be forced to pay for non-bargaining activities. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (union cannot charge non-members in the public sector with expenditures not germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment). See also Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507 (1991) (discusses the chargeable expenses that a union may charge non-members for an agency fee in the public sector).

    Contact NRTW.org for more information.

  • http://None Mark

    Your commentary is slightly inaccurate: Beck only applies to select private sector employees. The First and Fourteenth Amendments, however, prevent unions from exacting agency fees from the wages public employees unless the union (and employer, if via compulsory payroll deduction) comply with the dictates of Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (before unions demand the payment of an agency fee in the public sector, unions must provide non-members: 1) an adequate explanation of the basis for the agency fee; 2) a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the fee amount before an impartial decision maker; and, (3) an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute).

    Moreover, union non-members cannot be forced to pay for non-bargaining activities. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (union cannot charge non-members in the public sector with expenditures not germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment). See also Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507 (1991) (discusses the chargeable expenses that a union may charge non-members for an agency fee in the public sector).

    Contact NRTW.org for more information.

  • http://None Mark

    Your commentary is slightly inaccurate: Beck only applies to select private sector employees. The First and Fourteenth Amendments, however, prevent unions from exacting agency fees from the wages public employees unless the union (and employer, if via compulsory payroll deduction) comply with the dictates of Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (before unions demand the payment of an agency fee in the public sector, unions must provide non-members: 1) an adequate explanation of the basis for the agency fee; 2) a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the fee amount before an impartial decision maker; and, (3) an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute).

    Moreover, union non-members cannot be forced to pay for non-bargaining activities. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (union cannot charge non-members in the public sector with expenditures not germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment). See also Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507 (1991) (discusses the chargeable expenses that a union may charge non-members for an agency fee in the public sector).

    Contact NRTW.org for more information.

  • Michael Suede

    Thanks Mark.

    That doesn’t really change anything I said, but it does give more specifics on the matter.

    I have amended my article accordingly.

    Let me know if you see anything wrong with it.

  • Michael Suede

    Thanks Mark.

    That doesn’t really change anything I said, but it does give more specifics on the matter.

    I have amended my article accordingly.

    Let me know if you see anything wrong with it.

  • Michael Suede

    Thanks Mark.

    That doesn’t really change anything I said, but it does give more specifics on the matter.

    I have amended my article accordingly.

    Let me know if you see anything wrong with it.

  • Michael Suede

    Thanks Mark.

    That doesn’t really change anything I said, but it does give more specifics on the matter.

    I have amended my article accordingly.

    Let me know if you see anything wrong with it.

  • Michael Suede

    Thanks Mark.

    That doesn’t really change anything I said, but it does give more specifics on the matter.

    I have amended my article accordingly.

    Let me know if you see anything wrong with it.

  • Michael Suede

    Thanks Mark.

    That doesn’t really change anything I said, but it does give more specifics on the matter.

    I have amended my article accordingly.

    Let me know if you see anything wrong with it.

  • Michael Suede

    Thanks Mark.

    That doesn’t really change anything I said, but it does give more specifics on the matter.

    I have amended my article accordingly.

    Let me know if you see anything wrong with it.