Pitching into PSU Shouldn’t Be Pay for Play
By Alexis Ali
My dearest PSU readers, I write to you from the other side of the paywall. Yes, that’s right. I am a NON-dues-paying member. Before you gasp and immediately email Daegan Miller (communications committee chair) about how my communication slipped through the cracks, I implore you to read on as I make a case for giving non-dues payers more opportunities to participate and have a greater stake in the success in the union.
Before I begin, I want to preface this by saying that I believe that as dues-payers, you should have more rights regarding union leadership than I have. I respect the financial investment you have put in and agree that it should give you the rights to vote, hold specific offices, raise amendments, and serve on certain boards that represent the union to outside committees.
However, I come to you as a representative of those bargaining unit members for whom the dues are too steep. We have all faced increasing economic hardship, particularly over the past… what feels like forever. In my personal experience, and the experiences others have shared with me, I know there are people we work with who make so little, they cannot afford to feed their families on a regular basis. They are not worrying about union membership dues; they are worrying about a much more existential threat. This, however, does not translate to apathy where union action is concerned.
Though I am unable to contribute monetarily, I am more than happy to give of my time and expertise–which I have. Are there other people who cannot afford full membership who would like to volunteer with the union in meaningful ways that we haven’t thought of? Maybe we have an excellent graphic designer who wants to pitch in when needed. Or, we might have someone with a background in movement organizing who could work as our organizing committee’s extra hand. We will never know until we open up opportunities for everyone.
Speaking of not knowing things, for a long time (until I was thrust into the advancement privatization debacle), I had no clue what PSU leaders were doing. And, after reaching out to several other non-dues-payers, I realized that was pretty much the experience they’ve had too. They (we) don’t receive the regular communications that dues-payers do. That means, at any given time, they don’t know the things our bargaining committee is fighting for, actions our co-chairs are taking to protect our rights and jobs, or even what is discussed in our meetings. Without that information, non-dues-payers who can afford it wonder why they should become full members. They don’t get to see the tireless work, or the eventual reaping of rewards as they happen.
So, I put forward to you this idea: allow non-dues-payers to attend meetings. If there is a matter to vote on, only full dues-paying members will be invited to do so—providing an opportunity to invite non-dues-payers to become members. Most importantly, allow non-dues payers to receive all communications. That’s newsletters, updates, actions, etc. that the board decides to share. That way, non-dues-payers will have all the information and may be inspired to join their fellow workers in membership and/or invest their time and talents in service of PSU. Not only that, but sharing that information with all of us helps increase the number of people who can respond to petitions and other critical actions, benefiting everyone.
Lastly, I quote PSU’s own mission statement: “As part of the greater sisterhood and brotherhood of the organized labor movement, we share an historic commitment to diversity, social justices, and economic democracy for all members of society, including the as yet unorganized.” Increasing communication with and opportunities for non-dues-paying members would help us live up to that mission and avoid having only those who can afford representation participating and leading the direction of the union.
For the benefit of dues-paying and non-dues-paying PSU staff alike, I think it’s time that all are welcomed into the fray.
There Is No Union Without Union Dues
By Sean Glennon
I sat on a trial jury recently. It wasn’t my first time serving. I don’t expect it to be the last time I’m called, and quite possibly not the last time I’m impaneled.
I kind of hope I’ll report and be dismissed next time around. Not that the experience isn’t rewarding. It’s just, you know, been there, done that. But contrary to the assumptions of those who offer sympathy and well-intended advice each time I mention that I’ve been summoned, I’m never interested in trying to “get out of it.” Serving when called is one of just three things I’m asked to do as a citizen, along with voting and paying taxes. And while all of these can feel burdensome at times (particularly in mid-April), they’re really not unreasonable. The underlying truth is that participation is vital to the success of a democracy.
I believe that same standard applies to membership in democratic organizations like our union. PSU functions most effectively, delivering the best results for all of us, when members participate fully. We serve the union as we can, when we can — volunteering for committee work, showing up at rallies, raising our voices in solidarity. We vote to elect leaders and ratify contracts. And we ensure the successful operation of our union by helping to fund it: We pay our dues.
Union dues aren’t exactly like taxes, of course. Our contributions are used exclusively to fund work that benefits us directly. The money we pay in fuels our negotiating teams. It allows us and our MTA partners to push for legislation — like the millionaires tax — that improves our working conditions. It ensures our union has the resources to fight for us when we’re confronted by unreasonable actions and demands from management.
Even if you view dues-paying through a strictly transactional lens, the return on investment is unmistakable. Every one of us draws a better salary and enjoys better benefits as a result of the work our union does.
Union dues also are unlike taxes in that we’re not legally required to pay them. More than that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, unions cannot even assess administrative fees to those who opt out of full membership.
It’s critical that we are mindful of the motivation for Janus. The case was advanced to undermine organized labor. Its champions understood that organized labor stands between corporate capitalists and the unfettered exercise of their greed. They know the power workers derive from solidarity is the chief (the only) force that can withstand the power they wield through money.
Participation is how we stave off the destructive power of Janus. And paying dues is a critical piece of our participation.
We all enjoy the benefits of solidarity, regardless of whether and to what extent we participate. We get the raises. We get the protection from a big, cold institution and, when we need it, from capricious and unfeeling management. We get the paid time off, the health insurance, the retirement benefits…
It’s also notable that dues aren’t just a way of paying in. The Janus ruling itself tells us that. Paying dues is a way of standing up and saying, “This is my union. These are my siblings. And we believe that when workers stand together, we cannot be defeated.” There’s no more powerful way to say that than to ante up.
So, yes, I believe it’s appropriate and proper to reserve the benefits of full participation for those who elect to pay. (I also believe requiring dues payment as a precondition for full participation — including voting rights — is an effective way to weed out those who choose not to pay dues not because they can’t afford the expense but because they’re scabs.)
But I also believe that part of our mission must be to remove financial barriers to participation. I know that dues are a far heavier burden for some members than others. I believe we can come together to relieve that burden. A sliding scale could address that inequity, similar to the way our tradition of negotiating equal-dollar pay increases addresses inequities in the university’s pay scale. A system that allows lower-wage earners to appeal for a reduction — temporary or permanent — to their dues rate would enable more of our PSU siblings to participate fully within their means. Would that be burdensome to those who earn higher wages? Perhaps a bit. Would it be unreasonable? No, not at all. This is the essence of solidarity: We all give what we can, so we can all get what we need.