Ain't no difference

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
According to the law, an employee cannot be forced to join a workers union in the United States.

When you are looking for a job.

Except "Even though you may not be forced to join a union it is possible you may be forced to pay dues. Some states have passed Right to Work laws which prevent educators and others from being forced to pay union dues when they are not union members. In states that have not passed one of these laws educators and others may not be forced to join the union, but they will be forced to pay the union fees." From this website.

Huhn? Can someone explain that to me. Can't be forced to join, but you can be forced to financially support the organization.

Is there a real difference here? I think not. De Juri may see a difference but De Facto does not.

If you make me support something against my will, well, then you are making me support it against my will.

Yep. And the etc. includes...

Didn't this nation fight a war over being forced to pay for things we didn't want to pay for?

Union membership should be voluntary, not compulsory.

If you force me to financially support a union, you are forcing me to join it. The legal nicety of whether or not my signature is on a membership application is strictly a nicety.

What got me to wondering about this is several things. First was a news pieces about 23 states which have "right to work" laws. Essentially these are union-busting laws. I probably mis-remember when I say something in the article said employees can be forced to join a union. It was probably cannot be forced to join.

In the kingdom of idiots, a winking idiot can be king.

Even as I bash unions, I support 'em. The First Amendment requires me to support them.

At the same time  the First Amendment requires me to support the rights of idiots to run off at the mouth. I don't have to agree with them, but they certainly have the right to have their say.