Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Well, whether the donations are a big deal is a wholly separate issue. But on your first point, you just told me that the union - presumably the people making decisions about what the union does, such as who it donates to - have a legal duty to the members of the union to serve their interests. I don't know what the nature of that duty is, but if it's analogous to the duty owed by management to their corporation, as you originally suggested, it's fiduciary. In which case, it seems to me it's a tough case to make that political donations are appropriate. If it's a less stringent or formal sort of duty that allows for greater flexibility, then the analogy fails.
|
They have a legal duty to fairly represent their members. Making a political contribution that an individual member disagrees with is not a failure to meet that obligation. That member has every right to voice their displeasure with the decision and to vote for new leadership they feel would better represent their interests. If the union leadership were to try and punish that member for doing so, for example by not filing their grievances, then that would be where they would have failed in their duty to provide fair representation and so long as that member files a charge against their union(which in that case they absolutely should) their union would be held accountable.
Edit: what makarov said