# data[].attributes.body
I would agree that if there was an elimination of fair share that public education across our state and country may suffer. My sister-in-laws worked in a state that had no union representation for their teachers. Forget fair share they had nothing to pay. They also were very often taken advantage of by their employer. Salary in this state was also very low. So I do see that having a union does serve a great purpose. On the other hand I have to say that I found it very hard that my money as a teacher was going to support certain political platforms that stood for causes that I personally have a MAJOR problem with.  My husband also found it very ironic that the union I was paying dues to was supporting and endorsing a man he as an FBI agent had been investigating for fraud.

# data[].attributes.body
If the political influence of PSEA, NEA and AFT weakens as a result of the elimination of fair share, I believe public education across our state and country will suffer.  I acknowledge that labor unions bargain better economic rewards for their members, which subsequently costs taxpayers more money state and nationwide.  But, the large labor unions additionally advocate for students in a manner that is not possible by individual educators or school districts.  These unions also serve as educational watchdogs over the political and fiscal maneuvering of lawmakers present at all levels of government in our nation.  I realize fair share is not a perfect solution to forced representation by a labor union, but I believe collective bargaining has served and continues to serve all educators and students well.  In my opinion, nonunion members paying a portion of the expenses associated with their representation seems a worthwhile compromise in order to maintain the high level of educational opportunities available to the students across Pennsylvania as well as the country.

# data[].attributes.body
In my first several years of teaching, I chose to be a nonunion member. I did not agree with all union actions at the time and I realized that I would benefit from the collective bargaining process and be given representation in the case of any violations that may have been brought to the table. I was aware of the fair share fees that were established within some districts and would be willing to pay these fees if requested. Now that I have a better understanding of all of the responsibilities of the union, I believe that my membership is for the better to promote effective negotiations.  I would not be offended by any individual that chooses to be a non-union member. I understand that some individuals would benefit from any additional money possible, or may disagree with some of the actions of unions.  I think it is important to be mindful of why some individuals choose to be non-union members.

# data[].attributes.body
If fair share went away i think local associations would need to do a better job of selling memberships. I Assume collective bargaining would stay in place, and non-union employees would just get the same contract, but they would not have any input, or representation with the district.
I don't necessarily see this having a devastating effect on salaries and benefits. Those teachers that are in the union are still going to want to negotiate the best deal possible, and they're still the only party permitted to negotiate with the district. It's not like non-union members would get to start negotiating their own contracts (That would be a game changer).  If anything I could potentially see the union members forging stronger bonds, resulting in a sort of cliquish setting in schools.

Finally, well done Scott.

# data[].attributes.body
As a teacher I belonged to the union so that my voice could be represented. I was always upset with those who were not members but reaped the benefits of the union's services without paying dues. I believe that we should have a service fee for nonmembers. I believe the elimination of fair share  would weaken unions and undermine their effectiveness in collective negotiations for salaries, health benefits, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely understand the historical importance of union’s.  Unions were and are designed to help those who have the potential of being exploited.  There is no other professional organization that is unionized.  I refused to join the union as a teacher.  I understand their value in creating the CBA, but I would rather spend the money on a lawyer and workout my own contract with a district.  I think by illuminating the fair share, you will see the importance of unions decrease.  They will also be severely hurt in the ability to lobby at the state and national level.  This will remove some of the power they have and in the end lower teacher compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
If fair share were to be eliminated, I would think it would drastically alter the way unions function in this state.

Previously, I was a teacher in Virginia, which was a right to work state. As a building rep and state delegate it was always a struggle for membership. The union was united, but limited in its power based on an enrollment of approximately 60% of the teaching staff. A major difference was that VA did not have collective bargaining.

If PA would lose fair share, I would predict lower enrollement, leading to lower funds for PSEA, and the local associations. This would result in less funding for their political action committees (PACs); therefore less power.  With less power I would foresee other things being in jeopardy such as collective bargaining and PSERS.

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting to see your input on the idea of union representation change as you move from a teacher to an administrator.  As a former building representative, I was a firm believer in fair share and we were able to get it into our previous contracts.  To me, it had to do with a small number of us advocating for the masses.  With that said, I believe unions would not work as hard to secure benefits without fair share.  It may not be a dramatic change, but rather more of a residual impact over time.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that if fair share were eliminated in Pennsylvania, we would begin to see the decline in wages and benefits.  If you compare our state to other surrounding states, with less powerful unions, you will see this is also true.  It's easy to ride on the shoulders of those who negotiated and spent the long hours at the table,  on your behalf.  Reaping the benefits comes at a cost!

# data[].attributes.body
By law, no one is required to join a union and no one is required to pay any fees. If a union represents all employees in negotiating and administering a collective bargaining agreement, then all the employees should share the costs of that representation. Many educators worry that we will not be able to advocate for their students. As a union member, they know they have a voice and that through their collective bargaining process; they are ensuring quality education for all students. Educators may not be able to negotiate over certain issues. A union member may feel empowered to talk about improving the school environment for educators and students without retaliation. Some states have made fair share fees illegal. As a result, there is lower wages and decreased benefits.