The fight continues

  Well, it looks like the unions in Ohio are gearing up for a fight, unfairly, as usual.
  So what are they planning to do?
  They're planning to confiscate $50 from every OEA union member. They'll start with a vote taken by all the local unions which will pass, of course, because we know how that goes. 
  The Columbus Dispatch:

In an email dated March 22 and obtained by The Dispatch, Ohio Education Association executive director Larry Wicks said teachers and other unionized school personnel might be charged a one-time assessment of $50 to generate more than $5 million to fight Senate Bill 5. A spokesman said yesterday that the OEA's representative assembly will vote on the charge in early May.

  So teachers around the state will be forced, once again, to pay for things in which they may or may not support.
  How is this legal?
  As SB5 goes to referendum in the fall, the unions are planning on ploughing $20 million into indoctrinating the public about the negatives of the bill.
  Not everyone is taking this lying down. 

"I am very upset with the OEA Union," Ash's March 23 email read. "I am a classified employee at a local school system and recevied a letter today to inform the membership that the OEA Assembly is going to assess each member $50 to fight against SB5. I am a fiscal conservative and belong to the Tea Party. I am appalled that theOEA feels they can (commandeer) funds from my pay check without my approval. I have had to sit by and watch my hard earned money fund the left for years and now another blow to me. I support SB5 and understand we need to turn around Ohio if we are to succeed. I would urge you to makeOhio a "right to work" state so I can get out of this union and continue on feeding the socialist programs the left endorse. I am also contacting an attorney to see if there is any hope of stopping the OEA from using my pay check as a personal bank account for their agenda. Thanks for listening and stand tough, we need you in Ohio."

  This should be personal choice. 
  Red State covered it too, however cursorily.

There’s something perversely peculiar when anti-democratic unions require their members to pay for campaigns against laws that democratically-elected officials enacted, just so those union bosses can continue a system that enables the union bosses to require more money from those members.

  There are options. 
  Firefighters and police are considering a similar assessment.
  If you think it's easy to go up against a union, take a look at this case, as represented by Red State, in which a worker had to report a safety violation committed by another union worker, but then was fined for being disloyal to a union member. The NLRB ruled against the union but the court supported the fine:

While it seems unfathomable that a union’s right to enforce its rules would trump an individual’s right to report an unsafe condition (even if it involved a fellow union member), it is just another example of the length that some unions will go in controlling members’ work lives.

For many union members, it doesn’t pay to cross their union. In fact, it can prove costly if they do.