The Teamsters continue to argue for complete and total control of all aspects of employment over union AND non union employees.  While there is an understanding that compensation will be based on whatever has been negotiated by the union, the at-will employment; and all aspects of the handshake that accompanies such an agreement remain between the employee and the employer.  The accompanying link to the Mackinac Legal Foundation story is an important part of the narrative.:

"Teamsters Local 214 does not even allow individual employees to arbitrate a grievance or go to a department head or higher unless he or she goes exclusively through the union. "

Without knowing this, it seems out of character for the MC to be supporting a position forcing one entity to provide for another without compensation.

The quote from an attorney will seem very logical for those who are missing the underlying problem of absolute Teamster control. Further in the Cap Con Article:

"David Nacht, an Ann Arbor private attorney who specializes in labor law, said in an email he hasn't reviewed case law under the National Labor Relations Act or other state labor laws to determine if courts have imposed burdens similar to what the plaintiffs seek in other right-to-work jurisdictions, but he said he thought the claims by the plaintiffs seemed unfair.

"The lawsuit seems to suggest that unions have an obligation to provide grievance representation for employees who aren't paying for the union to provide those services," Nacht said. "Unions, like companies, or any other entity, have to cover their costs. In general, the Mackinac Center is opposed to government regulation that imposes regulatory burdens on the private sector. In this case, however, the Center is asking the courts to interpret the state law to impose a significant burden on a private entity, which is what unions are, without getting paid for it. I think a court is going to have trouble finding that position to be reasonable. Why should some public employees get for free what others have to pay for? That's not fair." "

This is an important aspect to remember as the arguments begin to escalate into the next election cycle.  Reasonable people would have to argue that payment to the Teamsters for grievance handling would be appropriate if not expected.  A service as Nacht points out that has a cost.