Topic: The OTHER SC Ruling...Union Slap Down (Read 1713 times)

You get a few loud conservative voices who take a job in a union shop and  somehow think that the union hasn't got the right to speak for the general welfare of the members of the union because they pay dues. But they sure like the benefits the union got for them. If you don't want to work in a union shop, what's stopping you from walking away and going to work somewhere where there isn't one - say... Walmart? I'll tell you what it is - it's the fact that they like a 40 hour work week, they like getting benefits like paid vacation and medical insurance, and they like getting a living wage. The fact that the Union is responsible for making all those things happen means nothing to them. Rush Limbaugh told them that the union is holding them back and they believe him. Labor unions are, as you said, the ONLY voice that working people have in the public venue. Individually we working class people have no power. None. We haven't got millions to spend buying the ear of legislators. But COLLECTIVELY; pooling our resources and speaking as a group we have both sufficient funds to compete in lobbying AND large voting blocks to get politicians' attention. That's why unions exist, and why they are crucial to the future of America.

Exactly, union membership in the US had been declining for decades now, the only reason we have a minimum wage in the UK is due to pressure from the unions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

"In 2013 there were 14.5 million members in the U.S., compared with 17.7 million in 1983. In 2013, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.3%, compared to 20.1% in 1983.[1] From a global perspective, the density in 2010 was 11.4% in the U.S., 18.4% in Germany, 27.5% in Canada, and 70% in Finland.[2] Union membership in the private sector has fallen under 7%[3] — levels not seen since 1932".

The real reason that unions are hated so much by the republicans is that the unions give the working man a loud voice.  The unions were able to do a good job of making sure voters got to the booth. So for many years the corporations have been fighting to end union rights so they have no voice.  I hate to tell you poor deluded idiots but the union voice was a voice for you. Try reading a little history of this country.'  Can any of you tell me where the term redneck came from.

IMAO Thank you Wil, I love debating and there is no hard feelings if Im proven wrong, to me this is all about keeping an open mind to what others have to say about certain issues.

That's not the only company that unions drove to bankruptcy. A while back, Eastern Airlines was driven to bankruptcy because of unions. They were already having financial problems. Frank Borman (yeah, THAT Frank Borman, the commander of Apollo 8 ) was President and COO at the time and his ideas were just beginning to turn the company around when one of the unions got a pickle up their bum and forced the company to abandon its profit sharing plan. This led to heavy losses to the company and the eventual sale of the airline.

Yeah, I was really pleased to see this one along w/ the rest. The union mentality and the forced paid membership is what we need a lot less of in ole USA. The unions served their purposes in the early and mid parts of last century but they've become too powerful and entrenched and contributed to the bankruptcy of GM. Furthermore, they now serve as money laundering operations to the democratic party. Many of these state and local public union pension funds are deeply underwater so Obama (in certain cases) just takes federal bailout funds and distributes them back to his union buddies who take a cut off the top and return the favor. Meanwhile, it's whatever is left of the productivity class here that is footing the bill, of course there's Fed monetization going on as well.

Neither membership or dues should be compulsory. If a union does things outside their limited scope workers should have the right to leave the union and cut off their financial support of the union. Wisconsin was just the beginning of the define of huge unions and their thug bosses.

No employee should be forced to pay any union fees if they don't wish to, I used to respect unions until they started using these kind of tactics, like with most of these civil rights movements they've gone from equal rights to favouritism.

[Man I missed the Dank - Void fights, when Dank had those horrible giant red XXX. But the chess tournament between sana and unmair do bring more intellectual values...

Don't mind me, I am just passing by ]

I would venture to say that the prevailing reason is because they have to.  That is being evidenced by the exodus from unions whenever it is possible, and why unions like SEIU tried for force Ms Harris to pay and why they are attempting to establish themselves offshore. 


Unions are dying because their love affair with Dems and mutual greed has trumped their usefulness to workers. 

I would venture to say that the prevailing reason that folks join a union shop or seek work in a union workplace is for the increased wages and benefits, and that they view their dues as a small price to pay for substantially increased wages over the non-union shops.     And part of those dues are sometimes used to support pro labor candidates, pro labor legislation, and generally looking out for the interests of labor, just like any group of like-minded or like-employed folks do.  For example, I am a court reporter, self-employed.  Part of my membership dues to the National Court Reporters Association and the Minnesota Association of Verbatim Reporters and Captioners goes for lobbying efforts to look out for the interests of our members.  Without unions or private organizations like the ones I belong to, how does the working man have any voice other than their single vote?

And believe me, in a volunteer situation, like my state and national association, the members carry the burden and everyone gets the benefit, which is, on its face, patently unfair, IMHO.

But that aside, whatever their reason for not wanting to pay the union dues, they are free to do that.   The Supreme Court made that clear here, and you evidently also are working that way at your employer.  All I'm saying is then those non-union employees should have to negotiate their own salaries and benefits, and if the union happens to negotiate a better wage for their dues-paying members, well, that's part of the reward those dues-paying members are reaping for their dues.  Why should dues-paying members fund that representation and allow those who choose to not participate in paying the dues to get the same benefit nonetheless?

If dues only went to fund collective bargaining agreements for wages and benefits you might have a point, Bees. But many workers do not join a union (yours truly for instance) because they do not subscribe to the political leanings of the unions and do not wish to pay for support of candidates for office and other political lobbying they disapprove of. Dues go for lots of things, including outrageous "CEO" salaries that liberals never seem upset over, that have nothing to do with improving the conditions of the member-workers.

The Supreme Court has ruled.   They don't have to join the union or pay union dues.  All that I am saying is that if they don't want to join and pay dues. they should not then be able to freeload off those paying the dues that support the representation of the union in negotiating a higher wage or better benefits.  They can go in and negotiate their own salary and benefits since they are not paying dues.

Surely you also don't believe they should get something for free either -- do you?

I don't know how that's siding with the unions.  That's merely saying you should not benefit off the good will (and dues) of the union if you don't want to be a member and pay the dues.  And you say I'll side with the union no matter what, but the reverse is true for you and yours, that you will side against them no matter what.

 I have the utmost respect for skilled trade unions, but I have nothing but contempt for the semi-skilled or unskilled thug unions, like the Teamsters, the Laborers, and SEIU. They are nothing more than gangsters, and when the Mafia was in its heyday, they and the thug unions were one and the same.

I am inclined to agree, but no one should be forced to pay a union if they didn't want to join in the first place and the union does not represent their individual interests. Unions are due for a reality check in the sense that they've just turned into a way to bully both corporations and workers -- and even state governments in a lot of cases unless the government is willing to stand up to unions like they did in Wisconsin. Doesn't mean that the basic idea behind unions won't still exist, it just means they need a decent sense of their proper place in the relationship between employees and employers.

This is a clear case of SEIU/Illinois Democrat party collusion, intended to rip off those who are just trying to take care of a family member in order to fund the union and eventually, the Democrat Party. The Supreme Court ruled correctly.

she was not paying herself wages.  She was essentially contracted by her son who is the actual Medicaid recipient and yes it is legal  And no one is "laying down specific parameters blah blah blah" just because you are flailing to try to make this about private unions when it is not. 

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/municipal-cities-counties-bankruptcies-and-defaults.html

LOL, the cities and the Unions are stuck within the domain of the government location. Meanwhile, taxpayers, Employers simply pack up and leave. That beneficially shrinks the tax base and leaves the government entity with no source of income. The NON-Union, Red State RTW states are gaining Employers and the Blue Union Thug owned states are losing them.

The American Enemy Liberals just can NOT understand why companies and tax payers have packed up and left them with empty shell communities. They apparently believed these entities were ignorant and would therefore tolerate all the Tax Punishment needed to feed their Union Thugs.

Then add the oppressive gun laws and we have a major blue state exodus! Its fun to watch these Anti-American Unions crumble beneath American workers' feet!

I read the background. I read the actual decision - have you?  You also can't even participate in this discussion without pretending that at least SOME of the background (the conservative position that NO ONE should be required to be a member of a union) doesn't exist. You want to lay down specific parameters in which this must be discussed. Well, sorry, Umair, but that doesn't hold water. The main plaintiff here happens to be a woman who was essentially paying herself as her home health care assistant for caring for her son (still not sure how that's legal, but hey - that's between her and Illinois). But the decision is way more far reaching than her particular circumstance. That silliness you spoke of, of hiring someone under the table doesn't apply here either - clearly, if someone is applying for assistance from the state to pay someone - and if the union is insisting that because they negotiated the standardized rate and conditions for it, you should pay dues - it's not under the table. 

Bingo.  Meanwhile union money feeds Dems who feed entitlements which feeds Dem unions and WS which feed Dems and so on and so on...all on the backs of the 99%.