^^ Useful idiotYes, because when employed - you should be FORCED to pay mafia-like fees... "Because were fighting for you"... Yes, sure, sure, we totally believe you.
Thank the fuck christ SCOTUS got something right.
Yes, because when employed - you should be FORCED to pay mafia-like fees... "Because were fighting for you"... Yes, sure, sure, we totally believe you.
Thank the fuck christ SCOTUS got something right.
They are doing something similar in that they are forcing workers to contribute to a maintenance fee in places where the union has control over the company. That way they will always get their money from the workers whether or not they belong to the union.Meh, like I said unions should just switch to a fixed % of salary contribution from the employer to the union in lieu of an equivalent pay raise. That way they get the exact same amount of money but no one is ‘forced’ to do anything. It’s a simple accounting fiction.
So making it illegal to take money out of someones paycheck and give it to a private organization for services they didn't ask for is "judicial activism".
Your "idea" that employers should pay for the unions is equally silly. If unions can't organize and collect enough dues from voluntary members to stand on their own then they should go out of business.
The rule of exclusive representation should also go away. Unions should not be forced to represent people who don't want and aren't paying for their services.
To be clear, my argument isn't about whether unions should exist (they should) or whether employees should be able to organize and collectively bargain (they can and should), it's about freedom of association.
Good job!
The overturning of almost a century of judicial precedent based on a major expansion of the bill of rights’ protection of free speech is judicial activism. It’s literally exactly what conservatives have complained about for years.
If you’re happy with the decision that’s fine but don’t try and pretend it’s not hypocritical.
Unions should be able to bargain for whatever work conditions they think are appropriate, including a fee per employee in the class..
No one has a right to work anywhere they want to and make it play by their rules. If you don’t like the conditions of the workplace work somewhere else. It’s called freedom and personal responsibility.
So you're argument is what? That once precedent is set it can never be changed? That politicians are hypocritical? It was the right decision.
So you think that employers are going to be willing to pay the unions directly? Really? Why would they do that? Why would they even consider doing that? What a huge conflict of interest that would cause. " Hey, we'll pay you this much per employee if you'll back off on your pension demands". LOL
Yep, guy in Illinois decided his freedoms had been infringed upon enough, took the responsibility to get them restored and successfully restored not only his rights but thousands of other people's. Rights that should never have been infringed upon in the first place.
Good job!
It was a very dumb decision. By their logic basically any money is speech, which has obvious ridiculous consequences. What’s even more amusing is that they fashion themselves as originalists. If you think the people who wrote the constitution would have thought shop fees were oppression of free speech I can only laugh.
As for if/when precedent can be changed I don’t care about that. What I’m telling you is that conservatives have been shrieking about judicial activism for my entire life and this is a perfect example of it. They can’t ban shop fees legislatively because there’s no support for it so instead they legislate from the bench. If you were consistent you wouldn’t like this either but... well... conservatives are not consistent. (At least in their principles)
Yes of course they would do that, use common sense. Employers (in a general sense) only care about how much money they are spending on employee compensation, that’s it. This is a revenue neutral change in bargaining terms and no employer is going to give a shit if in exchange for a 1% raise for everyone they give a 1% donation to the union. Frankly, it’s baffling as to why you would think they would.
Also the idea that it’s a not a conflict of interest to pay the union with a mandatory employee pass through and is without one is silliness. It’s nothing more than an accounting change.
What the guy really did was get the government to intervene and change the terms of a private contract that two parties freely entered into because he didn’t like it.
Conservatives claim to be against that sort of thing but we all know that’s a lie. Conservatives are perfectly fine with the government changing private contracts so long as they are doing it in a way conservatives like. They simply lack the pride and honesty to admit it.
That's a lot duhversion. He was being charged for something he didn't ask for and didn't want. The court corrected that. Unions will have to figure out another way to stay in business besides stealing. Boo fucking hoo.
That's the joke of the day right? You telling me to use common sense, IS3? Employers care as much about "how" as they do "how much". There's tax, pension, 401K, bonus implications all tied to the employees salary. On the labor side if their union dues are based on base salary only, they'd be getting screwed on overtime. Not to mention the reduction in pension, 401K and bonus, all based on salary which you just reduced by 1%. There's probably a bigger case to made for the employees not to want to do this than employers. I can't even imagine what the LM-10 would look like. I'm sure you're still baffled.
He didn't enter into anything freely. He did not join the union, he was never part of the union, it's illegal to force him to join a union and it's illegal for someone to steal your money. Unions are going to have to figure out a different way to keep themselves afloat than steal from public sector employees. I'm sure they've learned something from their long relationship with organized crime and they'll come up with something.
Good job!
Yeh, public sector workers should have fewer rights, obviously.
Public sector treads on private sector workers who do not enjoy the same privileged status (a.k.a. equal protection violation) and then have to pay for the monopolized public service and special benefits (e.g. separate disability system, special discounts for buying a home, COLAs on pensions, protection of pensions via courts even if laughably egregious, etc.). In the private sector, if unions take too much from employers and drive labor costs too high, their companies become less competitive and get routed by others (hello Amazon!). In the public sector, by contrast, added costs are heaped onto taxpayers who of the vast majority do not have this special status.Though, there's an arbitrariness to private sector unions as well. Longshoreman, for example, make so much because 15K guys can shut down the whole economy thing, and they're impervious to outsourcing. Even in more liberal countries, it's difficult to get on a path where there is wide unionization in the private sector. It's not necessary nor better at allocating resources as long as a country is more democratic, since that leads to more progressive taxation and broad programs that aid a large portion of the population.
Haha, I can't help but notice you abandoned ship on the argument that this isn't judicial activism.
As for unions finding another way, we already covered that and the good news is that it's super easy! Aren't you glad?!?
You're now trying to argue that we can't do this because the tax and 401(k) implications can't be calculated? Have you ever worked with a decent payroll system? Of course they can be calculated, and relatively easily. This is a case of you desperately trying to find a way to not accept something because you're opposed to it in principle and you're mad that your supposed inviolable principle was so easily circumvented.
As someone who has done plenty of work with payroll systems this is not that difficult to do in a revenue neutral way for all parties involved and directly removes your complaint. With that in mind I'm sure you support it now, correct? (lol, of course you don't... new excuses incoming)
Don't be silly, of course he entered into his contract for employment freely with the full knowledge of the terms. Then, he got the government to change the terms of his contract. Thems the facts, brotha.
Nothing was abandoned. I dismissed your argument immediately after it received the ridicule it deserved.
Thanks again for pointing out the obvious IS3. I'm happy to hear you have vast experience as a payroll clerk and there are systems that help us with payroll. What you suggest is not revenue neutral, not even close. I gave examples of why not in my previous post. Are you being purposely obtuse or are you too stupid to add? My guess is a little of both since your real goal is to steal money and give it to the unions. It reminds me of the shit coming out of that ignorant little girls mouth in NY. Spewing whatever bullshit she can think of while being completely ignorant as to what the real costs are.
Whatever. The terms of his employment were illegal. Stealing is illegal. It is completely indefensible but trust me, I understand. Unions have traditionally supported the demotardic party. They have done a great job of brainwashing their membership into unwavering support so they must be funded at all costs even if it means stealing from those who refuse to be assimilated.
I'm allowing you to have the last word. Try to do better.
Oh, you're not mine or anybody else's "brotha", IS3. Not even close.
Good job!
You have a right to be represented by your union fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.
Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not-fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. This duty applies to virtually every action that a union may take in dealing with an employer as your representative, including collective bargaining, handling grievances, and operating exclusive hiring halls. For example, a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. But the duty does not ordinarily apply to rights a worker can enforce independently - such as filing a workers' compensation claim - or to internal union affairs - such as the union's right to discipline members for violating its own rules.
Last week in Harris vs. Quinn, the U.S. Supreme Court put unions in a bind when it ruled that unionized home-care workers cannot be required to pay for the representation that unions are required by law to provide to them. In cases across the country, including at least one in California challenging the rules for public school teachers (Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Assn.), lawyers are now asking courts to extend the rule of Harris to all public employees and to prohibit government employers from requiring employees to pay their fair share of union representation.
Requiring unions to offer free representation to workers who do not want a union in the first place makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to have a system in which workers can benefit from union representation without paying their fair share.
So, to alleviate this double bind that courts would impose on unions and workers, we propose a simple reform: Unions should not be required to represent workers who do not want, and who decline to pay for, such representation.
To be fair, it's not just the Harris vs. Quinn rule that creates this double bind. It exists in all 24 states that have enacted right-to-work laws.
In every state, workers who want to collectively bargain with an employer must get support from a majority of the workers in a unit (sometimes a whole workplace, sometimes a particular group of employees). When the union gets majority support, it has a legal duty to bargain on behalf of all the workers in the unit, including those who object to the union.
This is the so-called rule of exclusive representation, and it applies everywhere in the country.
In right-to-work states, however, objecting workers can refuse to pay the union for its services. Hence, the double bind: Unions are obligated to provide free services for workers who don't want a union.
We can and should fix this. Where unions are unable to require objecting workers to pay fees — whether it's in right-to-work states or in work situations that fall under Harris vs. Quinn — we should get rid of the rule of exclusive representation.
Under such a proposal, workers who don't want a union would have a right to be genuinely nonunion: They wouldn't be subject to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, they wouldn't have to interact with their employer through a collective agent, and they wouldn't be required to pay anything to a union they didn't vote for. Unions, for their part, would be required to represent only those workers who actually want representation.
What would this mean in practice?
Let's say, for example, that the rule of Harris was extended to California's public school teachers. We would argue that teachers should then be permitted to opt out of the union's collective agreement and negotiate individually (or through a nonunion group) for different wages, performance standards or other terms of employment. The teachers union would be responsible for negotiating contracts and handling employment disputes only for its dues-paying members. The district could not treat nonunion teachers worse or better than their union counterparts in order to encourage or discourage unionization, but there might nevertheless be different contracts and work conditions depending on whether a teacher was represented by the union.
This reform would force unions to prove that they provide valuable services. If the union could secure wage and benefit gains through collective bargaining, then workers would have every incentive to sign up and pay dues (assuming, of course, that the cost of dues was lower than the benefits the union provided). If the union couldn't deliver the goods, then workers wouldn't join and wouldn't pay. In either case, the success of unions would depend on their ability to succeed for workers.
Eliminating exclusive representation would have costs. Exclusive representation ensures that management faces a single, collective voice on the other side of the negotiating table. Management rarely wants to bargain with different unions representing employees doing the same job. School districts and principals, for example, might find it difficult to administer different pay and benefit rules, as well as performance evaluation standards, for teachers in the same school.
Nonetheless, the system would be more streamlined than one in which management bargains with all its workers as individuals — the default position in both public and private workplaces without unions — and the benefits of alleviating the double bind would outweigh any costs to bargaining efficiency.
Requiring workers to pay their fair share of union representation makes good sense. But if courts forbid this sensible practice, then unions should no longer be bound by the rules of exclusive representation. In a Harris vs. Quinn world, unions should be able to represent only their members, and only members should be in unions.
You're just a useful idiot spouting socialist bullshit and pro-union propaganda.IJTSSG is just a stooge for the ruling class spouting canned talking points.
You're just a useful idiot spouting socialist bullshit and pro-union propaganda.
Face it, you union terds lost. Whine about it all you want, it's settled law.
The Unions got what they deserved. If the unions didn't make it so complicated to get out of political contributions they wouldn't have lost everything. In some Unions, employees had only 2 weeks to hand deliver a personally written letter to the unions or be forced to pay over $500 in political contributions. This had to be done every year. If you were just one day late or one day early with the letter, the union would reject it. You would be stuck giving them hundreds of dollars for political contributions.
My union personally gave 30 days, but 1 day early or late and rejected, each month for a year they would take about $50 for political money. No matter how much you asked them to stop, they would refuse.
The union terds, and manufacturing jobs lost.You're just a useful idiot spouting socialist bullshit and pro-union propaganda.
Face it, you union terds lost. Whine about it all you want, it's settled law.
The union terds, and manufacturing jobs lost.
The people with the most money in the solar system won. Yet again.
Congratulations, scumbag.