Public sector, but unions have very little need in the public sector. We are in the public sector are afforded broad protection beyond the union thanks to the 14th amendment. While in the private sector an employee can be let go without cause, in the public sector this is never true. This isn't because of unions, this is because of the constitution.
I'm not as confident as you in the protections of the US Constitution as they relate to something as mundane as labor/management issues in the workplace. But I like your spirit.
And to quote something my dad told me long ago...always have a backup plan.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The union is legally obligated to represent all members in the bargaining unit, even those who refuse to pay dues in RTW states. There is no other legal structure for a union to operate under within the authority of the National Labor Relations Act.
Section 9A of the National Labor Relations Act:
Sec. 9 [§ 159.] (a) [Exclusive representatives; employees' adjustment of grievances directly with employer] Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: Provided, That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective- bargaining contract or agreement then in effect: Provided further, That the bargaining representative has been given opportunity to be present at such adjustment.
/quote
There is no SCOTUS decision that has revised this law, including the recent Harris v. Quinn where the issue was supposedly touched on by the anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, but the court did not address it in its decision.
(Hey CAD, we had a similar discussion 2 years ago.)
Hell, with that argument they couldn't "deprive" me of my "property."
Or tax me.
Dunno, Dcal, the 14th amendment to the constitution seems like more a cleaning up of other amendements.
It sure as hell doesn't say anything about unions.
-John
Weakening unions makes labor cheaper. That's the big rationale for Republican "reforms."
Link?
Weakening unions makes labor cheaper. That's the big rationale for Republican "reforms."
Of course they do. They're called free riders in polite company.
And like the previous discussion, you miss the part about the bargaining unit. A unit doesn't have to include all workers. This is the open/closed issue and how a union is formed. If they choose to be closed or exclusive/etc they must abide by the ruling. There are unions out there that operate the way I state. I ran an equipment install crew for a short time to fill in and 2 of the guys belonged to a union, the rest did not. It's like a members only union. Granted it's harder to be recognized by the employer doing it this way but it is possible and very much within the labor laws in this country.
Funny that you wouldn't use that term to describe Welfare queens and illegal immigrants who leach off the welfare system....
And from senseamp who want his cheap vegetables.
Good move, I applaud any state that gets rid of forcing people to join the union.
Ultimately, if the union is beneficial beyond what it costs the workers, then the workers can join the union. If not, they don't need to be forced.
That's called choice, and more choices is always better.
And like the previous discussion, you miss the part about the bargaining unit. A unit doesn't have to include all workers. This is the open/closed issue and how a union is formed. If they choose to be closed or exclusive/etc they must abide by the ruling. There are unions out there that operate the way I state. I ran an equipment install crew for a short time to fill in and 2 of the guys belonged to a union, the rest did not. It's like a members only union. Granted it's harder to be recognized by the employer doing it this way but it is possible and very much within the labor laws in this country.
I question whether unions protect members against corporations, or whether they protect their chosen ones against other workers that will accept cheaper wages. As evidence of this, one has only to look for those against whom union members have committed the most acts of violence.
Tough thing to quantify, and it doesn't address my assertion, it merely deflects.Gawd. There's been far more violence perpetrated against unions than by them.
Anyone who really believes we could go back to a time like that, with or without unions, just might be seriously retarded. Our current system of justice simply no longer allows such abuses.
And for the record, I don't want to be seen as a union hater because I am not a hater of anything. It's just good for people who mindlessly ascribe traits to people or things to be offered some perspective. From my own extensive observations, most employees have more to fear from other prospective workers than they do from an employer with whom they freely associate.
One thing I know for sure is that workers can't be trusted to stand up for worker's rights. Such is the real reason for unions continued existence. The way the collective protects itself from workers who would sell their labor below established values is to co-opt them and prevent them from negotiating their own terms. This is good and bad, for while it protects the collective, it prevents the real market value of the labor from being known.You trust this corporatist SCOTUS to stand up for worker rights? Bwahahaha. Good one.
One thing I know for sure is that workers can't be trusted to stand up for worker's rights. Such is the real reason for unions continued existence. The way the collective protects itself from workers who would sell their labor below established values is to co-opt them and prevent them from negotiating their own terms. This is good and bad, for while it protects the collective, it prevents the real market value of the labor from being known.
Tough thing to quantify, and it doesn't address my assertion, it merely deflects.