Current Events > Unions about to get btfo *link*

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/08/anti-union-challengers-verge-victory-supreme-court/312042002/

Already in the 22 states, workers do not have to contribute to the unions' political activities. A ruling by the Supreme Court that they do not have to contribute anything at all could save objecting workers $1,000 or more annually at a huge cost to unions.

The point is, who decides whether the union is worthy of their support the workers themselves or the state on their behalf?" says Jacob Huebert, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, which is representing Janus. "The First Amendment should be a non-partisan issue.

tl;dr: if the SCOTUS decides right, unions can no longer force non-union workers to pay fees.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

if the SCOTUS decides right, unions can no longer force non-union workers to pay fees.

You really think that people should be forced to work for free?

Sweet, this will drive down wage rates for everyone. Once collective bargaining is gone it will be a race to the bottom.
---

Who taught you to hate people, TC?

Did something happen in your childhood? Are you angry about something?

GregShmedley posted...

I'm not really familiar with this issue.

Why should non union workers pay union fees?

Due to Federal law Unions have to negotiate for all employees of whatever type they are representing. Not just the Union members.

JE19426 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

if the SCOTUS decides right, unions can no longer force non-union workers to pay fees.

You really think that people should be forced to work for free?

Please explain how you got ^ that from my statement
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Please explain how you got ^ that from my statement

Union are required to negotiate for all employees of whatever type they are representing. If these employees are free to choose whether or not they pay, then the Union is forced to provide their services for free.

Omnislasher posted...

Who taught you to hate people, TC?

I only hate people who try to steal people's stuff

Why should someone be forced to pay for a union who they didn't elect to join?
---

Trigg3rH4ppy posted...

Sweet, this will drive down wage rates for everyone. Once collective bargaining is gone it will be a race to the bottom.

---

Mal_Fet posted...

I only hate people who try to steal people's stuff

Why should someone be forced to pay for a union who they didn't elect to join?

Because the union is still required to negotiate for them.

Mal_Fet posted...

I only hate people who try to steal people's stuff

Nah, you hate people.

It's kind of sad.

Mal_Fet posted...

Omnislasher posted...

Who taught you to hate people, TC?

I only hate people who try to steal people's stuff

Why should someone be forced to pay for a union who they didn't elect to join?

Was that employee informed about that before they were hired?
---

JE19426 posted...

Union are required to negotiate for all employees of whatever type they are representing. If these employees are free to choose whether or not they pay, then the Union is forced to provide their services for free.

But the non-union workers never elected to be represented by the union.

Imagine those annoying people who wipe down your windows while you're stopped at a red light without you asking them to. Now imagine that they then demand you pay for their service, regardless of how good a job they did.

That's what these unions are like.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

But the non-union workers never elected to be represented by the union.

Imagine those annoying people who wipe down your windows while you're stopped at a red light without you asking them to. Now imagine that they then demand you pay for their service, regardless of how good a job they did.

That's what these unions are like.

Except for the fact those annoying people aren't forced to clean your windows. If they were I'd certainly support people having to pay for them.

JE19426 posted...

Except for the fact those annoying people aren't forced to clean your windows. If they were I'd certainly support people having to pay for them.

Union administrators aren't forced to run unions the way they do.

Hell, they aren't forced to run unions at all
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Union administrators aren't forced to run unions the way they do.

I'm not sure why you think that matters. Unions are forced to represent the people who don't want to pay them. I don't see why anything else should matter.

JE19426 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

I only hate people who try to steal people's stuff

Why should someone be forced to pay for a union who they didn't elect to join?

Because the union is still required to negotiate for them.

Sounds like that's their problem.
---

This is absolutely fair

But I think the overall result will be bad for workers
---

Capn Circus posted...

Sounds like that's their problem.

If you want to demand people work for free then that's your right. Just don't expect me to agree to it.

Mal_Fet posted...

tl;dr: if the SCOTUS decides right, unions can no longer force non-union workers to pay fees.

The correct decision is to leave it up to the states, or, if a miracle occurs, somehow declare that public sector unions are bullshit.

Public sector unions should be illegal.
---

nvm I got it backwards
---

JE19426 posted...

Capn Circus posted...

Sounds like that's their problem.

If you want to demand people work for free then that's your right. Just don't expect me to agree to it.

It's the cost of doing business I suppose. Sometimes laws change that can affect companies. Im sure they'll still be making plenty of money. Unions don't need to exist, do they? They could always do something else for work
---

Note that Omnislasher is a self-proclaimed Marxist who pushes an ideology that causes breadlines and rampant starvation/poverty/destruction. For him to ask someone else why they hate people is quite rich.
---

Why not just have it so Unions don't have to represent those who don't pay into it?
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

Why not just have it so Unions don't have to represent those who don't pay into it?

No problem with that

But unions would hate it because it would make their members completely uncompetative.
---

JE19426 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Please explain how you got ^ that from my statement

Union are required to negotiate for all employees of whatever type they are representing. If these employees are free to choose whether or not they pay, then the Union is forced to provide their services for free.

Communists should practice Communism.
---

Bump
---

...why would you not want to be in the union?

That sounds like corporate propaganda.
---

Unions, while flawed, are the only thing we have left to protect us from corporations. That's why conservatives love to bash them as much as possible.
---

This is the only way these union thugs stay in business, take over a $1000 annually in salary from someone who doesnt want to be a part of it in the first place. Union leaders are effectively politicians that sell out their base to maintain their status. Look at any industry with an established union, have the rate of job growth increased in those industries as opposed to non unionized industries? Almost down the line youll find the answer is no, unions may benefit present workers to some degree, but it hurts future job growth for the next generation
---

fan357 posted...

Unions, while flawed, are the only thing we have left to protect us from corporations. That's why conservatives love to bash them as much as possible.

Yes. I hate the idea of forcing workers to pay in order to reduce the chances of being screwed by employers, but I don't see a better short term solution other than unions.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

This is the only way these union thugs stay in business, take over a $1000 annually in salary from someone who doesnt want to be a part of it in the first place. Union leaders are effectively politicians that sell out their base to maintain their status.

This. Workers are forced to pay a big chunk of their salaries to the unions. The union bosses pocket their cut, then use the rest to get Democratic politicians elected. The politicians pass laws and regulations bolstering the stranglehold of the unions, increasing their profits even more. Repeat ad nauseum. It's time to deal a blow to this disgusting cycle of crony capitalism.
---

lmao I lose maybe $12 per check to the union. Who then fight for me and try and get me better pay, better benefits, and the like.

Wow, such scary
---

fan357 posted...

Unions, while flawed, are the only thing we have left to protect us from corporations.

False. Government regulations accomplish basically everything unions used to be necessary for.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

lmao I lose maybe $12 per check to the union. Who then fight for me and try and get me better pay, better benefits, and the like.

Wow, such scary

Ok, nothing can stop you from continuing to give that money to the union.

In fact, you could always donate to any union you wanted, regardless of the outcome of this decision. So what's the issue?
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

Why not just have it so Unions don't have to represent those who don't pay into it?

I don't have a problem with that.

darkjedilink posted...

Communists should practice Communism.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but I'd be interested to hear where you think they should be practicing Communism.

JE19426 posted...

I don't have a problem with that.

Unions wouldn't. Why would any business ever hire a union member who requires more money with fewer hours than everyone else would work for?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Unions wouldn't.

And I should care why?

fan357 posted...

Unions, while flawed, are the only thing we have left to protect us from corporations. That's why conservatives love to bash them as much as possible.

But, the article states that this particular case is about public sector unions:

But as the lead plaintiffs in four successive Supreme Court cases challenging the power of public employee unions, Knox, Harris, Friedrichs and Janus take pride in helping conservative groups reach a tipping point in their decade-long, anti-union campaign.

[...]

The challengers' battles against the Service Employees International Union, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers are based on disagreements with the political and policy priorities of the national leadership.

A union of Ford workers, and a union of DMV clerks, are two entirely different situations.

You'd think after decades of stagnant wages coinciding with the weakening of unions, people would realize unions were the reason wages ever grew in the first place.
---

CW_McGraw posted...

You'd think after decades of stagnant wages coinciding with the weakening of unions, people would realize unions were the reason wages ever grew in the first place.

But they aren't. Public sector unions are still dominant.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

CW_McGraw posted...

You'd think after decades of stagnant wages coinciding with the weakening of unions, people would realize unions were the reason wages ever grew in the first place.

But they aren't. Public sector unions are still dominant.

Public sector is the last huge bastion of unions, because there's no real way for a school or fire department to go out of business or relocate to Mexico.
There's no need for the "employer" to remain profitable or viable, thus public sector unions can ask for pretty much anything, and leave it to taxpayers to foot the bill instead of some faceless megacorp and shareholders. We're all the "shardholders" then, yet have no say in the negotiations.