SCOTUS Rules Non-Union Workers Can't Be Forced To Pay Union Dues

[jonathan180iq]

I see this ruling as an incentive for unions to keep dues lower.
Around here, we see teachers spending vast sums to keep incompetent
teachers on the job. One of them worked for me as a self storage facility
manager. He was not only dumb as a stump, he broached sexual &
medical subjects with tenants....from whom he also stole.

I see unions & employers as involved in a complex give-&-take, each trying
to better its position. This messy ever-changing result looks to be better
than either extreme fully having its way.

Agreed

 

[metis]

Some employees benefit by agency of the Union, without paying for it. That's absolutely true. So I don't really see the problem of paying a reduced rate for a monetary benefit that those employees receive on every paycheck by way of a union's previous and current work. They weren't paying the full rate and still getting the full benefit of association...

While I understand the desire to withhold from Union fees if you choose not to join, and/or refuse to join for political reasons, it's a bit disingenuous to accept the wages earned by union negotiations while not having some skin in the game, isn't it?

Bingo!

 

[Nakosis]

It's hard to blame capitalism in a ruling which
appears to apply only to government employees.

I was referring to the click bait title, not he ruling.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was referring to the click bait title, not he ruling.

OK

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's hard to blame capitalism in a ruling which
appears to apply only to government employees.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the driver of Click-bait titles/headlines.

In the desire to draw in more viewers, and thus more advertising money, they have to continually spin outrageous headlines to draw in more viewers than their last spot.

Our cultural polarization is, at least in part, fueled by the business side of entertainment journalism.

 

[PureX]

As an employer (before getting rid of all employees), I certainly never
wanted to take on the complexity of providing health insurance, withholding
& paying their taxes, or garnishing their wages for this or that legal loss.
I never expected to become their nanny.
That's government's job.

I agree. And it's government's job because government is supposed to be representing the will and well-being of the people it serves. But unfortunately, in the U.S., we have completely fallen for the myth that free markets somehow magically represent the will and well-being of the populace, so both business and government don't have to. They can just focus on their own greed and let the markets sort it all out. Which then turns the whole thing into a monopoly game, which ends with one player holding all the money, and everyone else the losers.

 

[Wu Wei]

I agree. And it's government's job because government is supposed to be representing the will and well-being of the people it serves. But unfortunately, in the U.S., we have completely fallen for the myth that free markets somehow magically represent the will and well-being of the populace, so both business and government don't have to. They can just focus on their own greed and let the markets sort it all out. Which then turns the whole thing into a monopoly game, which ends with one player holding all the money, and everyone else the losers.

Although I do not believe this will happen, I am hoping this does not mean...will the next John Jacob Astor, Andrew Carnegie, Andrew W. Mellon, J. P. Morgan, William Randolph Hearst, John D. Rockefeller, or Cornelius Vanderbilt please stand up....... Robber Barons are not a good thing....unless of course you are a Robber Baron

 

[metis]

My ideal in this arena is employee-owned enterprises, but minus that unions are the next best bet. There simply is no reason, imo, why employees should not have a say in their employment, and these "right to work" laws and court decisions are simply union busting-- that's the reality.

Since all employees are affected through the collective-bargaining process, to have dues being only optional makes no logical sense whatsoever as a rising tide raises all ships. It also can lead to more union-busting tactics, such as offering those who don't join the union higher wages and/or better benefits than those who do join.

According to an old FBI stat I learned many years ago, there's an estimated four times more money ripped off each year in white-collar crime than blue collar/"street" crime. Unions, otoh, can monitor some of these potentially illegal activities. IOW, if I'm a corrupt businessman/woman, I certain wouldn't want unions. Also, just a reminder that under national laws passed back in the 50's or 60's, the fed can monitor union votes and activities.

Over all my years of working, I've worked in both union and non-union places, and I much prefer the former because of the fact that I had at least some job security as long as I didn't screw up. Once as a teen working in a gas station I got fired for stealing money-- except that I didn't. My guess is that another employee took it. But besides being fired, my week's wages were cut by half, and I had no recourse but to accept it because I would have had to take it to court with all that would involve, including $. Had I had union representation, assuming the union would take my case up, the owner would have to put forth evidence that it was I who took the money.

The bottom line: the wealthy and corrupt owners don't like unions, but Americans who truly believe in democratic values for all plus having a middle class should. IOW, do we want to be just pawns or do we want to have a say? Yes, we can quit a job if we don't like the conditions, but then so can owners and CEO's if they don't like workers having at least some say in their employment.

 

[PureX]

Although I do not believe this will happen, I am hoping this does not mean...will the next John Jacob Astor, Andrew Carnegie, Andrew W. Mellon, J. P. Morgan, William Randolph Hearst, John D. Rockefeller, or Cornelius Vanderbilt please stand up....... Robber Barons are not a good thing....unless of course you are a Robber Baron

It has already happened. Where you been?

 

[Wu Wei]

It has already happened. Where you been?

in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.

Actually it is not to that extent yet and I hope it never gets back there...but there is always this too....Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.- George Santayana

 

[Shaul]

And it's another 5-4 decision that is also clearly political since no SCOTUS decision prior to this was ever rendered the same way.

It's a victory for those who really don't fully buy into what we call "democratic values" because unions give workers a say in their employment since without them most businesses wouldn't even exist. They also are a check on owners and what the latter might try and get away with.

So, it's a victory for those who prefer autocratic forms of leadership. And then we wonder why average lower and middle-income wages are not keeping up, while the rich get richer.

So, my fellow Americans, let's wave a gradual goodbye to our middle class since unions had a great deal to do with how we got a middle class with its benefits to begin with-- American History 101.

Actually to original decision that permitted unions to take dues from non-members, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, was only passed 6-3. And it was weakened several times before. It was almost overturned in Friedrichs v. CTA, only the untimely death of Justice Scalia prevented that.

All this case means is that unions can’t take dues from non-members.

 

[Shaul]

Personally I think anyone not in the union should then not get any of the pay raises or benefits the union negotiates, or has negotiated for, on employees behalf. See how many opt out then...

If unions do such great things for workers they shouldn’t need to compel membership or dues taking then.

Better look at what happened in Wisconsin.

 

[Shaul]

Wait a minute, non union workers... were paying union fees? That doesn't make sense.... does it?

It happened to me. I worked as a teacher but was not in the union, yet they took dues from my paycheck.

 

[Shaul]

Good ruling. Unions should have set the condition with the employer that all employees must join the union as part of the employment contract.

No way! Union membership should never be mandatory for government employment, which is what this decision was about.

 

[Revoltingest]

in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.

Actually it is not to that extent yet and I hope it never gets back there...but there is always this too....Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.- George Santayana

I always heard to beware of "the leper".

 

[metis]

Actually to original decision that permitted unions to take dues from non-members, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, was only passed 6-3. And it was weakened several times before. It was almost overturned in Friedrichs v. CTA, only the untimely death of Justice Scalia prevented that.

All this case means is that unions can’t take dues from non-members.

Which basically makes them free-loaders who get the benefits without contributing.

 

[metis]

Union membership should never be mandatory for government employment, which is what this decision was about.

Why not? In this case the government is the employer, so how is that any different than any other business operation?

In cases whereas striking could risk essential government operations, such as with the military, mediators and arbitrators can be utilized, including the possibility of utilizing binding arbitration.

 

[Shaul]

Which basically makes them free-loaders who get the benefits without contributing.

No it doesn’t at all. The non-union members didn’t ask for the union or any of its supposed benefits. Many would much rather negotiate for themselves, because they know they would do a better job of it. The union doesn’t get to do whatever it wants, however it wants, and without recourse or say from these non-member, and force non-members “pay up”. That’s called theft.

 

[Quetzal]

It happened to me. I worked as a teacher but was not in the union, yet they took dues from my paycheck.

Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

No it doesn’t at all. The non-union members didn’t ask for the union or any of its supposed benefits. Many would much rather negotiate for themselves, because they know they would do a better job of it. The union doesn’t get to do whatever it wants, however it wants, and without recourse or say from these non-member, and force non-members “pay up”. That’s called theft.

The unions could also be called free-loaders for taking money
of non-members to advance union political agendas.
If they really want the extra dues, they must work on being
more appealing to non-members.