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

[Shaul]

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.

Here’s one way it is different. Government employees are paid with public funds. Unions are political entities. Political entities should not have the power to create tests for employment. That’s a recipe for corruption. Think Tammany Hall. Public and private institutions have their differences. Government is not a “business”. So, no, it is not like “any other business operation”.

 

[Shaul]

Doesn't seem fair to me.

Well, yeah, it wasn’t.

 

[PureX]

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

In some ways it's far worse. Now even foreign governments can routinely bribe our legislature to do their bidding. And the electoral system has become so corrupted and rigged that we can't get effective representation even on the ballot, let alone elected. The Koch brothers openly threaten to withhold their bribe money and the politicians trip over themselves to do whatever they want, without even a pretense of shame. And the public has been so thoroughly turned against itself by the media that it barely even noticed. Now the corrupted politicians are systematically dismantling the checks and balances designed to stop them from running completely amok, and still, the public barely even notices because it's so busy just trying to survive, and then blaming everything on everyone else. We engage in one war after another, with no 'exit strategy' so the wealthy elite can continue swallowing up billions of tax dollars as war profits while young American men and women die for some doomed illusion of "freedom".

We are living in a full-on plutocracy with little to no chance of the people taking back control of their own government or economy. How much worse can it get before it all completely implodes, or becomes total economic fascism?

 

[metis]

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 non-union members don't really have to ask for any improvement on wages and benefits simply because the company will cater to them to keep them from joining the union. We've seen that here with the auto industry whereas salaried personnel are catered to in order to keep them non-union, and my former neighbor and my own father was one of those who benefited from this.

Also, negotiated agreements that will be paid for by those who benefit from it is hardly "theft" any more than me having to pay taxes on wars that I was opposed to.

So, the reality is that they will be "freeloaders" because the reap the benefits but don't have to pay for it.

 

[metis]

Here’s one way it is different. Government employees are paid with public funds.

So?

Unions are political entities.

As are businesses and corporations because they all have a political structure when it comes to decision making.

Political entities should not have the power to create tests for employment

So you're opposed to the merit system using tests to see who may be qualified? Secondly, people are typically interviewed for government jobs and they are vetted.

Government is not a “business”.

Actually it is-- just on a different scale and with some different rules. It goes through many of the same processes that businesses do.

But what's of importance here also is the "grunt" who does so much of the work but may not have any say to his/her employment. That's not "democracy" because without them almost nothing would get done.

For example, as a retired educator, my students did have a say, and in more than one area. I had them fill out confidential surveys at the end of my course plus, if I were to screw up or be unfair, they had the right of appeal. They had a "say", so doncha think workers should also have a "say" as well, or do you prefer autocratic forms of leadership?

 

[Revoltingest]

The non-union members don't really have to ask for any improvement on wages and benefits simply because the company will cater to them to keep them from joining the union.

The ruling doesn't appear to affect any company, only government employees.
If they can't trust government to compensate & treat any better than the private
sector, then why should the rest of us trust government?

 

[Wu Wei]

The ruling doesn't appear to affect any company, only government employees.
If they can't trust government to compensate & treat any better than the private
sector, then why should the rest of us trust government?

they can't trust government to compensate & treat any better than the private sector, so the rest of us should not trust government

They will now look to ways of cutting benefits and eliminate pensions

 

[Revoltingest]

they can't trust government to compensate & treat any better than the private sector, so the rest of us should not trust government

They will now can look to ways of cutting benefits and eliminate pensions

At least I can trust you....to do what bears do.

Spoiler

 

[Wu Wei]

Nope...not gonna click a spoiler of yours...learned my lesson before...not going down that creepy, scary, dark path again...not with your exhibitionist tendencies

Spoiler

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope...not gonna click a spoiler of yours...learned my lesson before...not going down that creepy, scary, dark path again...not with your exhibitionist tendencies

Spoiler

There are no Scots, groundskeepers, or angry janitors in that spoiler.

 

[Wu Wei]

There are no Scots, groundskeepers, or angry janitors in that spoiler.

Nope, still not gonna click it

 

[Underhill]

They can bargain on their own.
Perhaps they'll do even better, eh.
In my experience, non-union workers are more productive.

As a project manager in a non union shop, I think the workers are exactly the same.

Sure they can because historically, before unions, they came out really well in those negotiations. Usually they were given the added benefit of having indefinite unpaid vacation.

 

[Underhill]

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

Let's see. The union negotiates wages for all the workers. Those in the union pay dues. Those outside the union don't. Why the hell would anyone join the union? And it will work that way for a while, but membership will continue to fall off as more and more new workers, who don't know what the union has done for them historically, will choose to opt out. Until the union no longer exist, and management can do whatever the heck they want. Which is the goal. If you think the goal is freedom, then you are truly in the dark. It's another way to bust unions. Plain and simple.

Better look at what happened in Wisconsin.

I'm all for it. If only union members got the benefits a union negotiates. But no company is going to do that. You know why? Because they want the unions gone.

 

[Revoltingest]

As a project manager in a non union shop, I think the workers are exactly the same.

Sure they can because historically, before unions, they came out really well in those negotiations. Usually they were given the added benefit of having indefinite unpaid vacation.

Experiences will vary.
My situation....
I've worked for some large employers, U of Mich, Northrup, GMC, Koppers Co,
& dealt with both union & non-union types. Particularly with U of Mich & GMC,
the unions were all about doing little work.
I've hired both union & non-union workers (although no union in my businesses)
as employees & for contractors. The noticeable thing about the union workers
was that they were slow.
The above experience ranged from 1973 thru 2007

The different mindsets.....
Those in a non-union contracting environment think in terms
of a price for a job, & work efficiently so as to fit in more jobs.
Union hall workers have an hourly mentality....the more hours
you take, the more money you make.
And then there's how they treat tools....
A contractor breaks a tool....he knows he must buy a new one.
A union guy breaks a tool...the employer will replace it while
he's on a break.

 

[Shad]

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

You misread me. I am referring to the union's failure in it's negotiations while using the court system to steal money from those not in the union. Ergo if the union wants dues from all employees it should have negotiated a union membership as part of employment. If it wanted to collect dues from non-members for the "benefits" the union brought to the employee the union could have negotiated for it.

I disagree with government unions in general

 

[Shaul]

So?

As are businesses and corporations because they all have a political structure when it comes to decision making.

So you're opposed to the merit system using tests to see who may be qualified? Secondly, people are typically interviewed for government jobs and they are vetted.

Actually it is-- just on a different scale and with some different rules. It goes through many of the same processes that businesses do.

But what's of importance here also is the "grunt" who does so much of the work but may not have any say to his/her employment. That's not "democracy" because without them almost nothing would get done.

For example, as a retired educator, my students did have a say, and in more than one area. I had them fill out confidential surveys at the end of my course plus, if I were to screw up or be unfair, they had the right of appeal. They had a "say", so doncha think workers should also have a "say" as well, or do you prefer autocratic forms of leadership?

Well, I can see why you are in error. No, businesses are not a political entity even if they have political elements. Businesses do not have the powers a State has. They don’t have the power to force others to do things like a State can. Walmart won’t shoot you if you don’t choose to shop there. A government can and will come after you, with guns if they choose, if you don’t pay taxes.

A government employee union can influence the government which in turn is negotiating with the same union and grants the union a monopoly. Corrupt politicians pander to the union leaders for influence and political contributions. Around and around it goes. The taxpayer loses. It is a conflict of interests.

 

[Shaul]

Let's see. The union negotiates wages for all the workers. Those in the union pay dues. Those outside the union don't. Why the hell would anyone join the union? And it will work that way for a while, but membership will continue to fall off as more and more new workers, who don't know what the union has done for them historically, will choose to opt out. Until the union no longer exist, and management can do whatever the heck they want. Which is the goal. If you think the goal is freedom, then you are truly in the dark. It's another way to bust unions. Plain and simple.



I'm all for it. If only union members got the benefits a union negotiates. But no company is going to do that. You know why? Because they want the unions gone.

But not all employees want that union negotiating (supposedly) on their behalf! That’s the point. The union could negotiate solely for those in the union. If the union did a good job union members would be getting something the non-union members don’t. THAT would be the reason they would join, not compulsion.

The notion that if unions didn’t negotiate management would “do whatever the heck they want” is absurd! Management in non-union firms don’t just do whatever they want. There are many constraints. There is competition from other employers to keep their employees, so they must pay prevailing wages and benefits. There are also legal constraints. Management can’t violate labor or safety laws even without a union.

It isn’t any way to bust unions. It is way to require unions to do what they should do. Plain and simple.

 

[Shaul]

Meanwhile Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party leader, opined that this Supreme Court decision was “violence to our democracy”. Outrageous. No wonder the Democratic Party is having troubles with this kind of ersatz “leadership”.

 

[Shad]

A government employee union can influence the government which in turn is negotiating with the same union and grants the union a monopoly. Corrupt politicians pander to the union leaders for influence and political contributions. Around and around it goes. The taxpayer loses. It is a conflict of interests.

Government unions can also blackmail the populations via strikes in vital services. Walmart on strike just means people shop somewhere else.

Meanwhile Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party leader, opined that this Supreme Court decision was “violence to our democracy”. Outrageous. No wonder the Democratic Party is having troubles with this kind of ersatz “leadership”.

Unions are major donors to the Dems to the point many say something stupid in support of unions

 

[Underhill]

Experiences will vary.
My situation....
I've worked for some large employers, U of Mich, Northrup, GMC, Koppers Co,
& dealt with both union & non-union types. Particularly with U of Mich & GMC,
the unions were all about doing little work.
I've hired both union & non-union workers (although no union in my businesses)
as employees & for contractors. The striking thing about the union workers
was that they were slow.
The above experience ranged from 1973 thru 2007

But not all employees want that union negotiating (supposedly) on their behalf! That’s the point. The union could negotiate solely for those in the union. If the union did a good job union members would be getting something the non-union members don’t. THAT would be the reason they would join, not compulsion.

The notion that if unions didn’t negotiate management would “do whatever the heck they want” is absurd! Management in non-union firms don’t just do whatever they want. There are many constraints. There is competition from other employers to keep their employees, so they must pay prevailing wages and benefits. There are also legal constraints. Management can’t violate labor or safety laws even without a union.

It isn’t any way to bust unions. It is way to require unions to do what they should do. Plain and simple.

Yeah, that's all nonsense. Very few individuals do better negotiating than the union does. We aren't talking about Harvard graduates.

People don't care about the union negotiations. They care about the money coming out of the paycheck every week.

And the only way union members would get more than those not in the union is if the employers enforced it. That will never happen as employers don't want unions.

Of course it's union busting. Why do you think the same (republicans) who have been undermining unions for decades are supporting this?