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

[Underhill]

Do you think there are other perspectives?

Not really.

Oh sure, some tiny percentage may be better off without the union. But those people are not forced to work in a union shop.

 

[Underhill]

If it is just a few bucks, why not doesn’t the union just do without them? But it isn’t about “a few bucks”. (Nice that you are so cavalier about other people’s money, BTW) It is about unions taking money from non-union employees and then using that money for political causes those employees have no control over. Would you want your money taken from your paycheck and given to a candidate you detest? How would you feel if someone took money out of your paycheck and gave it to Trump’s campaign, would that be all right?

It's a few bucks from each individual. And all kinds of things are done with the money from my paycheck that I don't approve of. Wars, Donald Trumps air fare, you name it...

Unions donate to those who support unions. Which makes perfect sense. They used to be the counter to the big money corporate donors on the right. There in lies one of the two issues behind this move to destroy unions.

 

[Underhill]

No, you would NOT get to vote, contrary to your misunderstanding. Non-union members do not get to vote in union elections nor contract ratification. Get it now? They take your money. They spend it however they want. You have no say in the matter. Sound like “democracy” to you?

This is why anyone with any sense simply joins the union, so they get a vote. Making the point moot.

 

[Underhill]

You so want to make this about the worth of unions. It isn’t about that at all. It is about the fact that compulsory union dues from non-members violates those non-members rights. That is more important. The Courts recognize this.

FTA:”The court has long held that requiring nonunion members to pay the full amount of union dues would violate their right of free expression, forcing them to subsidize a union's political activities whether they agree with its goals or not.”

The Court got that right. I have worked at jobs where the union took dues from my pay, even though I was not a member, and supported political causes abhorrent to me. That violated my rights.

So why on earth wouldn't you just become a voting member?

 

[pearl]

It makes sense under the 1977 ruling, which excluded political activity.
They only had to pay a portion which benefited them.

And then came 'Citizens United' vs 'The Election Commission', which maintained that corporations could make political donations. Being a corporation the Unions could also make political donations, usually backing democrats. Much of the funding for such was derived from these non-union funds. Notice the game plan?

 

[Shaul]

So why on earth wouldn't you just become a voting member?

I had many good reasons. You will just have to accept it on face value that I did because I can’t say what those reasons are here. Since I did have reasons, and I wasn’t a member, and had no recourse on how they spent my money, they shouldn’t have taken money from my paycheck and given to political causes I thoroughly opposed. But they did. They violated my rights.

 

[Falvlun]

I had many good reasons. You will just have to accept it on face value that I did because I can’t say what those reasons are here. Since I did have reasons, and I wasn’t a member, and had no recourse on how they spent my money, they shouldn’t have taken money from my paycheck and given to political causes I thoroughly opposed. But they did. They violated my rights.

Oh please. If you hated it so much, why didnt you find a different employer or career? Isn’t that the conservative response anytime a liberal mentions their rights violated in the workplace?

 

[Shaul]

Oh please. If you hated it so much, why didnt you find a different employer or career? Isn’t that the conservative response anytime a liberal mentions their rights violated in the workplace?

Oh please yourself. As a point of fact I chose to work at other employers instead, But that meant I had to commute farther, which cost me money. So they “cost” me both money and convience even though I would no longer work there. The point is that no employee should have to pay a third party just to hold a job. Funny you want to take the side of union graft over downtrodden workers, some liberal compassion you have there.

 

[Revoltingest]

And then came 'Citizens United' vs 'The Election Commission', which maintained that corporations could make political donations. Being a corporation the Unions could also make political donations, usually backing democrats. Much of the funding for such was derived from these non-union funds. Notice the game plan?

Tis just that non-union workers not be forced to support someone else's political agenda.

 

[Falvlun]

Oh please yourself. As a point of fact I chose to work at other employers instead, But that meant I had to commute farther, which cost me money. So they “cost” me both money and convience even though I would no longer work there. The point is that no employee should have to pay a third party just to hold a job. Funny you want to take the side of union graft over downtrodden workers, some liberal compassion you have there.

Nope. Just applying the same conservative philosophy. Don’t like something about your job, change it! Don’t like laws that your state has? Just move!

That’s not my philosophy. It’s conservarive philosophy. Is it too much to ask that they be consistent?

 

[Shaul]

Nope. Just applying the same conservative philosophy. Don’t like something about your job, change it! Don’t like laws that your state has? Just move!

That’s not my philosophy. It’s conservarive philosophy. Is it too much to ask that they be consistent?

No you aren’t applying conservative principles, you are trying to twist one. Conservatives want free markets. Allowing a private entity to extort a fee to get a job isn’t a free market. (Especially when that fee is used for political purposes.) And that principle applies in his case. Another conservative principle would be to fight to correct to injustice being done. In this case going to court and winning. You are misrepresenting what conservative principles are. There isn’t any inconsistency.

 

[Falvlun]

No you aren’t applying conservative principles, you are trying to twist one. Conservatives want free markets. Allowing a private entity to extort a fee to get a job isn’t a free market. (Especially when that fee is used for political purposes.) And that principle applies in his case. Another conservative principle would be to fight to correct to injustice being done. In this case going to court and winning. You are misrepresenting what conservative principles are. There isn’t any inconsistency.

Whatever you say. It’s always easy to justify the things you like and those you don’t.

 

[Shaul]

This is why anyone with any sense simply joins the union, so they get a vote. Making the point moot.

Totally ignoring that there are any legitimate reasons for objecting to join the union and that the union has no right to compel joining in the first place.

 

[Shaul]

Whatever you say. It’s always easy to justify the things you like and those you don’t.

And it appears even easier for you to cavalierly justify stealing money from people and violating their rights.

 

[Shad]

Oh please yourself. As a point of fact I chose to work at other employers instead, But that meant I had to commute farther, which cost me money. So they “cost” me both money and convience even though I would no longer work there. The point is that no employee should have to pay a third party just to hold a job. Funny you want to take the side of union graft over downtrodden workers, some liberal compassion you have there.

It's collectivism at play. Stealing from you via government edict is acceptable for "the greater good".

 

[Shaul]

https://www.investors.com/politics/...-union-dues-political-speech-first-amendment/

 

[Underhill]

I had many good reasons. You will just have to accept it on face value that I did because I can’t say what those reasons are here. Since I did have reasons, and I wasn’t a member, and had no recourse on how they spent my money, they shouldn’t have taken money from my paycheck and given to political causes I thoroughly opposed. But they did. They violated my rights.

So the courts have mandated that unions have to fight for every employee. But cannot charge every employee.

The real issue here is not the unions, but the target placed on them by republicans. Unions are not some evil to be destroyed (unless you are a corporate exec looking to cut cost). They are there for the people at large. And when they are targeted it forces them to fight back. In the past, that meant baseball bats and even guns. Today it means fighting in the political arena. Now you may not like that. I'm sure many people didn't like the violence in their early history. But they are simply fighting for survival, like it or not. And this ruling simply puts one more nail in their coffin.

Mark my words carefully. In the limelight of history, we will regret this.

 

[Underhill]

Totally ignoring that there are any legitimate reasons for objecting to join the union and that the union has no right to compel joining in the first place.

Which legitimate reasons would those be?