• Supreme Court vs Public Union
    50 replies, posted
WASHINGTON -- A conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court gave every indication on Monday that it is ready and willing to invalidate public unions' right to collect what are known as "fair-share" or agency fees, on the grounds that the mandatory collection violates the free-speech rights of nonunion workers. link to full source [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-public-unions_5693ed2ee4b0a2b6fb70e579[/url]
Whelp, this just about makes me sick. There's nothing good about a world without workers' rights advocates because history has shown how businesses will use people when the gloves are taken off.
[QUOTE]"I'm gonna get the benefits of the Union without paying the basic fees"[/QUOTE] Dicks. Like, Unions probably shouldn't be picking candidates and such but still.
I don't see why people are forced to pay for a union if they aren't a member of said union? That's nonsense. Especially if they're taking a political stance the person disagrees with.
Bear in mind that a lot of unions are legally required to serve non-members.
Yes, good job. [del]Defund[/del]Screw the unions. It's not like anything bad could happen. It's not like there was a reason unions were formed in the first place, was there?
[QUOTE=bitches;49510708]Bear in mind that a lot of unions are legally required to serve non-members.[/QUOTE] Then cut part of that too so membership is actually encouraged? I don't like the concept of being forced to pay a fee that you have no control over in order to work a certain profession that can be used to push agendas that aren't yours.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49510733]Yes, good job. Defund the unions. It's not like anything bad could happen. It's not like there was a reason unions were formed in the first place, was there?[/QUOTE] It's defunding a union in a sense that unions can no longer charge everyone in their profession a fee even of they're not apart of a union. Why should you pay for something you're not apart of? You can claim that it helps all workers whether they're part of the union or not, but from my experience most of the time the union snuffs people who aren't apart of it.
Honestly if someone doesn't want to be a part of the union then that's fine and dandy but they shouldn't try to claim benefits that the union provides without paying in to it. Some unions are scummy as hell though and don't even help your average employee and tend to pocket the dues claiming that they are making working conditions better when they obviously aren't. (Looking at you grocery store unions). I wouldn't know very much else though because at my company we don't hire workers who don't want to be a part of our union. We never have any issues though because who wouldn't want excellent company-paid health benefits and pension for only $49 a month?
Our current supreme court is cancer. Bear in mind this at the ballot box.
If unions wants non-members to sign up, They should offer incentives for doing so. Not force non-members to pay dues. The union at my workplace does this; they offer insurance to union members for injuries that happen in the workplace, and if you are having problems with management you can talk to a union rep who will then talk to management. But I'm not a union member and I accept the fact that I don't have that insurance nor can I go to them if I'm having a problem with management. It's completely fair that I don't get those benefits because I don't pay union dues. Yes, the union negotiates our awards; determining our wages, penalty rates and other things. But all employees have to vote for or against the awards, so they would still have to rely on my vote as a non-member. That's fair. [editline]12th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49510733]Yes, good job. [del]Defund[/del]Screw the unions. It's not like anything bad could happen. It's not like there was a reason unions were formed in the first place, was there?[/QUOTE] This isn't screwing the unions. This is the Supreme Court saying its a violation of the first amendment for a union to collect dues from non-members. If they aren't a member, why should they pay dues?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49510994]If unions wants non-members to sign up, They should offer incentives for doing so. Not force non-members to pay dues. The union at my workplace does this; they offer insurance to union members for injuries that happen in the workplace, and if you are having problems with management you can talk to a union rep who will then talk to management. But I'm not a union member and I accept the fact that I don't have that insurance nor can I go to them if I'm having a problem with management. It's completely fair that I don't get those benefits because I don't pay union dues. Yes, the union negotiates our awards; determining our wages, penalty rates and other things. But all employees have to vote for or against the awards, so they would still have to rely on my vote as a non-member. That's fair.[/QUOTE] Unions only work though when a majority of a workforce are members, and the 7 bucks a week really isn't much considering how much job security it gives you. I really don't understand the hate for Unions, Michigan passed a Right-to-work law and the unions are the weakest they've ever been. They've mostly been kicked out of the state entirely.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;49511048]Unions only work though when a majority of a workforce are members, and the 7 bucks a week really isn't much considering how much job security it gives you. I really don't understand the hate for Unions, Michigan passed a Right-to-work law and the unions are the weakest they've ever been. They've mostly been kicked out of the state entirely.[/QUOTE] The hate comes from all the unions out there that are ass and don't actually give a shit about their members. This unfortunately isn't too uncommon.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;49511048]Unions only work though when a majority of a workforce are members, and the 7 bucks a week really isn't much considering how much job security it gives you. I really don't understand the hate for Unions, Michigan passed a Right-to-work law and the unions are the weakest they've ever been. They've mostly been kicked out of the state entirely.[/QUOTE] I don't hate unions. The main reason I'm not a member at my current workplace is because I'm only holding on to this job to support myself while I'm studying at uni; I'm not here for the long-term. I will most likely have a new job in the next few years. I don't buy the job security argument as I created my own job security by attempting to be one of the most-productive workers, and it's worked. It's also quite hard to be fired from a job here in Australia.
[QUOTE=Levelog;49511083]The hate comes from all the unions out there that are ass and don't actually give a shit about their members. This unfortunately isn't too uncommon.[/QUOTE] True, but laws should be expanded then to give workers more choice in their union. Not laws that will kill off all unions, even the good ones.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;49511108]True, but laws should be expanded then to give workers more choice in their union. Not laws that will kill off all unions, even the good ones.[/QUOTE] This will only kill off shitty unions that can't get people to join, though.
I think unions shouldn't be allowed to collect from non-members, but I also think non-members shouldn't get the protections of the Union. overall, I'm in favor of a right to work state
Can't stand union dues. Unions are necessary to help protect worker's rights, but I find it deplorable that they will strong arm workers for money. "Did you pay your dues? No? Guess you're not getting help." Either you exist to help the workers, or for the money. And especially with non-union workers, regardless of whether they benefit from the union's existence or not, they absolutely should not be charged by the unions. The most any union should be able to do to union and non-union workers alike is just ask for contributions, not demand payment of fees or dues. Unions may represent and be comprised of workers, but overall unions are not workers any more than a corporation is a person. Unions are just representatives and organizers.
ded
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49511352]Can't stand union dues. Unions are necessary to help protect worker's rights, but I find it deplorable that they will strong arm workers for money. "Did you pay your dues? No? Guess you're not getting help." Either you exist to help the workers, or for the money. And especially with non-union workers, regardless of whether they benefit from the union's existence or not, they absolutely should not be charged by the unions. The most any union should be able to do to union and non-union workers alike is just ask for contributions, not demand payment of fees or dues. Unions may represent and be comprised of workers, but overall unions are not workers any more than a corporation is a person. Unions are just representatives and organizers.[/QUOTE] Unions need dues to operate though.
[QUOTE=Octavius;49511419]Because the union must bargain for them and the person therefore gets a benefit from the union. Also, the point of fair-share fees is to you pay for the non-political function of the union (bargaining, enforcing the contract, etc). You're whole 'especially' part is pretty much just irrelevant. If you are receiving a service from someone, in this case a union, of course that service should be paid for.[/QUOTE] Who decides how much union fees are, for union members and non-union members? Because right now Unions can operate as a service company that forces their services onto people and then asks for payment, all of which non-members can't possibly have a say in. That's seems problematic to me, depending on how dues are calculated/decided. Unions should in some form have competition, even if it's only against themselves.
ded
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;49511550]Unions need dues to operate though.[/QUOTE]Regardless, it is unethical to charge workers, especially those unaffiliated with them. Again, the most they should ever be able to do is ask for contributions. Never demand dues.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49511104]Mostly because American unions don't seem to understand their position, and thus they end up causing more harm in the long run. Are they good in some situations? Yes. Are they extremely harmful in others? Fuck yea, they are. Yes, it's fine and dandy to argue that employees at "x" company deserve 50$ an hour to do "x" job, and deserve "x" days off, and deserve "x" amount of insurance, and it's great that they advocate for it, the problem is, they don't seem to understand the whole idea of "business exists to make profit". All of this is coming off of company "x's bottom line, and if the bottom line shrinks too small, then there's no point in making said product in the first place. So why would company "x" pay you 50$ an hour to do "x" job in America, when they can just outsource "x" job to a developing nation, and avoid all of the "deserves time off, and insurance, and xyz", and avoid dealing with a union in the first place, and all they have to do is worry about the price of fuel (which is cheap as fuck). Unions are also huge fans of keeping people around who aren't needed due to technological advances, simply because the more people there are working, the more people there are paying dues, and the more people there are [B]IN[/B] the union, which gives the union more power. Idealistically unions and businesses would work together, both respecting the fact that they each have a goal, but in the end that's simply not how it works.[/QUOTE] That entirely depends on the union. Just as there are shitty companies there are also shitty unions as well. My union doesn't hold my company back, we're actually making healthy gains in the market and in the end it actually benefits all parties. We have happy employees who are paid fairly (fairly as in fair to the employee and fair to the employer) and that makes everyone that much more productive. Shitheads who are lazy get tossed by the union anyway so we don't encourage people to take advantage of the system at all. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49511352]Can't stand union dues. Unions are necessary to help protect worker's rights, but I find it deplorable that they will strong arm workers for money. "Did you pay your dues? No? Guess you're not getting help." Either you exist to help the workers, or for the money. And especially with non-union workers, regardless of whether they benefit from the union's existence or not, they absolutely should not be charged by the unions. The most any union should be able to do to union and non-union workers alike is just ask for contributions, not demand payment of fees or dues. Unions may represent and be comprised of workers, but overall unions are not workers any more than a corporation is a person. Unions are just representatives and organizers.[/QUOTE] Are union dues really that overwhelming to you? Most unions pull out a couple dollars a week at most. My union is an exception because we get health benefits and a pension system, not to mention protection from being unfairly fired. There are more pros with a union than cons with all things considered. If we didn't have unions I guarantee that working conditions will take two steps backwards.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49510994]This isn't screwing the unions. This is the Supreme Court saying its a violation of the first amendment for a union to collect dues from non-members. If they aren't a member, why should they pay dues?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Antdawg;49511096]I don't hate unions. The main reason I'm not a member at my current workplace is because I'm only holding on to this job to support myself while I'm studying at uni[/QUOTE] This is right, not to mention that in both Australia and the United States union fees are tax deductible and can be claimed for. There really isn't any reason to not be unionized except for things like what Antdawg said.
[QUOTE=Amez;49512110]Are union dues really that overwhelming to you? Most unions pull out a couple dollars a week at most. My union is an exception because we get health benefits and a pension system, not to mention protection from being unfairly fired. There are more pros with a union than cons with all things considered. If we didn't have unions I guarantee that working conditions will take two steps backwards.[/QUOTE]Yes. Its unethical at its core. They have to be sustained by the will of the workers, not by the fruit of the workers, otherwise they just defeat themselves and their roots. If the workers feel no need to contribute to the union's existence, the union is irrelevant. If a union becomes necessary, then the workers will be more inclined to provide for it.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49511736]Regardless, it is unethical to charge workers, especially those unaffiliated with them. Again, the most they should ever be able to do is ask for contributions. Never demand dues.[/QUOTE] Whats unethical is that people feel the need to not pay dues but still benefit from the union. It should be: you pay your dues, you get all the union benefits. You dont pay your dues (not join the union), you get no union benefits (including wages).
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49512220]Whats unethical is that people feel the need to not pay dues but still benefit from the union. It should be: you pay your dues, you get all the union benefits. You dont pay your dues (not join the union), you get no union benefits (including wages).[/QUOTE] This seems to be the most sound approach tbh.
ded
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49512188]Yes. Its unethical at its core. They have to be sustained by the will of the workers, not by the fruit of the workers, otherwise they just defeat themselves and their roots. If the workers feel no need to contribute to the union's existence, the union is irrelevant. If a union becomes necessary, then the workers will be more inclined to provide for it.[/QUOTE] As I've said above, I'm not a union member, but I think it's fair that union membership requires the paying of dues. Charity isn't very reliable, and being in a situation where unions would have to rely on charity may convince unions to somehow coerce their members into 'donating'. Unions sometimes also offer services other than just representing you in industrial relations. The union at my workplace offers workplace injury insurance, for example. Some people here have said that their unions even provide them with pension plans, which is incredibly stupid but is a service which that union provides.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.