SC Just Stuck It To The Labor Unions

[Manonthestreet]

btw this is what happens when you dont represent large portion of your members

 

[task0778]

In some states, a private sector union can still require an employee to pay what is called "agency fees", meaning just the costs to represent them. You don't have to join the union, but you have to pay that fee. Not so anymore for public unions.

My question with this has been whether or not this will affect private Unions down the road or not. As I understand it this case only relates to PUBLIC SECTOR Unions. I wonder if people paying those agency fees in some Right to Work state will now try to get those cancelled as well.

Today's ruling IS only for public unions, but I can see this coming down the road for private unions. Hard to see why you could require agency fees for a private union but not a public one. It is possible however that the Court will leave that distinction up to the states.

 

[Darkwind]

And here I thought republicans were all for unions these days, what with bragging about the tariffs and Trump parading them around.

See, that is the problem. You don't think, you regurgitate the party line.

Conservatives and some GOP members are not opposed to unions. They are opposed to "Public Sector Unions" because the representation is not equal.

Private sector unions are protected under the right of free associations implicit in the Constitution.

However, the right to free association cuts both ways and unions, private or public, are not permitted to extort money.

 

[Darkwind]

In some states, a private sector union can still require an employee to pay what is called "agency fees", meaning just the costs to represent them. You don't have to join the union, but you have to pay that fee. Not so anymore for public unions.

My question with this has been whether or not this will affect private Unions down the road or not. As I understand it this case only relates to PUBLIC SECTOR Unions. I wonder if people paying those agency fees in some Right to Work state will now try to get those cancelled as well.

Today's ruling IS only for public unions, but I can see this coming down the road for private unions. Hard to see why you could require agency fees for a private union but not a public one. It is possible however that the Court will leave that distinction up to the states.

As they should.

 

[debbiedowner]

Breaking on FOX news right now. The US Supreme Court just ruled that non-union members can't be extorted by the unions. That's really going to hurt the Democrat's piggy bank.

Another day of WINNING!

Another bad day for workers. Soon expect slave labor, no healthcare, everything for the business and corps.

If Trump is so patriotic why does he not have factories , he and Ivanka in the US, because he is not.

Since you’ve been supplied with the answer multiple times I can only assume you’re suffering from dementia.

No tell me again??

Easy, he's a business man, he's changing the environment, before it was cheaper to make stuff overseas......what makes him patriotic, is he's trying to make America more competitive with lower taxes and regulation......and then he will hammer you if you mfg outside the US.....so there is no reason not to make them in the US. We still have a ways to go to achieve this, but he's working on it.

Is this so called business man going to bring these 29 companies back? Don't think so.

29 famous American companies that aren't American anymore

 

[Crixus]

And here I thought republicans were all for unions these days, what with bragging about the tariffs and Trump parading them around.

I can't speak for all Republicans, but personally, unions suck. They're corrupt, they drive companies out of the country, and they extort money from workers.

And the union members all act like spoiled first grad girls. Hopefully, this is the beginning of the death of labor unions.

 

[Dschrute3]

I'm ok with Unions, just as long as folks aren't forced to join them. I agree with this decision.

 

[Nosmo King]

Good deal! If I read that right, this applies to government unions, correct? If so, they made the right decision.

Why should a non-union worker have to pay anything to a Union they aren't part of?

Because those non-union workers are enjoying the benefits union workers fought for.

When I was a college kid the steel mills around here were foing great guns. They offered college students summer jobs in the mills. The pay was fantastic, far more than a kid could earn at a Dairy Queen or a hardware store. That money helped out a lot. And I was grateful to kick in a portion of my pay to the USW so I could earn enough to pay for school.

I'm not sure if you can see this or not, but that argument is really weak.

Unions helped bring about a 40 hour work week decades ago. By your logic, everyone in America should pay the unions for that. The same for anything that helps other people.

We all should be paying dues to the phone switching company, the auto manufacturer; hell, the inventor of velcro or a thousand other things that help everyone.

Sorry, but it is un-American to require people to pay protection money. That's why it is against the law.

The 40 hour week is federal law. The wages and benefits in a union shop that are greater than those protected by federal law are in place due to union/company negotiations. So, at least in my situation, the unions negotiated the wage rate, the benefits package and the workplace conditions. You need to consider that.

I have. The bottom line is we do not charge people who benefit from the actions that were not taken in their behalf. You may say that the unions are working in their behalf, but the truth is, the unions are working for their own purposes.

To Me, the dues being forced on nonmembers was nothing more than figuratively sending hired muscle into the neighborhood businesses and demanding extortion money so they wouldn't break the store owners legs.

I did, however; think that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the Unions. Looks like I didn't call that one right.

Just because you have a cynical idea of what organized labor is and does on behalf of the workers, it does not bear truth.

You make unions sound as if they are the mafia extorting and robbing innocent companies. Remember this: every labor contract in a union shop is negotiated by representatives of the workers and the company. There are two sets of signatures in that contract. Companies are not extorted into fair pay, they are convinced of the benefits of fairness.

If you want the lowest possible pay rates, the poorest workplace conditions and no benefits to the workers, fine. It's been tried before. But to what end?

 

[Polishprince]

And the union members all act like spoiled first grad girls. Hopefully, this is the beginning of the death of labor unions.

Its the union bosses that lost here, guys like Lee J Cobb, not the members like Marlon Brando. Union Members of public employees have gained the right to quit the union if they are dissatisfied with membership

 

[TheOldSchool]

And here I thought republicans were all for unions these days, what with bragging about the tariffs and Trump parading them around.

See, that is the problem. You don't think, you regurgitate the party line.

Conservatives and some GOP members are not opposed to unions. They are opposed to "Public Sector Unions" because the representation is not equal.

Private sector unions are protected under the right of free associations implicit in the Constitution.

However, the right to free association cuts both ways and unions, private or public, are not permitted to extort money.

Of course, how could I forget all the love for the UAW and other unions the right has shown over the years

 

[Polishprince]

Of course, how could I forget all the love for the UAW and other unions the right has shown over the years

The UAW has tried to force themselves into places they really weren't welcome, OS. It isn't anything personal, if they stayed in Dearborn and Flint, instead of exporting their ideology to Chattanooga, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Crixus]

And here I thought republicans were all for unions these days, what with bragging about the tariffs and Trump parading them around.

See, that is the problem. You don't think, you regurgitate the party line.

Conservatives and some GOP members are not opposed to unions. They are opposed to "Public Sector Unions" because the representation is not equal.

Private sector unions are protected under the right of free associations implicit in the Constitution.

However, the right to free association cuts both ways and unions, private or public, are not permitted to extort money.

Of course, how could I forget all the love for the UAW and other unions the right has shown over the years

Speaking of UAW, blast from the past.










Chrysler UAW workers caught drinking, smoking pot during lunch – for the third time | Torque News


Chrysler UAW workers caught drinking, smoking pot during lunch – for the third time

 

[Darkwind]

Good deal! If I read that right, this applies to government unions, correct? If so, they made the right decision.

Why should a non-union worker have to pay anything to a Union they aren't part of?

Because those non-union workers are enjoying the benefits union workers fought for.

When I was a college kid the steel mills around here were foing great guns. They offered college students summer jobs in the mills. The pay was fantastic, far more than a kid could earn at a Dairy Queen or a hardware store. That money helped out a lot. And I was grateful to kick in a portion of my pay to the USW so I could earn enough to pay for school.

I'm not sure if you can see this or not, but that argument is really weak.

Unions helped bring about a 40 hour work week decades ago. By your logic, everyone in America should pay the unions for that. The same for anything that helps other people.

We all should be paying dues to the phone switching company, the auto manufacturer; hell, the inventor of velcro or a thousand other things that help everyone.

Sorry, but it is un-American to require people to pay protection money. That's why it is against the law.

The 40 hour week is federal law. The wages and benefits in a union shop that are greater than those protected by federal law are in place due to union/company negotiations. So, at least in my situation, the unions negotiated the wage rate, the benefits package and the workplace conditions. You need to consider that.

I have. The bottom line is we do not charge people who benefit from the actions that were not taken in their behalf. You may say that the unions are working in their behalf, but the truth is, the unions are working for their own purposes.

To Me, the dues being forced on nonmembers was nothing more than figuratively sending hired muscle into the neighborhood businesses and demanding extortion money so they wouldn't break the store owners legs.

I did, however; think that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the Unions. Looks like I didn't call that one right.

Just because you have a cynical idea of what organized labor is and does on behalf of the workers, it does not bear truth.

You make unions sound as if they are the mafia extorting and robbing innocent companies. Remember this: every labor contract in a union shop is negotiated by representatives of the workers and the company. There are two sets of signatures in that contract. Companies are not extorted into fair pay, they are convinced of the benefits of fairness.

If you want the lowest possible pay rates, the poorest workplace conditions and no benefits to the workers, fine. It's been tried before. But to what end?

LOL

Simply because you have a glowing idea of of organized labor does not mean your statements refelct reality.

This isn't about unions extorting companies even though the threat of strike is just that. It is about extorting money from people who have made a good faith choice to not give dues to an organization that they don't believe in. The forced confiscation of these dues on a threat of loss of job amount to extortion and thuggery.

I'm not opposed to private unions. I am opposed to forced participation. As has been stated, the unions can represent their members; they are not forced to demand esclusive bargaining rights with the company, which is the basis for extorting the money. It comes down to a greed issue on the part of unions.

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans are stupid for being anti-union. If you believe in freedom of association then you should believe in unions. That is, if you're not a hypocrite. Hating how big unions can sometimes be corrupt as hell and conduct their business through thuggish tactics isn't unique to unions. Hate on corruption and thuggish tactics, not people associating together to try to get paid what they feel they deserve to make.

That said, no one should be forced into a union, which speaks to the thuggish tactics mentioned above. Forcing someone into a union (a public sector union no less) is a violation of their individual rights to associate or not associate with whoever they want. The fact that there were 4 supreme court justices believe you should be extorted of your money just because a group claims to be looking out for your interests is frightening.

I was in a Union for 7 years, and they didn't do anything other than grease me before the company screwed me.

 

[miketx]

I figured they would side with the workers and it was the right thing to do.

 

[miketx]

Breaking on FOX news right now. The US Supreme Court just ruled that non-union members can't be extorted by the unions. That's really going to hurt the Democrat's piggy bank.

Another day of WINNING!

Another bad day for workers. Soon expect slave labor, no healthcare, everything for the business and corps.

If Trump is so patriotic why does he not have factories , he and Ivanka in the US, because he is not.

Is that you henny penny? The SC made the right move.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I figured they would side with the workers and it was the right thing to do.

Well, they sided with some of the workers

 

[Some Guy]

Republicans are stupid for being anti-union. If you believe in freedom of association then you should believe in unions. That is, if you're not a hypocrite. Hating how big unions can sometimes be corrupt as hell and conduct their business through thuggish tactics isn't unique to unions. Hate on corruption and thuggish tactics, not people associating together to try to get paid what they feel they deserve to make.

That said, no one should be forced into a union, which speaks to the thuggish tactics mentioned above. Forcing someone into a union (a public sector union no less) is a violation of their individual rights to associate or not associate with whoever they want. The fact that there were 4 supreme court justices believe you should be extorted of your money just because a group claims to be looking out for your interests is frightening.

I was in a Union for 7 years, and they didn't do anything other than grease me before the company screwed me.

Which is exactly why you shouldn't be forced into being in a union.

But to claim unions are universally bad is just wrong. We largely owe things like the 40 hour work week and safe working conditions to unions that came together during the industrial revolution. You could make the argument that unions are a bit outdated in the necessity, but as long as they're negotiating in good faith and reason on behalf of the people that comprise the union, there's nothing to hate. Disagree, sure.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Breaking on FOX news right now. The US Supreme Court just ruled that non-union members can't be extorted by the unions. That's really going to hurt the Democrat's piggy bank.

Another day of WINNING!

Another bad day for workers. Soon expect slave labor, no healthcare, everything for the business and corps.

If Trump is so patriotic why does he not have factories , he and Ivanka in the US, because he is not.

Since you’ve been supplied with the answer multiple times I can only assume you’re suffering from dementia.

No tell me again??

Easy, he's a business man, he's changing the environment, before it was cheaper to make stuff overseas......what makes him patriotic, is he's trying to make America more competitive with lower taxes and regulation......and then he will hammer you if you mfg outside the US.....so there is no reason not to make them in the US. We still have a ways to go to achieve this, but he's working on it.

Is this so called business man going to bring these 29 companies back? Don't think so.

29 famous American companies that aren't American anymore

What???

you have a list of companies owned by others not in the US. He has never mentioned that. If :
1) Do they make stuff in the US- There is no tariff
2) Do they make stuff outside the US-Does the other country have a tariff on us?
a)Yes-- then we charge a tariff
b)No---Then we do not charge a tariff

does it make it easier to understand?

 

[task0778]

In some states, a private sector union can still require an employee to pay what is called "agency fees", meaning just the costs to represent them. You don't have to join the union, but you have to pay that fee. Not so anymore for public unions.

My question with this has been whether or not this will affect private Unions down the road or not. As I understand it this case only relates to PUBLIC SECTOR Unions. I wonder if people paying those agency fees in some Right to Work state will now try to get those cancelled as well.

Today's ruling IS only for public unions, but I can see this coming down the road for private unions. Hard to see why you could require agency fees for a private union but not a public one. It is possible however that the Court will leave that distinction up to the states.

As they should.

I'd be okay with that. A private contract between an employer and an employee, or in this case an agent (union) should be left up to them to work out. If a state wants to require agency fees for any individual that doesn't want to join a private sector union, IMHO they should be allowed to do that. BUT - the winds of change are a blowin', and that might be political and economic costs for that state to follow that policy.

I figured they would side with the workers and it was the right thing to do.

Well, they sided with some of the workers

Actually, they sided with all public sector workers. It's their choice to pay union dues or not.