• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

there is no one forced into paying dues without a union agreement in this country, no one.

you cannot be compelled to pay someone money for nothing with no documentation.

they're not called "dues" for non-members.. they are called agency fees....and for almost all union, they are exactly equal to the amount paid for dues.
furthermore, they are withheld, so the employee has no power over whether to pay them or not.
 
I'm kind of curious how a contract can be seen as valid with terms imposed on both parties by a third party.
 
give me a break, union contributions are nothing compared to big business.

there's alot more big businesses out there than there are unions... and the key difference is, business spending doesn't come from mandated dues or agency fees.
 
Without government enforced unionization, unions would only be in very small sectors with highly skilled workers. Stamping sheet metal and teaching kids to finger paint is not highly skilled in anyway. The overwhelming vast majority of union members are in monkeys can be trained to do this jobs.

that goes way too far... sure, there are some unskilled union laborers... but most of them are skilled laborers

one of the things you can't really complain about is skilled union labor... unions offer some pretty good schooling and apprentice programs that put out very good workers.
unfortunately, they don't teach or require good work ethics to go along with those good skills.... to the contrary, they usually reward poor work ethics and put in place policies that undermine the work ethic.
 
most of those benefits are set by the company
as a union representative, i negotiated everything except wage rates and benefits ... those were established by congress

the employee handbook says x, and that is what you get unless you negotiate separately
not with most unions. normally, there will be a job description and an associated wage rate
of course, the employee who prefers to negotiate for him/herself is free to instead apply at a non-union company

i have one employee that gets 6 weeks off a year.....he visits family in the middle east
under a union shop arrangement, that might also be possible, however, you would negotiate that unique provision as a principle, that could be applied to other employees who fit the circumstance, and not for a specific named employee

while you are inquiring about the approach to your two labor-standards impacted managers, you may want to also ask HR if this specifically named vacation recipient exposes your company to any potential EEOC litigation under race, age, and/or religious bases

i have another who negotiated pay for 3 months maternity, not the normal 6 weeks
as above, possible, but only with defined criteria, not a named employee. this unique circumstance may also be one that places you in jeopardy of a title 7 action for disparate treatment of women. would encourage you to broach HR about it

in today's world, most of those things are covered in every companies handbook (at least any company over 100 people)
a handbook of conditions of employment negotiated by the employees' union representative and management's representative ... for any union shop
such unilateral determinations should never be found acceptable by any competent labor rep

so other than really salary/wage there isnt a whole lot to go through
in a union shop, you would go thru all of it

now, kudos to you, for operating a company that apparently has not had its employees feel the need to elect a bargaining unit representative
if employees feel they are being treated fairly, they have no reason to seek union help
 
I'm kind of curious how a contract can be seen as valid with terms imposed on both parties by a third party.

easy.. pass a law saying that 3rd party has the power to impose it's terms... .and give it exclusive power to demand those terms.
 
Why is it that when I answer a question either no one hears me or no one reads it? They just stupidly ask the question again like I never said or wrote anything. I already said I'm doing business with the employer not the workers.

probably because it is recognized that you are very ignorant of the labor laws which prevent that
 
probably because it is recognized that you are very ignorant of the labor laws which prevent that

Prevent what? How do labor laws prevent you from reading or listening to what I say?
 
Management can't do a thing - the employee files a grievance, the union backs their laziness ... the amount of documentation and evidence to win at a grievance is fairly high and when a manager has a real need of these guys to work, they suddenly develop a vague sickness or require mental evaluation with a psychologist and go on light duty required by a union physician. Even if you get them out - guess who takes their place? Someone just like the one who just left... Good management decides to bypass the unions and go with contractors.

sometimes they can't go with contractors, per the union contract.

for example.. in my case i was allowed to service both Roadway and Yellow freight... simply because they had no physical maintenance shop.
part of the deal was that if a terminal had a physical shop, they had to employ union mechanics.
neither terminal had a physical shop in Vegas, so they were allowed to contract for maintenance services...or they could build a shop.
it was , by far, more economically sensible to contract out than to have to buy more land and build a shop... so that's were I came in.

my first move after winning those contracts was to head down to the Roadway terminal in San Bernadino ( they had a maintenance shop) and poach experienced mechanics that were already familiar with their equipment and procedures.
one of those former union mechanics was the guy I sold my business to in the end.
 
Why should a contract with group A include membership to group B? Why must I agree to join a union when I agree to get a job? Are unions so inept that they must latch themselves onto other contracts?

you don't have to

you instead only have to seek employment from non-union employers. normally the ones that pay less, and offer fewer benefits and nominal job security

that contract arrangement you entered into with the unionized employer, includes a provision that by virtue of your willful, voluntary employment with said company, you have also agreed to become a member of the bargaining unit. whether you agree to become a union member is another choice you personally make. but your contract for employment with a firm having a union will compel you to agree to be a bargaining unit member UNLESS you are a member of management and/or you are within a job which is prohibited from being within the bargaining unit

in the federal sector, those excluded positions are normally those where the employee is involved in making personnel decisions, even in a non-management capacity

and as an aside, even tho the manager at the company CANNOT be a bargaining unit employee, represented by the union, (s)he CAN be a dues paying union member, entitled to vote at union elections (but not hold representative office). i helped LOTS of management officials in their careers and they responded by joining the union as dues paying/supporting union members
 
easy.. pass a law saying that 3rd party has the power to impose it's terms... .and give it exclusive power to demand those terms.

Yeah, but if you ask me if a contract has term that was put there by a third party and can not be removed then the contract is invalid. Yeah, I know I just made 99% of the contracts in the US invalid, but oh well.
 
as a union representative, i negotiated everything except wage rates and benefits ... those were established by congress


not with most unions. normally, there will be a job description and an associated wage rate
of course, the employee who prefers to negotiate for him/herself is free to instead apply at a non-union company


under a union shop arrangement, that might also be possible, however, you would negotiate that unique provision as a principle, that could be applied to other employees who fit the circumstance, and not for a specific named employee

while you are inquiring about the approach to your two labor-standards impacted managers, you may want to also ask HR if this specifically named vacation recipient exposes your company to any potential EEOC litigation under race, age, and/or religious bases


as above, possible, but only with defined criteria, not a named employee. this unique circumstance may also be one that places you in jeopardy of a title 7 action for disparate treatment of women. would encourage you to broach HR about it

a handbook of conditions of employment negotiated by the employees' union representative and management's representative ... for any union shop
such unilateral determinations should never be found acceptable by any competent labor rep


in a union shop, you would go thru all of it

now, kudos to you, for operating a company that apparently has not had its employees feel the need to elect a bargaining unit representative
if employees feel they are being treated fairly, they have no reason to seek union help

we are good as far as what individuals have negotiated in the past

our HR lawyers have made it abundantly clear what we can do, and what we cant do

most shops arent union shops.....and what i described is what you find at most mid-sized to larger companies

and no, we have never had unions.....

the market is extremely competitive in our area (wash dc) for employees

we have a very transient population due to the military and government

we have three of the top 10 counties in the country on a per capita income basis and another 3 in the top 20

so either you pay fairly, or you dont keep good employees.....period
 
no. that is union busting 101
paying non-union more than union undermines the union
First, I'm presuming only some would be paid higher, only the ones who excel. Those who don't excel wouldn't.

But even if all non-union did get paid more... so what? Maybe the union members should rethink their membership. Why is it union busting if an employer pays more to non-union employees, but not "non-union busting" if the union negotiates a higher wage? That's the kind of dishonest doublespeak that gives unions a bad image.
 
no. that is union busting 101
paying non-union more than union undermines the union

Like anyone here besides union supporters care. If I negotiate a better deal than you then that is your problem, not mine.
 
you don't have to

you instead only have to seek employment from non-union employers. normally the ones that pay less, and offer fewer benefits and nominal job security

that contract arrangement you entered into with the unionized employer, includes a provision that by virtue of your willful, voluntary employment with said company, you have also agreed to become a member of the bargaining unit. whether you agree to become a union member is another choice you personally make. but your contract for employment with a firm having a union will compel you to agree to be a bargaining unit member UNLESS you are a member of management and/or you are within a job which is prohibited from being within the bargaining unit

in the federal sector, those excluded positions are normally those where the employee is involved in making personnel decisions, even in a non-management capacity

and as an aside, even tho the manager at the company CANNOT be a bargaining unit employee, represented by the union, (s)he CAN be a dues paying union member, entitled to vote at union elections (but not hold representative office). i helped LOTS of management officials in their careers and they responded by joining the union as dues paying/supporting union members

You're really not all that good at dodging arguments. We both know that the contracts makes anyone that agrees to employment agree to union membership and instead of actually facing my question on why that is legitimate, you instead try to dodge by saying someone can just get work elsewhere.
 
it's not "bs" .. it's common... especially in the trucking industry (Teamsters dominated)...jobs are strictly defined and workers are not allowed to go beyond those definitions under the guise of stealing work from another worker.
if this guy was hired as a fueler, there's nothing else he would be allowed to do....
if the terminal had a janitor, he wouldn't even be allowed to push a broom to fill his time when he wasn't fueling.

I made a ton of money off of such "bs" rules... a ton.
my night were busy making service call to the terminals to do things the drivers weren't allowed to do.. such as adjusting their mirrors, checking/adding oil to their trucks.. replacing a mudflap or a marker light bulb.
if I could string together 2 or 3 simple jobs, I could make close to a grand a night.
I absolutely loved hearing that phone ring at night.:lol:

Conway ( non-union) is another story... there were no simple night calls for me there... they actually had their drivers do the simple things.
being a non-union company, they also had much better equipment.. such as trucks with electric mirrors :lol:
Seriously? That's even worse than I thought.

What happens if they're on the road and a bird hits a mirror and knocks it out of whack? Do they pull over and wait for a union approved maintenance guy to come out and adjust it back? (I'm being facetious, but it wouldn't knock me over if you said 'yes'.)
 
sometimes they can't go with contractors, per the union contract.

for example.. in my case i was allowed to service both Roadway and Yellow freight... simply because they had no physical maintenance shop.
part of the deal was that if a terminal had a physical shop, they had to employ union mechanics.
neither terminal had a physical shop in Vegas, so they were allowed to contract for maintenance services...or they could build a shop.
it was , by far, more economically sensible to contract out than to have to buy more land and build a shop... so that's were I came in.

my first move after winning those contracts was to head down to the Roadway terminal in San Bernadino ( they had a maintenance shop) and poach experienced mechanics that were already familiar with their equipment and procedures.
one of those former union mechanics was the guy I sold my business to in the end.

You're right - sometimes we cannot - but there are ways around it. For example, adding additional duties that are outside the scope and job title of the union who would do the work. Then the union would have to spend time and resources to make available those who could do the job or they'd have to reclassify the job title and identify the required training. By the time they did that - the time frame for the work would have to expire so a contractual exception is issued, contractors are hired and the do the work.

It gets hairier if the work which has to be done is ALSO in a union building... in that case, we're screwed.
 
are you saying i'm incorrect in my estimation that you dislike freeloaders?

the irony of you not comprehending my words after commenting on my comprehension is amusing.

which you are unable to explain in direct English without pretending you are oh so clever that you can wrap your words in vitriolic insults.
 
Haha, it undermines the myth that unions help.

if the unions did not help the employees, then why do many employers expend so much time and money trying to keep the unions out?
 
which you are unable to explain in direct English without pretending you are oh so clever that you can wrap your words in vitriolic insults.

it was written in direct English and you comprehension problems are not mine to deal with.

it's very telling that you see the words "right wing" as an insult though.... very telling indeed.
 
if the unions did not help the employees, then why do many employers expend so much time and money trying to keep the unions out?

good point - the facts are the facts and they clearly show that unions help their employees

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez says union members earn $200 more a week than those not in unions | PolitiFact

By contrast, the biggest gaps come in fields such as "protective service occupations" (a difference of $459 a week) and "construction" (a difference of $383 a week). Protective service occupations includes correctional officers, police, firefighters, animal control workers, lifeguards, and security guards.

"Unions do more to raise the wages of workers with less-than-average education than they do to boost the wages of those with better-than-average education," said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. "Unionized Ph.D.s do not gain as much from being in a union as high school dropouts, though even unionized Ph.D.s may enjoy a bit better job security and receive bigger helpings of health and retirement benefits than their non-union counterparts."

• If you include fringe benefits, the difference between union members and non-union workers grows.

According to BLS data from 2011, workers’ pay plus benefts for a 40-hour week was $1,508 for a union employee and $1,083 for a non-union worker. That’s a gap of $425 -- more than double the gap in the figures cited by Perez.

"Unions are typically more successful in getting good fringe benefits – especially health benefits, sickness pay, and retirement benefits – than in raising workers’ money wages," Burtless said.

Our ruling

Perez said. "If you have a union job, you're making on average $950 a week. If you have a non-union job, you're making $750 a week."

His figures are correct, but with an asterisk -- Perez should have specified "median" when he said "average." In general, though, his overall point is backed up by the data. We rate his claim Mostly True.
 
it was written in direct English and you comprehension problems are not mine to deal with.

it's very telling that you see the words "right wing" as an insult though.... very telling indeed.

I am simply waiting for you to explain what you wrote and not simply pretend you are the smartest boy in class who can throw vitriolic crap around instead of facts and reason.

Lets start with your charge that I am right wing. Lets see the facts and your explanation for that accusation.

how very right wing of you....

enough of your right wing politics.
 
Management can't do a thing
incompetent management cannot
competent management would document their issue to assure the employee was properly disciplined

- the employee files a grievance,
only AFTER management initiates its efforts to discipline
notice now why it is so important for management to do ITS job in this matter?

... the union backs their laziness
the union, under federal law, MUST fairly represent the employee
but as a long time union official, be assured that the union cannot defend the indefensible and win
again, see now why it is so important for management to fulfill its obligation and document its basis for discipline?
do that, and the wayward employee should not prevail

... the amount of documentation and evidence to win at a grievance is fairly high
you are correct on this point
it is usually management which initiates the action and labor which pursues the grievance
and unless labor can demonstrate why management operated outside the provisions of the contract, management's disciplinary action will stand

... and when a manager has a real need of these guys to work, they suddenly develop a vague sickness or require mental evaluation with a psychologist and go on light duty required by a union physician.
never heard of a union physician; but i cannot say they do not exist. normally, the bargaining unit employee will be required to have a doctor's note attesting to the medical circumstance faced by the employee. should the physician's concern for the employee's health be disregarded?
but again, if the employee is acting outside the provisions of the contract, all management has to do is enforce the contract terms and document how the employee is acting outside of them

Even if you get them out - guess who takes their place? Someone just like the one who just left...
sounds like yet another instance of management incompetence: consistently hiring weak applicants

Good management decides to bypass the unions and go with contractors.
that's an approach - UNLESS the union was savvy enough to negotiate provisions that defined the circumstances in which a contractor could be hired
the best management operates so well with the employees' needs in mind that the employees do not feel the need to seek union assistance
 
incompetent management cannot
competent management would document their issue to assure the employee was properly disciplined


only AFTER management initiates its efforts to discipline
notice now why it is so important for management to do ITS job in this matter?


the union, under federal law, MUST fairly represent the employee
but as a long time union official, be assured that the union cannot defend the indefensible and win
again, see now why it is so important for management to fulfill its obligation and document its basis for discipline?
do that, and the wayward employee should not prevail


you are correct on this point
it is usually management which initiates the action and labor which pursues the grievance
and unless labor can demonstrate why management operated outside the provisions of the contract, management's disciplinary action will stand


never heard of a union physician; but i cannot say they do not exist. normally, the bargaining unit employee will be required to have a doctor's note attesting to the medical circumstance faced by the employee. should the physician's concern for the employee's health be disregarded?
but again, if the employee is acting outside the provisions of the contract, all management has to do is enforce the contract terms and document how the employee is acting outside of them


sounds like yet another instance of management incompetence: consistently hiring weak applicants


that's an approach - UNLESS the union was savvy enough to negotiate provisions that defined the circumstances in which a contractor could be hired
the best management operates so well with the employees' needs in mind that the employees do not feel the need to seek union assistance

The manager does not have complete control over who is hired - union employees with the highest seniority get the better positions. If the removed worker is replaced, it's by the person next in line who has the same qualifications and highest seniority - who may just be worse then the person just removed, and the cycle starts all over again. That's the cat and mouse game that's been happening for decades now. I'm not saying that all union employees are bad by any stretch but some do the bare minimum and some do less than that with the only REAL discipline being a note in their employee file and being moved to a new position, sometimes under the SAME manager. I've seen both healthy management - union locations and poisonous ones. Even in the healthy one's grievances are fairly common.
 
Back
Top Bottom