Thread: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

unions are dodo birds who just havent gone extinct yet

they have to change the way they work, and the way they get workers to join

before, it was easy......almost all the shops were union shops, and the employees had no choice on whether or not to join

now, the times are changing

the unions are actually going to have to SELL their value to their members

sway them using logic, and using reason.....not thuggery

the question is, can an old dog learn new tricks?.....i have my doubts

and that is why their ELE (extinction level event) is in the near future

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.

The problem is, and the crux of this legal argument, is that the unions often don't "represent all of the employees."

Originally Posted by scatt

You thinking the union benefits them does not mean they actually benefit them. In fact, not long ago there was a bakery union that literally killed thousands of jobs for non-bakery union members, and the bakery union members.



Sounds like another problem created by regulation.

I suppose if there were one set of wages and working conditions for union members and a different one for non members, then the problem would be solved and non members wouldn't have to pay for the representation that they're not benefiting from. I wonder how that might work out?

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

I suppose if there were one set of wages and working conditions for union members and a different one for non members, then the problem would be solved and non members wouldn't have to pay for the representation that they're not benefiting from. I wonder how that might work out?

doesnt have to be one pay for ALL the other workers

each one can negotiate their best rates, and their best benefits

some will get more, some less

do you think skill level plays a part in how much someone is worth?

i sure in the hell do.....

Originally Posted by gdgyva

doesnt have to be one pay for ALL the other workers

each one can negotiate their best rates, and their best benefits

some will get more, some less

do you think skill level plays a part in how much someone is worth?

i sure in the hell do.....

Of course there is one wage for the more skilled employee, another for the less skilled.

But, there isn't one pay grade for union members, another for non members.

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

Of course there is one wage for the more skilled employee, another for the less skilled.

But, there isn't one pay grade for union members, another for non members.

there should be

the union bargains for many at one time.....some great, some average, some poor employees

the individual bargains just for them alone.....if they are one of the "great employees" their pay should be above the union rate

if average, around the union rate, and poor....they shouldnt get the job

that is the way it works.....when you negotiate for everyone like in a union....you know you have all 3 types of employees

the individual has no such barriers

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

What? I dont want to repeal that federal law..... There is a clear understanding that when you agree to take the job you are represented by a union, this is a union workplace, you pay dues, and they bargin on your behalf. You have the right to vote up or down the contract as well.

And that employer agreed to make his shop a union shop

Thus agreeing to a union shop if you agree to work there

No its not. Additional arrangements are put in all the time in contracts.

There is clear merit; you just accepted a job where the contract was agreed upon by a collective bargaining force.

Closed shops should be banned outright. However, unions should be under zero obligation to represent non-union workers. They haven't paid for the privilege. If a shop has both, so be it.

The only caveat I would put is that a union contract cannot address the non-union workers in ANY way whatsoever. That includes banning language that would guarentee union workers the highest pay. No, if management wants to reward good employees with higher pay, that's fine. Union workers can either choose to quit the union and work for greater potential or they can choose stay in their union safety net.

And as you're clearly saying here, it's all about choice, right?

Or, is it just they "choice" you would like to see?

Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat

I wonder if all the right-wingers worried about the amount of money required of employees for union dues are worried about the amount of money taken out of employee paychecks to pay management?

Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat

You're criticizing unions for taking money out of people's paychecks in the form of union dues when that's the exact same thing that employers do. They have direct control over their employees' paychecks, and the employer's paycheck itself is provided by the labor of the workers.

Henrin is right, you're making no sense. Pay comes from revenue/profits. And management gets more control because management is taking more risk.

Not to mention you seem to think that management does no work whatsoever. Who do you think coordinates everything and makes sure it functions properly? That stuff doesn't just happen in a vacuum. No, it takes qualified and competent people who work just as hard, albeit not as physical, as everyone else.

I know a guy... strong union guy... who was employed by a trucking distribution facility. He commonly and proudly boasted that he pumped gas for $24/hr. He proudly boasted that his job description was so limited that, if there were no truck to pump gas into, he could pretty much just do nothing as long as he wasn't overtly just standing around. He proudly boasted that if management got on his case for *anything*, the union would go to bat for him, even when he knew management was in the right (and he would let them). And when asked directly by me, he admitted he was way overpaid considering the level of skill and work that was required of him, but because he could get away with it, he was a strong union guy.

Who's the freeloader?

(This was in the 1990s, in the interest of full disclosure.)