Page 9 of 26 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 258

Thread: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

  1. #81
    Sage

    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    near Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,501

    Re: 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
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  2. #82
    Hates Kittens
    NonoBadDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Mountains
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    12,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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."
    I voted Trump. Thanks Wikileaks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soho gator View Post
    Are there some who hate ALL white people? Sure. Are they racists? No.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Right-wingers aren't even people.

  3. #83
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Hence: freeloader.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.
    Sounds like another problem created by regulation.

  4. #84
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    37,147

    Re: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    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?
    Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?



  5. #85
    Sage

    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    near Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,501

    Re: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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.....
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  6. #86
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    37,147

    Re: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

    Quote Originally Posted by gdgyva View Post
    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.
    Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?



  7. #87
    Sage

    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    near Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,501

    Re: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  8. #88
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your left... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:33 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,620

    Re: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    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?




    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    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.
    Last edited by radcen; 07-03-15 at 09:38 AM.
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

  9. #89
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your left... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:33 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,620

    Re: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

    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.)
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

  10. #90
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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?
    Great for the non-unions members. Unions are not dwindling because there is an evil conspiracy, it is just because unions serve no helpful purpose, especially to those that are forced to be in them.

Page 9 of 26 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •