• 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

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to the way public-sector unions finance their operations. Union officials said a ruling against them would deal a blow to organized labor.
The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915, teachers in California who chose not to join the union and who said being compelled to pay union fees they did not agree with violated their First Amendment rights.

Limiting the power of public unions has been a long sought goal of conservative groups, and they welcomed Tuesday’s development.
“The question of whether teachers and other government employees can be required to subsidize the speech of a union they do not support as a condition of working for their own government is now squarely before the court,” Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said in a statement.
The challengers say that some collective bargaining with a government employer amounts to lobbying and that forcing them to pay for those activities violates their First Amendment rights.


Read more @: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

Big case will be heard by the Supreme Court regarding union dues in non-right to work states. Whenever right to work vs non-right to work cases get brought up all I can think of is one cartoon, which I think hits the nail right on the head.
29hbv5.jpg


 
If someone does not wish to be a member of the union then really there isn't a valid rational to make them pay the union dues. I'm sorry you can't get everyone to fall in love with your group, but that doesn't mean you can force them to pay for it.
 
If someone does not wish to be a member of the union then really there isn't a valid rational to make them pay the union dues. I'm sorry you can't get everyone to fall in love with your group, but that doesn't mean you can force them to pay for it.

Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.
 
If someone does not wish to be a member of the union then really there isn't a valid rational to make them pay the union dues.
But you see if they are a public teacher then they still get all the benefits, and are still covered by the contract....

I'm sorry you can't get everyone to fall in love with your group, but that doesn't mean you can force them to pay for it.
What about the "free market"? Dont want to pay dues, go find another job, perhaps a private sector teaching job?
 
This is going to be a tough one. Basically this challenge is looking to overturn the old 1977 Abood v Detroit Board of Education decision. But I will say that old decision left the door open to this challenge here today with "There will, of course, be difficult problems in drawing lines between collective-bargaining activities, for which contributions may be compelled, and ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining, for which such compulsion is prohibited." (Part C, 32 of the court opinion.) Assuming this case is about 1st Amendment protections as related to "ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining" then the case may have merit.
 
Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.

If I don't wish to be a member of your union there is no reason you should represent me.
 
But you see if they are a public teacher then they still get all the benefits, and are still covered by the contract....

So what?

What about the "free market"? Dont want to pay dues, go find another job, perhaps a private sector teaching job?

What about the free market? Being forced into a contract with a group of people against your will is something even free market supporters have no problem being against.
 
Last edited:
Hence: freeloader.



What about the free market? Being forced into a contract with a group of people against your will is something even free market supporters have no problem being against.
But were they forced into that job?
 
Hence: freeloader.

Hey, remember how your side says that people made a choice to start a business when talking about anti-discrimination laws? Well, you made a choice to start a union and you made a choice to represent everyone.

But were they forced into that job?

Last time I'm checked people are hired on by employers, not fellow workers.
 
Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.

If a person does not want to be a member of a union, then it is not their problem what the union spends it's money doing. Which is what the case is about in the first place. Unions use their money for more than just negotiating for pay and benefits for employees - they donate money to politicians and other causes that not everyone agrees with (a First Amendment issue).

How would you like it if you were forced to give money to a group that may benefit you in some way, yet also gives huge amounts of their dues to Republican politicians and right wing causes?

This is the United States of America, not some socialist or communist country where the workers are forced to comply... or else.
 
Hey, remember how your side says that people made a choice to start a business when talking about anti-discrimination laws?
"My side"? Sure.

Well, you made a choice to start a union and you made a choice to represent everyone.
I know, I believe that is federal law. I was answering your question you asked...

Last time I'm checked people are hired on by employers, not fellow workers.
And your not forced to take the job now are you?
 
"My side"? Sure.

I know, I believe that is federal law. I was answering your question you asked...

Then work to repeal that law instead of working to force people into your group.

And your not forced to take the job now are you?

Who cares? I'm doing business with an employer, not fellow workers. I shouldn't be forced to join some group of the workers when I'm agreeing to be paid for my work. Adding on different memberships to the employer arrangement is illegitimate nonsense.

It's like, hey, you want to join my club and when I say hell yeah, you say I have to join another group that fellow club members founded that I may or may not be interested in. There is no real merit to such nonsense.
 
Last edited:
But you see if they are a public teacher then they still get all the benefits, and are still covered by the contract....


What about the "free market"? Dont want to pay dues, go find another job, perhaps a private sector teaching job?

Or those teachers can negotiate their own contract- bet they get paid less. Then the form a group, oh yeah, expenses will arise, then dues come in.
Oh wait that is what they are against.
 
Or those teachers can negotiate their own contract- bet they get paid less. Then the form a group, oh yeah, expenses will arise, then dues come in.
Oh wait that is what they are against.

Who cares if they are paid less? If they don't want to join your group you have no right to force them to be a member. If they want to take their chances on their own that is their choice and I see no reason to not give it to them.
 
Who cares if they are paid less? If they don't want to join your group you have no right to force them to be a member. If they want to take their chances on their own that is their choice and I see no reason to not give it to them.

Just union bashing. Perhaps they should look at the costs of what they negotiated as pay, benefits and pensions. That is the real issue here. Detroit is a classic example.
Address the problem face on, not in a roundabout way, unions have a place.
 
Compulsory union membership is an affront to free people.

Remember how SSM was just following American Principles of liberty and justice? Well apparently forcing people into your group is to. I was unaware that forced membership was liberty, but liberals made sure to correct me on my error.
 
Just union bashing. Perhaps they should look at the costs of what they negotiated as pay, benefits and pensions. That is the real issue here. Detroit is a classic example.
Address the problem face on, not in a roundabout way, unions have a place.

If unions can't sell themselves to workers they really don't have a place, sorry.
 
If unions can't sell themselves to workers they really don't have a place, sorry.

To all or just a small number?
Members of a union local can always decertify can they not?
 
Read more @: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

Big case will be heard by the Supreme Court regarding union dues in non-right to work states. Whenever right to work vs non-right to work cases get brought up all I can think of is one cartoon, which I think hits the nail right on the head.
29hbv5.jpg


[/FONT][/COLOR]


Sounds like a pretty easy win for the unions. The four liberals will side with so will at least Roberts. Roberts will say if you don't like the situation, take it up with your state legislature.
 
Then work to repeal that law instead of working to force people into your group.
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.

Who cares? I'm doing business with an employer, not fellow workers.
And that employer agreed to make his shop a union shop

I shouldn't be forced to join some group of the workers when I'm agreeing to be paid for my work.
Thus agreeing to a union shop if you agree to work there

Adding on different memberships to the employer arrangement is illegitimate nonsense.
No its not. Additional arrangements are put in all the time in contracts.

It's like, hey, you want to join my club and when I say hell yeah, you say I have to join another group that fellow club members founded that I may or may not be interested in. There is no real merit to such nonsense.
There is clear merit; you just accepted a job where the contract was agreed upon by a collective bargaining force.
 
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?
 
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.

Why should someone be forced to be part of your group when they take a job? Because you and your buddies started a group? Does starting a group with some buddies mean you have a right to force people be part of it? If so, I was unaware of that.


And that employer agreed to make his shop a union shop

So you think that is how this works, do you? Do you know what would happen to me if I didn't allow my workers to unionize?

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

Again, agreeing to work for an employer for a salary is just that, agreeing to work for an employer for a salary. The workers are not involved in the transaction at any point in time, sorry.

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

So because something is done often it's legitimate now? I guess racism in the past was ok too then. Hell, I bet hating on gays was completely fine and dandy too. Gosh, your logic is just fantastic.

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

A bargaining force the employer has no legal right by law to not negotiate with or not put in a contract for future employment. Try again if you want. Do you perhaps remember what happened to Montgomery ward? Something that I might was ordered to happen by your hero and chief FDR?
 
Last edited:
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?

That doesn't even make sense.
 
That doesn't even make sense.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom