• 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

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.

God, do I ever hate Socialist logic. You are agreeing to work in exchange for a salary. Why would the employer decide to hire help if everything that is gained from the arrangement goes to the hired help? Don't you think they would just decide to not hire help if that was the case?
 
Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.

Straight facts like that are going to only confuse the anti-union crowd. You really need to stop.
 
Straight facts like that are going to only confuse the anti-union crowd. You really need to stop.

The fact that law requires the union to represent everyone has nothing to do with an individual's right to opt out.
 
God, do I ever hate Socialist logic. You are agreeing to work in exchange for a salary.

The same principle applies to a job with a union. You agree to work somewhere where you will be represented by a union, and in exchange you pay union dues.

Why would the employer decide to hire help if everything that is gained from the arrangement goes to the hired help? Don't you think they would just decide to not hire help if that was the case?

I'm not advocating for not paying managers. The relationship between worker and management is by nature an exploitative one. In order to correct for this, anti-union legislation needs to be repealed in order to give workers more power in the fate of their jobs, their wages, and their benefits. Government also needs to play a role here, and should mandate that all corporate management boards have 50% of their seats reserved for union representatives elected by the workers, ensure that all workers are paid a living wage, have adequate benefits, and work in humane safety conditions. I'd also favor encouragement of worker self-management as an alternative business model.
 
The fact that law requires the union to represent everyone has nothing to do with an individual's right to opt out.

It has everything to do with the gross injustice and sheer unfairness of having to represent a selfish free loader whose very actions toward you would destroy you if embraced by a majority.
 
The same principle applies to a job with a union. You agree to work somewhere where you will be represented by a union, and in exchange you pay union dues.

Don't give me that crap. When you decide to look for work you go out with the intention of selling your labor for a salary.

I'm not advocating for not paying managers. The relationship between worker and management is by nature an exploitative one. In order to correct for this, anti-union legislation needs to be repealed in order to give workers more power in the fate of their jobs, their wages, and their benefits. Government also needs to play a role here, and should mandate that all corporate management boards have 50% of their seats reserved for union representatives elected by the workers, ensure that all workers are paid a living wage, have adequate benefits, and work in humane safety conditions. I'd also favor encouragement of worker self-management as an alternative business model.

Employers are already forced into all sorts of things for unions. No thank you.
 
It has everything to do with the gross injustice and sheer unfairness of having to represent a selfish free loader whose very actions toward you would destroy you if embraced by a majority.

Oh yes, someone is freeloading when they don't want to join some other arrangement besides the one they showed up for. Whatever.
 
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]

good.. I hope the unions lose ...extorting monies from non-members shouldn't be legal.
 
It has everything to do with the gross injustice and sheer unfairness of having to represent a selfish free loader whose very actions toward you would destroy you if embraced by a majority.

He has no obligation to a group he did not ask to represent him. He is free to be indifferent to the group's "destruction."
 
I hope they do rule against the Unions. My job is with the employer, not the Union. Furthermore, as an aside, teacher unions have historically stood against many basic pieces of legislation providing basic rights for persons such as myself. I have never held any interest in supporting such institutions if I became a teacher. Why should I monetarily support an institution which stood against me having an education in the first place, and many other basic protections I was granted, let alone sensible bureaucratic changes which benefitted my people?
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, someone is freeloading when they don't want to join some other arrangement besides the one they showed up for. Whatever.

I really do not give an infants full diaper about their delusions. They are damn freeloaders.
 
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.
1. It is illegal for unions to use dues money for political contributions. If you know of an example of a union doing so, you should report it.

2. If the union negotiates a 10% pay raise for the employees, non union members get the same raise. They represent the entire workforce, not just the members.
 
He has no obligation to a group he did not ask to represent him. He is free to be indifferent to the group's "destruction."

So why should the obiligation be only on the part of the union then? Should this not be a two way street? He is NOT indifferent to the groups destruction as his very actions aid in that end.
 
So why should the obiligation be only on the part of the union then? Should this not be a two way street? He is NOT indifferent to the groups destruction as his very actions aid in that end.

No, it's not a two way street. The union is the party attempting to exercise illegitimate power. He is simply indifferent to the union.
 
1. It is illegal for unions to use dues money for political contributions. If you know of an example of a union doing so, you should report it.

2. If the union negotiates a 10% pay raise for the employees, non union members get the same raise. They represent the entire workforce, not just the members.

1. Funds are fungible and there is no way to divide the pot, so, yeah... they do.

2. Again, it isn't the problem of the non-union member what the union does or does not do with their money which is the point (if the union tries to get a 20% raise and only gets a 10% raise the member don't get a 50% dues refund).
 
Oh yes, someone is freeloading when they don't want to join some other arrangement besides the one they showed up for. Whatever.

the freeloader argument exists because government gave unions the responsibility to negotiate for every employee....and then gave unions the power to collect money form people who aren't members.

it's a nice little card trick they pulled... and they have quite a few idiot minions to run around cheering such corruption on.


but don't whine about .. just go find another job... because you should should be punished if you don't support corruption like that.:roll:
 
No, it's not a two way street. The union is the party attempting to exercise illegitimate power. He is simply indifferent to the union.

ILEGITIMATE POWER!?!?!?!?!?!?!? What the hell does that even mean from somebody who a moment ago was talking about ones legal obligations under the law?????

His actions would destroy the very union he is supposedly "indifferent to" if embraced by the majority. So can the utter ridiculous "indifferent" nonsense as it makes no sense.
 
are you saying you don't support freeloading?

What was there about my statement regarding this situation that you fail to comprehend?
 
So why should the obiligation be only on the part of the union then? Should this not be a two way street? He is NOT indifferent to the groups destruction as his very actions aid in that end.

the unions shouldn't have an obligation to represent non-members...they were given that obligation because they sought for and won exclusive bargaining rights.

as were talking about public sector unions.. they shouldn't even be allowed to exist, let alone extort money from non-members.
 
the freeloader argument exists because government gave unions the responsibility to negotiate for every employee....and then gave unions the power to collect money form people who aren't members.

it's a nice little card trick they pulled... and they have quite a few idiot minions to run around cheering such corruption on.


but don't whine about .. just go find another job... because you should should be punished if you don't support corruption like that.:roll:

You threw out the unsubstantiated charge of supposed CORRUPTION and then utterly were blatantly impotent to offer any documentation of that charge.

Why so?
 
ILEGITIMATE POWER!?!?!?!?!?!?!? What the hell does that even mean from somebody who a moment ago was talking about ones legal obligations under the law?????

His actions would destroy the very union he is supposedly "indifferent to" if embraced by the majority. So can the utter ridiculous "indifferent" nonsense as it makes no sense.

His right to be indifferent is older, deeper and more legitimate than the union's right to exist.
 
I am strongly pro-union but I can't bring myself to force someone to be a member who doesn't want to. I realize it isn't fair such a person will share in the benefits. And you can't just say "if you won't contribute then you don't share in any benefits we negotiate for" because then the employer will just be more inclined to hire non-Union folks.

The best they can do is not make the person pay fees and not allow the person a vote in union decisions.
 
the unions shouldn't have an obligation to represent non-members...they were given that obligation because they sought for and won exclusive bargaining rights.

as were talking about public sector unions.. they shouldn't even be allowed to exist, let alone extort money from non-members.

Ah - so the rules were written and then a portion of those same rules were changed by right wing legislatures like the one controlling Michigan to harm the union and its members. I was there in Lansing and saw it first hand as a witness to the insanity and rabid anti-union attacks which ended up in success for the corporatists and their suck ups.

Got it loud and clear.
 
1. Funds are fungible and there is no way to divide the pot, so, yeah... they do.

2. Again, it isn't the problem of the non-union member what the union does or does not do with their money which is the point (if the union tries to get a 20% raise and only gets a 10% raise the member don't get a 50% dues refund).

The purpose of a union is to represent a unified labor force when negotiating with management. A single worker has no power to negotiate, but the labor force does. It's a lot like hiring a lawyer to represent an individual or a group. The union has been, in effect, hired by the membership. If the membership doesn't like the agreement that the union negotiates, they don't have to accept it.

So, if the union negotiates a 10% raise, and the membership approves of the result, the non member still gets the same raise. He should, therefore, chip in to pay for the representation that has benefited him. To do otherwise is to freeload from the payments of others.

And, if you know of a union using dues money to donate to political causes, don't post it here. Report it to the labor board. It is illegal. Further, your statement about money being "fungible" is irrelevant. The only money the union has is either dues money, or money that has been donated by the members specifically for political purposes. They could, of course, use some of the political money for day to day operation of the union, which is dishonest, but they can't go the other way. It makes no sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom