• 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

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.



Employers are already forced into all sorts of things for unions. No thank you.

When one looks for work, they want not only a wage, but a living wage and benefits, and they want to work somewhere with safe working conditions, which is what a union provides when it doesn't have inane restrictions placed upon it. Even if someone doesn't want to join a union for some bizarre reason, there are parts of a job that people don't like, and if someone doesn't want to pay union dues, they have the freedom to find another job. That's not a violation of freedom of association.
 
His right to be indifferent is older, deeper and more legitimate than the union's right to exist.

So in the fantasy world that you dwell in the right of one person is far more important than the collective rights of thousands of persons. Got it.

And we wonder why this country is going to hell on a roller coaster when folks with that attitude are applying grease to the tracks.
 
So in the fantasy world that you dwell in the right of one person is far more important than the collective rights of thousands of persons. Got it.

And we wonder why this country is going to hell on a roller coaster when folks with that attitude are applying grease to the tracks.

The backwards mind of statists is simply stunning. So basically the will of the individual is of lesser importance then the will of the group. Do you want to know why I hate collectivism? No? Well, I'm telling you anyway. I hate collectivism because not only does it amount of slavery, but the supporters of it have the balls to say it's liberty.
 
When one looks for work, they want not only a wage, but a living wage and benefits, and they want to work somewhere with safe working conditions, which is what a union provides when it doesn't have inane restrictions placed upon it. Even if someone doesn't want to join a union for some bizarre reason, there are parts of a job that people don't like, and if someone doesn't want to pay union dues, they have the freedom to find another job. That's not a violation of freedom of association.

So it's an inane restriction to concern yourself with the will of fellow workers? Unions are surely an odd bunch. They claim to stand for workers rights, but when it comes to a workers right to not join their union they protest loudly saying it's not right.
 
So in the fantasy world that you dwell in the right of one person is far more important than the collective rights of thousands of persons. Got it.

And we wonder why this country is going to hell on a roller coaster when folks with that attitude are applying grease to the tracks.

There is no such thing as "collective rights."
 
So it's an inane restriction to concern yourself with the will of fellow workers? Unions are surely an odd bunch. They claim to stand for workers rights, but when it comes to a workers right to not join their union they protest loudly saying it's not right.

Not requiring workers to pay union dues in a unionized organization delegitimizes the entire concept of collective bargaining because unions negotiate on behalf off all workers. Allowing employees to not pay union dues is antithetical to the very idea of unionization and by extension, protection of workers' rights.
 
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.

What makes no sense, is forcing people to participate in something they do not agree with or want to participate in, under threat of repercussion for non-participation.

It ain't freeloading if the didn't ask for the help. If they get a raise or other benefit that they didn't request, as a result of other's actions, then that ain't freeloading either.

Now, if they asked for the help and then refused to pay... that would be freeloading.

To extend your logic, however, you should be able to call all the people that get Earned Income Tax Credit, and pay no taxes or get a refund that is larger than the taxes they paid in... freeloaders as well. They pay no dues, yet reap the benefit of other's labor.
 
Not requiring workers to pay union dues in a unionized organization delegitimizes the entire concept of collective bargaining because unions negotiate on behalf off all workers. Allowing employees to not pay union dues is antithetical to the very idea of unionization and by extension, protection of workers' rights.

Then it would seem I have a fundamental problem with unionization. I don't approve of forced association and if your idea of protecting your rights involves forcing people into your group we have a fundamental disagreement that I see no way we can resolve.
 
What makes no sense, is forcing people to participate in something they do not agree with or want to participate in, under threat of repercussion for non-participation.

It ain't freeloading if the didn't ask for the help. If they get a raise or other benefit that they didn't request, as a result of other's actions, then that ain't freeloading either.

Now, if they asked for the help and then refused to pay... that would be freeloading.

To extend your logic, however, you should be able to call all the people that get Earned Income Tax Credit, and pay no taxes or get a refund that is larger than the taxes they paid in... freeloaders as well. They pay no dues, yet reap the benefit of other's labor.

Yes, they're freeloaders just as surely as the non dues paying member who reaps the benefits of union membership is a free loader.
 
Then it would seem I have a fundamental problem with unionization. I don't approve of forced association and if your idea of protecting your rights involves forcing people into your group we have a fundamental disagreement that I see no way we can resolve.

It's called freedom of association, which also includes the freedom to NOT associate.
 
If unions provide so much benefit then why don't they function as PEO's?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial for all concerned if the employees were employees of the union rather than of the employer? That way the union could have total control over wages, benefits, safety and dues.
 
The backwards mind of statists is simply stunning.

So you are some sort of radical anarchist who does not believe in the state?

Do us all a favor and can that sort of hyperbole in the crapper where it belongs.
 
There is no such thing as "collective rights."

I guess in the belief system in your mind there clearly is not. And that permits you to take the inane positions you have taken here.
 
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.
:lamo So thats how union shops start? A group of buddies just get together, and say hey there should be no freeloaders here? And walah like magic they get that?



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?
Having the right to unionize does not equate to having a union shop....



Again, agreeing to work for an employer for a salary is just that, agreeing to work for an employer for a salary.
You know damn well there is just more than that. Benefits is a major one you also agree to.

The workers are not involved in the transaction at any point in time, sorry.
Yes they are, especially in the union... You know, the whole democratic process, the bringing forward of grievances, the VOTE...
So because something is done often it's t now?
Uhhhhh youre telling me when people agree to work for someone they dont agree to additional agreements beyond "you're hired" and here is your salary? Vacation time? Paid time off? Benefits? Drug tests? Background checks? Pensions/401k's? Sick leave? The list can go on and on...

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 a leap... Union shop compared to racism reinforced by laws.

A bargaining force the employer has no legal right by law to not negotiate with or not put in a contract for future employment.
Uhhh, are you saying that school boards dont have the right by law to negotiated with a teachers union?

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?
Nope. Nor do I see how this has anything to do with this current debate other than it has to deal with unions. What does the gov seizure of Montgomery Ward have anything to do with this case?
 
So if I want to work at a place and they do NOT have a union - I have to get a majority of workers to vote for one in an election for the union to represent me. But if I get a job at a union shop, I only need the vote of one person to not have to pay the union and still force them to represent me.

Talk about ass backwards right wing logic that makes absolutely no sense!!!!!
 
Individual liberty is neither right nor left.

No - its the invocation of LIBERTY as lipstick on the pig that those on the right pretend is their condom to protect their extremist views.
 
No - its the invocation of LIBERTY as lipstick on the pig that those on the right pretend is their condom to protect their extremist views.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Abraham Lincoln


 
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Abraham Lincoln



Which was a blatant lie when it was stated. Of course, that is based on an examination of reality and not the hype. Something that the right wing has never been able to tell apart.
 
Which was a blatant lie when it was stated. Of course, that is based on an examination of reality and not the hype. Something that the right wing has never been able to tell apart.

I think I'll stick with Lincoln, thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom