• 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

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.
I disagree. For all the hand wringing that conservatives have had over the "liberal" decisions of recent, I fully expect the conservative majority SCOTUS to rule against unions.
 
: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?

How often to do you thinks unions are able to get everyone to join the union?


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

Sorry, but it pretty much does. As an employer I can't stop you have unionizing, and when you do, I must negotiate with you and provide you certain things.



You know damn well there is just more than that. Benefits is a major one you also agree to.

Yes, it could be, but benefits aren't a necessary component of it.

Yes they are, especially in the union... You know, the whole democratic process, the bringing forward of grievances, the VOTE...

So unions decide who is going to be hired? News to me.

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...

Those are not necessary parts of the agreement.


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

That's not what I said.

Uhhh, are you saying that school boards dont have the right by law to negotiated with a teachers union?

No, I'm saying that the employer must talk to unions.

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?

It has to do with the possible consequences for not negotiating with the union. Government doesn't just allow businesses to stop their places of employment from being a union shop.
 
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?

that isn't the issue.

She is not just paying for union dues and contracting. Her complaint is that unions are spending her dues on political campaigns that do not reflect her
views as a person.

she cites that as a violation of her first amendment rights. I would have to somewhat agree.
while I think if you want to join a union then you should have to pay for the neogiation of contracts fair game.

however at the same time the union politics should be a separate fund in which if member choose they can pay into.
the people that just pay for the contracting part would of course pay a lower rate than people who choose to donate
to political campaigns.

in the last election the largest teachers union spent 22m dollars in super packs.

with all their complaining about teacher pay I am sure that 22m dollars would have been spent better helping the people
they represent instead of giving it to some political campaign.

the fact that unions are misusing due money to push political agenda's vs helping the people they are supposed to represent is more telling
of why her case is valid.
 
To the extremist, I guess that is just another name for truth that they find uncomfortable.

yes extremists often confuse their opinions for the truth.
 
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
 
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."
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.....
 
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.
 
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
 
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?




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?
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:
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.)
 
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.
 
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?

Same with union folks that work in my area - I put in a ticket to stretch about 1,800 feet of dual mode fiber between two buildings. I call a week later asking how things are going and a former employee (retired but now a contractor) says the ticket is still open because the tech is too busy playing online cards - my ticket was one of three open. He was paid to actually play cards, did very little work and was fully backed by the IBEW, since he has up to 2 weeks to address new tickets due to his "work load".

At peronal risk to my job and the retired contractor, we stretched the fiber ourselves, labeled and connected after 6 pm and the ticket was cancelled. No questions were ever asked.
 
What was there about my statement regarding this situation that you fail to comprehend?

don't worry your pretty little head about my comprehension..

...i'll take this to mean you have a very strong dislike of freeloaders....which is a very odd position coming from a loyal lefty Democrat.

how do you reconcile your dislike of freeloaders with your overt support of social programs such as welfare?... or are you consistent and ware now going to demonize welfare recipients as freeloaders?
 
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

Actually, in the real world, it works on supply and demand just like everything else. If there is a shortage of people skilled in widget installation, then the wages of widget installers goes up. If the supply exceeds the demand, then the wages go down.

If the installers are represented by the United Brotherhood of Widget Installers (UBWI), then that entity can help keep wages from bottoming out, at least for the currently employed.

So, if human beings are to be a commodity traded on price set by supply and demand, like cotton or oil, then they don't need a union. If they're to have some semblance of job security and decent wages, then they need to be represented.

Face it: No employer cares about one widget installer. He's replaceable, especially during times of plenty.
 
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.

I suppose the same could be said for lawyers who represent clients against powerful entities such as insurance companies.

At least not if you're in favor of tilting at windmills engaging in uneven negotiations.
 
At least not if you're in favor of tilting at windmills engaging in uneven negotiations.

The highest paid people are not in unions. Stamping sheet metal is supposed to be easy which leads to "uneven" demand power.
 
don't worry your pretty little head about my comprehension..

...i'll take this to mean you have a very strong dislike of freeloaders....which is a very odd position coming from a loyal lefty Democrat.

how do you reconcile your dislike of freeloaders with your overt support of social programs such as welfare?... or are you consistent and ware now going to demonize welfare recipients as freeloaders?

No doubt you will "take it" in the way that agrees with your own preconceived beliefs the best.

btw - my long standing position on welfare is that NOBODY should get welfare for being idle who is capable of working.
 
The highest paid people are not in unions. Stamping sheet metal is supposed to be easy which leads to "uneven" demand power.

No, the highest paid people are in the board room. Unfortunately, only an elite few can be in the board room.
 
Back
Top Bottom