• 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

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.

there is something to this approach
the union should cooperate and insist that the benefits, wage, overtime, work release, vacation, telework, sick leave, maternity leave, grievance and arbitration efforts to achieve problem resolution, should be denied to those non-dues paying members
and those non-dues paying members should be allowed to negotiate their own benefits packages themselves. they should similarly be required to resolve all of their disputes without the union's negotiated dispute resolution mechanism
that way, they can enjoy the dues they are not paying without enjoying the benefits the union has negotiated
 
there is something to this approach
the union should cooperate and insist that the benefits, wage, overtime, work release, vacation, telework, sick leave, maternity leave, grievance and arbitration efforts to achieve problem resolution, should be denied to those non-dues paying members
and those non-dues paying members should be allowed to negotiate their own benefits packages themselves. they should similarly be required to resolve all of their disputes without the union's negotiated dispute resolution mechanism
that way, they can enjoy the dues they are not paying without enjoying the benefits the union has negotiated


most of those benefits are set by the company

the employee handbook says x, and that is what you get unless you negotiate separately

i have one employee that gets 6 weeks off a year.....he visits family in the middle east

i have another who negotiated pay for 3 months maternity, not the normal 6 weeks

in today's world, most of those things are covered in every companies handbook (at least any company over 100 people)

so other than really salary/wage there isnt a whole lot to go through
 
No doubt you will "take it" in the way that agrees with your own preconceived beliefs the best. .
as is usual.. i'm correct....

btw - my long standing position on welfare is that NOBODY should get welfare for being idle who is capable of working.
how very right wing of you.... ;)
I look forward to you being consistent by supporting policies that force these evil "freeloaders" to work.

enough of your right wing politics..now back to you utter disrespect of the right to freely associate when it comes to unions..... why do you feel people should be forced to pay unions against their wishes again?
 
there is something to this approach
the union should cooperate and insist that the benefits, wage, overtime, work release, vacation, telework, sick leave, maternity leave, grievance and arbitration efforts to achieve problem resolution, should be denied to those non-dues paying members
and those non-dues paying members should be allowed to negotiate their own benefits packages themselves. they should similarly be required to resolve all of their disputes without the union's negotiated dispute resolution mechanism
that way, they can enjoy the dues they are not paying without enjoying the benefits the union has negotiated

that would be fair....


for a starter, though.. it's enough to simply say non-member can only pay for direct representational costs... unions are now charging agency fees which are exactly equal to member dues.... that, to any reasonable person, is not right.
most folks wouldn't be opposed to having to pay for what you get... everybody should be opposed to paying for stuff you don't want, and don't get.
 
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?
let's follow this train of thought

you have - by choice - agreed to apply for employment at a work site with an established union
then why the objection to that union

and certainly no objection to working for the pay and benefits negotiated by that union
 
let's follow this train of thought

you have - by choice - agreed to apply for employment at a work site with an established union
then why the objection to that union

and certainly no objection to working for the pay and benefits negotiated by that union

Why is it that when I answer a question either no one hears me or no one reads it? They just stupidly ask the question again like I never said or wrote anything. I already said I'm doing business with the employer not the workers.
 
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.



Last time I'm checked people are hired on by employers, not fellow workers.

and if the employer agreed to a union security clause, you pay!
 
and if the employer agreed to a union security clause, you pay!

Oh indeed. Apparently, I'm supposed to accept the union putting themselves into the employment agreement. Sorry, but I don't accept it when clubs put other memberships into their agreements and I don't accept it when unions do it either.

Oh and btw, check the law. The employer has no choice in the matter.
 
There is no agreement, there is only a law forcing it.

yes it is agreement.

laws by nature force someone to act in a certain way
 
Why is it that when I answer a question either no one hears me or no one reads it? They just stupidly ask the question again like I never said or wrote anything. I already said I'm doing business with the employer not the workers.

it is in the rules for radicals.

Rule 2:

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

Rule 3: RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

when that fails they resort to rule 5: RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
 
as is usual.. i'm correct....

I suspect you are always "correct" in rationalizing your own behavior.

I do NOT get your attempt in insulting me by calling me right wing. Can you explain that so it makes sense?
 
So employers who don't want to provide healthcare and pay a livable wage are okay? Just find another job. But employers that require workers to join a union as a condition of employment are bad?
 
So employers who don't want to provide healthcare and pay a livable wage are okay? Just find another job. But employers that require workers to join a union as a condition of employment are bad?

Why should a contract with group A include membership to group B? Why must I agree to join a union when I agree to get a job? Are unions so inept that they must latch themselves onto other contracts?
 
You are left wing, if your posts matter.
 
There is no agreement, the law simply dictates they pay dues.

nope, wrong.

there must be a union agreement for you to pay dues.
 
Why should a contract with group A include membership to group B? Why must I agree to join a union when I agree to get a job? Are unions so inept that they must latch themselves onto other contracts?

well clearly they're ept enough to get your employer to make you join.
 
well clearly they're ept enough to get your employer to make you join.

Because getting some politicians to do your bidding when you throw a bunch of money their way is hard.
 
Back
Top Bottom