• 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

That is what happens, yep.

Forced payment without consent is ideal to you?

You can fire strikers?

You know what a strike is right? :lamo You really dont know how a labor dispute or a strike works do you?
But then again you asked the reason why we are seeing the downfall and it seems like your opinion on why its downfalling is now not that they were some sort of outdated process or some sort of "brainwashing" or whatever it was you said, to now being "yea we have these laws and the system is now downgrading it, and I'm all for it".
 
You know what a strike is right?

https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

Economic strikers defined. If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement.

Unfair labor practice strikers defined.Employees who strike to protest an unfair labor practice committed by their employer are called unfair labor practice strikers. Such strikers can be neither discharged nor permanently replaced. When the strike ends, unfair labor practice strikers, absent serious misconduct on their part, are entitled to have their jobs back even if employees hired to do their work have to be discharged.
 
https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

Economic strikers defined. If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement.

Unfair labor practice strikers defined.Employees who strike to protest an unfair labor practice committed by their employer are called unfair labor practice strikers. Such strikers can be neither discharged nor permanently replaced. When the strike ends, unfair labor practice strikers, absent serious misconduct on their part, are entitled to have their jobs back even if employees hired to do their work have to be discharged.

Yea. In your little description you left out a part... All the bolded parts... A strike is not just 2 guys on the job decide not to come to work for 2 weeks (AKA how you tried to frame the discussion or what a strike is defined as.....)
 
Yea. In your little description you left out a part... All the bolded parts... A strike is not just 2 guys on the job decide not to come to work for 2 weeks (AKA how you tried to frame the discussion or what a strike is defined as.....)

So the state literally forces a company to keep employees that they want to fire, and even have to provide them a job after the employee literally does not do their job?
 
So the state literally forces a company to keep employees that they want to fire, and even have to provide them a job after the employee literally does not do their job?

You never heard of SCABS? Companies hiring workers to take the place of those on strikes? Oh yea, it happens all the ****ing time.
 
You never heard of SCABS? Companies hiring workers to take the place of those on strikes? Oh yea, it happens all the ****ing time.

Yeah, the nonworking employees cannot be fired and have to get their job back.
 
Yeah, the nonworking employees cannot be fired and have to get their job back.

:naughty:naughty If you read your link that is not universally true.
 
The state only sometimes makes employers keep nonworking employees that they cannot fire.

Should a company have the right to fire you if you take sick days? I mean you're not working?

But then again, our whole thread of debate was framed into the actual reasons to why union membership is declining (I mean you were the one that posted here to prove some point).... I thought this was not about the actual practice of labor laws, but the reasoning to why behind union membership has declined and somehow it relates to this upcoming supreme court case?
 
Should a company have the right to fire you if you take sick days? I mean you're not working?

But then again, our whole thread of debate was framed into the actual reasons to why union membership is declining (I mean you were the one that posted here to prove some point).... I thought this was not about the actual practice of labor laws, but the reasoning to why behind union membership has declined and somehow it relates to this upcoming supreme court case?

They already do....

People see less value in unions. Public unions, which even FDR thought were a cancer, are propping up the numbers.
 
They already do....

People see less value in unions. Public unions,
Umm last time I checked... Public opinion on unions is 50% or just over....

which even FDR thought were a cancer, are propping up the numbers.
:lamo
Is that why he said if he worked in a factory the first thing he would do is join a union?
 
Great. Anyone who thinks they should be banned is silly.

That poll question is really quite different than people wanting to be in a union and pay dues though.

Youre changing your position and the way this debate is going quite a lot, all while annoying several key points I have raised and thus essentially leaving them out of the conversation...
 
No, unions are dying because they are seen as less valuable. Public opinion of approval of their existence does not refute that.

Include anything you want me to address. I usually clear out emoticon usage and may have missed your specific questions because of that.
 
C'mon now... At least quote me if you are going to respond to me...

No, unions are dying because they are seen as less valuable. Public opinion of approval of their existence does not refute that.
Ummm.... 50+% said they view them favorably..... And various other polling questions refute this as well....


Include anything you want me to address. I usually clear out emoticon usage and may have missed your specific questions because of that.
Uhhh ok...
 
But they dont.... Union dues do not go to lobbying efforts. Her complaint is about that she believes that collective bargaining is a violation of her first amendment rights.


Union dues do not pay for lobbying efforts, campaign efforts, etc.

you would be wrong. the largest teachers union spent 22m dollars in political campaigns.
please tell me where they got the money from is not from their members.

in fact they do spend it on political campaigns. if they didn't then the judge would have thrown the case out 2 times.
they haven't in fact the court system has upheld the ruling.
 
C'mon now... At least quote me if you are going to respond to me...


Ummm.... 50+% said they view them favorably..... And various other polling questions refute this as well....



Uhhh ok...

yet only <17% of the work force belong to one.
 
you would be wrong. the largest teachers union spent 22m dollars in political campaigns.
please tell me where they got the money from is not from their members.

in fact they do spend it on political campaigns. if they didn't then the judge would have thrown the case out 2 times.
they haven't in fact the court system has upheld the ruling.

Donations. Union dues cannot go directly to PAC accounts, campaigns, lobbying, etc. They get the money from voluntary donations from their members. Unions have voluntary donations all the time. AKA: C.O.P.E.
 
Donations. Union dues cannot go directly to PAC accounts, campaigns, lobbying, etc. They get the money from voluntary donations from their members. Unions have voluntary donations all the time. AKA: C.O.P.E.

Please see the beck case which showed again that this is not true that they do use funds to do so.
in fact the beck case blew the lid off of it.

The fact is that the judge ruled that it was unconstitutional for the union to force members to pay for political activities.
so evidently again you are wrong.

why you double down on this is what I don't understand. if the union wasn't using member dues for political activities then the judge would have dismissed the case.
so they evidently are using union member money for political activities even though the money is supposed to go for union contracts.

maybe the union should have spent that 22m+ dollars on the people they are supposed to represent instead of giving it to politicians.
 
Please see the beck case which showed again that this is not true that they do use funds to do so.
And what happened after that case..... What was the decision? What was the legal outcome? Oh yea... It was that Unions cannot use dues money for political efforts. Can only use dues money for collective bargning......

in fact the beck case blew the lid off of it.
And that decision stopped union dues from being used for political efforts.

The fact is that the judge ruled that it was unconstitutional for the union to force members to pay for political activities.
so evidently again you are wrong.
Uhhh... How am I wrong? I stated the whole time that union dues dont go to political activities. THat is true, part of the reason being this supreme court case you just referenced too...

why you double down on this is what I don't understand.
What are you talking about?

if the union wasn't using member dues for political activities then the judge would have dismissed the case.
I know. But this is not what THIS supreme court case will be about...
It will be about dues, non right to work, and collective bargaining...

so they evidently are using union member money for political activities even though the money is supposed to go for union contracts.
Not anymore.

maybe the union should have spent that 22m+ dollars on the people they are supposed to represent instead of giving it to politicians.
Literally read the article in the OP. ITS ABOUT COLLECTIVE BARGANNING.
 
the poll seems to be out of touch with reality.

being out of touch with reality is someone who refuses to accept legitimate poll results as indicative of a population's belief relative to the question being asked
 
Back
Top Bottom