• 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's tie vote upholds public employee fees for unions

ocean515 said:
Indeed it is a win for labor. And the license to steal by the Public Employee Unions will remain in effect, much to the harm of the poor and other vulnerable state citizens who will suffer while the local and state governments continue to fill the union coffers and pension plans.
Click to expand...

great, isn't it
 
American said:
Democrats, liberals and unions could care less about freedom of association; power is what matters.
Click to expand...

Seeking power for it's own sake, holding up strength and power as a good in and of itself, seeking to expand the breadth and depth of control over individual lives by the government and its proxies.

Yes. All of these are destructive, liberal positions. It's why I'm #NeverHillary, and it's why I'm #NeverTrump.
 
justabubba said:
great, isn't it
Click to expand...

Great if you're a Public Employee who belongs to a Union. And great if you're a liberal/progressive legislator who receives the big bucks to do the Unions bidding.

Not so great if you're a hard working taxpayer trying to keep food on the table.
 
Sherman123 said:
You are being both uncharitable to all of the Justices and simplifying in the extreme. I tend to side more with a Scalia-esque view of Constitutional interpretation (though I generally support stare decisis) but I acknowledge the validity of other modalities of interpretation. I'm often torn on the matter to be honest. Anyone who blithely smears any one Justice or group of Justices as just being political hacks probably doesn't know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

yet you talk about political hacks.
so what is the job of the supreme court?

if you can answer it correctly when we will know if you understand what you are talking about.
if you acknowledge any other way when it comes to the supreme court then you don't know what you are talking about.

if the judges weren't inflecting their ideology into their decisions then it wouldn't have been a 4-4 split.
 
justabubba said:
no one/no organization is stealing money
every employee is on that union represented job of their own voilition
Click to expand...

It is not reasonable for any person or organization to unilaterally decide they are going to represent you and garnish money from you to do it whether you want them to or not. I cannot unilaterally decide that I am going to represent you on DP and bill your credit card every month for the privilege. Why should a union be permitted to do the same?
 
cpwill said:
Actually it is correct. You are conflating "nominal" representation with actual representation. Unions in these situations are not required to represent the interests, opinions, or beliefs of the membership. They simply have to say that they do.
Click to expand...
Well of course they dont have to. Addressed this here: Actually not really. In theory the union could just say **** it to the memberships interests, but that would bring about a lawsuit/decertification process

I would prefer not to - I could negotiate far better for myself than being tied to a seniority-based rules system that rewards meeting bare minimums for long periods of time.
Click to expand...
This kind of mindset is pretty funny. Because in right to work states those who work at workplaces represented by a union and are not paying dues hardly ever try to negotiate their own contract and always sign on to the union negotiated contract.

:lol: yeah. If the union I am forced to spend money on decides to come out against something I am for, I can bring about a lawsuit. Sure. :)
Click to expand...
See the decertification process https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-prot...am-represented-union/decertification-election and fair representation lawsuits http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/224


And they shouldn't have to pay either to that predatory organization.
Click to expand...
Ooooo predatory :lol:

If unions were so awesome, and their benefits so clear, then members would want to sign up, it wouldn't have to be coerced.
Click to expand...
Again, this is still how it works. No-one is forced to become a member.

Apple doesn't have to use the law to force people to buy iPhones. Why? Because they offer a good or service that is deemed to be worth the cost.
Click to expand...
Funny that you bring up Apple, I bet their factory workers wish they could organize a union.

Interestingly enough, in countries such as Germany, where they have national right-to-work, that's how it happens, and unions as a result are stronger because they have to be respondent to and representative of the interests of those whose money they need.
Click to expand...
Well you are essentially ignoring some various key variables between the German economic system/labor laws and the US economic system/labor laws.

" The German system is more democratic and far more respectful of worker rights. Instead of the relentless unionbusting and virulent anti-labor propaganda common in US industry, German labor law requires consultation and collaboration with workers in the Betriebsrat, or works council—people directly elected by the employees, blue-collar and white-collar alike. At a minimum, German workers are guaranteed a voice in corporate decision-making... A works council usually doesn’t have veto power over corporate decisions, but its objections can discourage policy ideas that workers think are wrongheaded. That sets the stage for ongoing consultations. In Germany, union representatives also sit on the powerful supervisory board that makes VW’s major decisions (a practice unheard of in US boardrooms)." http://www.thenation.com/article/can-germany-reform-american-labor-relations/

"Another and perhaps more powerful reason is that there is a constitutional amendment in Germany that forces corporate executives to listen to labor unions. The Works Constitution Act requires every factory to set up a works council that gives representatives of the workers a seat at the table in every decision-making process at the factory." http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25927-if-unions-are-breaking-automakers-why-are-bmw-and-mercedes-so-rich


If unions in this country were smart, they would be long-term greedy, and accept the cost of market discipline in return for future improvement and growth. But they aren't, and so they don't.
Click to expand...
The key difference between Germany and US is not "right to work" or "non right to work" its the actual legal and economical power unions and workers have in the workplace and the nation as whole.



 
cpwill said:
Sure. And money isn't fungible.
Click to expand...
Hmmm you should take a look at some LM-2 financial disclosure reports that detail all receipts and expenditures. Required that unions fill these reports out annually. Hey its all public record here: U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) - ONLINE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ROOM: Union Reports and Collective Bargaining Agreements

Also worth noting, monies sent to the RNC don't have to go to advertisement or campaigns - they can simply go (as do agency fees) to things like staff.
Click to expand...
Its a political party.

Exactly. Because they are being represented. And since Republicans in this hypothetical are representing Federal Employees, it only makes sense that they be allowed to take their money, with no recourse for the individual.
Click to expand...
Your hypothesis is plain silly and is no way related to the Freidrichs case. Good luck getting a political party qualified as a union. " (5) The term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work."

"(i) "Labor organization" means a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce and includes any organization of any kind, any agency, or employee representation committee, group, association, or plan so engaged in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment, and any conference, general committee, joint or system board, or joint council so engaged which is subordinate to a national or international labor organization, other than a State or local central body.
(j) A labor organization shall be deemed to be engaged in an industry affecting commerce if it -

1. is the certified representative of employees under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or the Railway Labor Act, as amended; or
2. although not certified, is a national or international labor organization or a local labor organization recognized or acting as the representative of employees of an employer or employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce; or
3. has chartered a local labor organization or subsidiary body which is representing or actively seeking to represent employees of employers within the meaning of paragraph (1) or (2); or
4. has been chartered by a labor organization representing or actively seeking to represent employees within the meaning of paragraph (1) or (2) as the local or subordinate body through which such employees may enjoy membership or become affiliated with such labor organization; or
5. is a conference, general committee, joint or system board, or joint council, subordinate to a national or international labor organization, which includes a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of any of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection, other than a State or local central body." U.S. Department of Labor — Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) — Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, As Amended
 
cpwill said:
Seeking power for it's own sake, holding up strength and power as a good in and of itself, seeking to expand the breadth and depth of control over individual lives by the government and its proxies.

Yes. All of these are destructive, liberal positions. It's why I'm #NeverHillary, and it's why I'm #NeverTrump.
Click to expand...

You know what you need?

20110107-073139.jpg


Stop by the Tavern on your way home.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Hmmm you should take a look at some LM-2 financial disclosure reports that detail all receipts and expenditures. Required that unions fill these reports out annually. Hey its all public record here: U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) - ONLINE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ROOM: Union Reports and Collective Bargaining Agreements
Click to expand...

Hey, look. You didn't respond, but diverted.

Its a political party.
Click to expand...

Sure. Who has non-political expenses, just as unions do.

But since money is fungible, money going to support the organization goes to support the organization.

Your hypothesis is plain silly and is no way related to the Freidrichs case. Good luck getting a political party qualified as a union.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to get them to be so. I'm pointing out that claiming that workers deserve to have money forcibly taken from them by anyone who claims to be "representing" them without their consent is crap, by pointing to an example that you would be apoplectic over.
 
MrT said:
This is a really interesting development. This case could have been one of the final nails in the labor/union movement that has already seen historic declines.

The United States was already moving in a liberal direction given the two time election of Obama, his efforts to expand the country in a liberal fashion, and the expansion of liberal interests through the Supreme Court (gay marriage, for example). The sudden death of Scalia and his eventual replacement by either Obama or a newly elected Democrat will help to ensure that change lasts for many years.
Click to expand...

It's really about the public sector unions, who in the case of California run the entire political process. They have the resources to finance a weak Republican candidate so he beats the strong candidate in the run off primary, so they can run against the weak Republican in the general election.

Every public union member donates to Obama, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation, BLM, George Soros, and everywhere else they put their members money and have no say about where it goes.
 
ocean515 said:
Indeed it is a win for labor. And the license to steal by the Public Employee Unions will remain in effect, much to the harm of the poor and other vulnerable state citizens who will suffer while the local and state governments continue to fill the union coffers and pension plans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but really, thats what you get for working for govt. Hopefully people will learn from this and quit.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Exactly right. Lindsey Graham got it right: "My party is bat(bleep!) crazy." The Republican Party seems to be trying very hard to lose the election, despite the chance they've been handed. They blew a good chance to win back in 2012 IMO as well. Had we elected Romney, Hillary would be home playing grandma, Sanders would be a relatively unknown senator from Vermont, the Democrats would be licking their wounds still, and Romney would be far and away the most likely winner.

IMO, that is.
Click to expand...

He got it right only if its all about winning. But once they win, what do they do? Basically the same as liberals. So whats the point in helping them win? Lets not forget what happened last time. Bush and Republicans grew spending, borrowed trillions, passed medicare part D, no child left behind, DHS, and tried to pass amnesty. One step forward, two steps back. Thats what you get with GOP.
 
CanadaJohn said:
As I noted previously, when Justice Scalia first passed - Republicans seem prepared to accept short term pain for long term gain. A Justice Garland would not have benefited the losing side in this case, at all. A Justice Garland would assure similar cases would be won by those opposed to Republican policy and principles.
Click to expand...

I think that is pretty much as it is.
 
cpwill said:
Hey, look. You didn't respond, but diverted.
Click to expand...
Actually not at all. My point in post #36 was "Agency fees dont go to PACS".
You quoted this in post #38 saying, "Sure. And money isn't fungible".
You seem to be implying here that agency fees cannot be tracked and cannot be seen where those funds collected go.
I am countering this point by saying, actually they can, just look at a LM-2 financial disclosure report. These reports detail all receipts and expenditures. You can find how many payers pay an agency fee and how many pay dues. You can then see where funds went and for what purpose.


Sure. Who has non-political expenses, just as unions do.
Click to expand...
In a separate account, AKA a PAC account. Simple thing is the Republican Party is not a labor union because it does not fit the legal definition of a labor union. Labor unions, just like anyone/anything else can essentially set up a PAC account if they want.

But since money is fungible, money going to support the organization goes to support the organization.
Click to expand...
Well of course. Agency fees go to services provided by labor unions during bargaining.

I'm not trying to get them to be so. I'm pointing out that claiming that workers deserve to have money forcibly taken from them by anyone who claims to be "representing" them without their consent is crap, by pointing to an example that you would be apoplectic over.
Click to expand...
See, the majority of workers voted to be apart of the union thus the union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for the workers. Under California law the union contracts must cover all members be them due paying members or not. However those non due paying members must pay a fee (agency fee) that covers the costs of negotiating the contract, administering it, grievance procedure, etc, all while not being due paying members. Essentially they are protected by the union but they are not members, thus creating a free rider problem. However none of these agency fees go to campaigning or lobbying. How is this a constitutional case? No one is precluding the right of workers to speak out publicly about their beliefs, if they dont want dues money going to political/lobbying activities simply have to opt out of paying dues by paying an agency fee.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I am countering this point by saying, actually they can, just look at a LM-2 financial disclosure report. These reports detail all receipts and expenditures. You can find how many payers pay an agency fee and how many pay dues. You can then see where funds went and for what purpose.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to an LM-2 for the California Teacher's Association? A search for this report yields no results on their website and the CTA isn't even an option for search on the Department of Labor's website.
 
cpwill said:
I would separate taxes from that category, but yes, I think that forcing people to pay dues to bloated unions when they don't want to is definitely a pretty egregious example of it, absolutely.
Click to expand...

The usual libertarian response to people who don't like their conditions of employment is "Find another job." Why is this different? :confused:
 
Ahlevah said:
The usual libertarian response to people who don't like their conditions of employment is "Find another job." Why is this different? :confused:
Click to expand...
Because now the Law is forcing a position, and it's with federal employees. The Federal Government is not other employers.

For example, I think employers should be free not to hire men (in fact, my local Hooters seems to have a suspicious missaportion among the wait staff). If you want to discriminate, that just makes you a moron. The GOVERNMENT, however, has no such right.
 
Ahlevah said:
The usual libertarian response to people who don't like their conditions of employment is "Find another job." Why is this different? :confused:
Click to expand...

That's not just "the usual libertarian response," that is the universal human response to any decision whether or not to buy or sell anything from anyone. Don't like the price they're asking? Find another buyer/seller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom