• 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!

Conservative US top court justices skeptical over union fees

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Except the individual really has no bargaining power unless the employer demand for his skill set is greater than the supply of other applicants.

When was the last time this has existed for the bulk of workers? Typically in a major World War, and even then only because so many men were in military service. Sometimes if your nation is the sole economic winner (like the U.S.A. in the 20 years immediately after WWII).

How much time (and debt) do you have to invest in an education (vocational or professional) to make yourself truly competitive in the job market? Someone an employer NEEDS rather than someone they have some minor use for as most workers deal with lately?

Unions have a lot of problems, typically because of the cronyism in the leadership ranks. But without them, most workers end up dealing with situations like Wal-Mart.

i am going to use generalities here....

because way too many people dont seek out skills that pay better

they take the easy road in school....

they take the easiest courses in high school, and or college

they refuse to work and go to school at the same time

and then they wonder why they are having trouble finding anything better than a $ 12.00 job

it doesnt really how smart....but it does matter how driven one is

what do they want....and what are they willing to do to get it....those are the ones that almost always succeed

i hire them every time i run across one....may be in home depot, or in a denny's....

but you can spot them a mile away....they take pride in what they do....they rush to help one customer after another

for you other managers/owners.....those are the superstars.....find them...hire them....teach them....hold onto them
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Enforced mediocrity is the mantra for a lot of unions.....
don't you dare do more than you are required to do, never speak ill of fellow members no matter how incompetent they are....
pay your dues and don't question the wanna-be mob bosses.

This reminds me of a day I helped out my service department by delivering a load of computers to a fortune 500 company plant. The people that worked there refused to let me unload the truck because it was too close to lunch hour and they didn't think they could complete it before lunch hour. So I unloaded the truck myself and had the lazy idiot sign the receipt a full 10 minutes before lunch hour. That was the day that I truly turned anti union. Employees should be interested in the well being of their employer. The union at this plant was clearly interested in something else.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

There are a good number of union employees who are Republicans and shouldn't be forced to pay for the biased left wing politics of the unions.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Sure they do. But.....

Historically government employees weren't paid as well as private sector employees but typically had job security and retirement benefits that many in the private sector didn't have as compensation for a smaller paycheck. That's no longer the case. Public employees are typically paid as well as those in the private sector while retaining their pension benefits and job security. If anything in the private sector pensions and security have gotten worse. In short government employees are typically very well compensated relative to the private sector these days.

I understand what you're saying about pension funds but you cannot deny that full retirement after 20 years with pensions based on the last 5 years of service salary with overtime - typical for NYC uniformed union employees (cops, fire and sanitation) - are overly generous and far outstrip what the private sector gets. My brother the retired cop started working 2 years after me and has been retired now 10 years, collecting a generous NYC pension and working a second career. He makes more now than he did as a cop.

Me? I'm still working and probably won't be able to retire for at least another decade.

You can't tell me that generous pensions like that don't exacerbate the municipal pension fund problems.

I agree.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Is that what you think unions really do? Fight the good fight against those evil Kochs? [...] Of all sectors of the economy, the most unionized are local government, then public education, then protective services (e.g. police and fire), then state government, then federal government, then utilities.

The only noteworthy and relevant thing that you point out is the timing.

Why, might we ask the logical question, did unionization suddenly change itself around 1980? Captain Adverse gives part of the answer, although it's pretty incomplete. Here's the rest of the story. Long story short, bad legislation was made earlier, corporations and businesses used lawyers to figure out how to abuse the law and have nearly destroyed unions in America.

Busting up unions was one of the most important aspects of the post-70's class warfare. It meant you now have extremely insecure workers (And indeed, Alan Greenspan gleefully discussed this in the 90's as being part of the success of his economic program).

Don't get me wrong. Unions have problems and can create problems. I don't like the fact the leaders act like the Soviet Comintern, or that seniority takes priority over quality, and they fight as hard to keep a crappy employee as a good one. I'm still willing to live with them to prevent Wal-Mart from becoming the new world order.

Again, my sentiments exactly. You know what's a sure good way to circumvent this? Worker guilds.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

The only that that gives the average worker power is to unite with other workers. By themselves, they are at a serious and extreme disadvantage in putting themselves against a large company.

A union is their only hope.
Right. That must be why 90+% of the American workforce is non-union
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Sure they do. But.....

Historically government employees weren't paid as well as private sector employees but typically had job security and retirement benefits that many in the private sector didn't have as compensation for a smaller paycheck. That's no longer the case. Public employees are typically paid as well as those in the private sector while retaining their pension benefits and job security. If anything in the private sector pensions and security have gotten worse. In short government employees are typically very well compensated relative to the private sector these days.

I understand what you're saying about pension funds but you cannot deny that full retirement after 20 years with pensions based on the last 5 years of service salary with overtime - typical for NYC uniformed union employees (cops, fire and sanitation) - are overly generous and far outstrip what the private sector gets. My brother the retired cop started working 2 years after me and has been retired now 10 years, collecting a generous NYC pension and working a second career. He makes more now than he did as a cop.

Me? I'm still working and probably won't be able to retire for at least another decade.

You can't tell me that generous pensions like that don't exacerbate the municipal pension fund problems.
Agreed, and States are going broke paying off their debt for union support, and screwing the future taxpayers. I have no issue with unions in general, but some are gold plated, beyond reason.
People live longer and the pensions payouts cannot be supported without drastic cuts to other Govt programs, or increases in taxes.

It is cases like this that upset people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/us/illinois-supreme-court-rejects-lawmakers-pension-overhaul.html

Different case
LePage dramatically reduces payments needed for pension, at a cost ? Politics ? Bangor Daily News ? BDN Maine
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Right. That must be why 90+% of the American workforce is non-union

That in no way shape or form refutes my statement.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

That in no way shape or form refutes my statement.

If unions are the 'only hope' why is it that you, and not 90+% of the American workforce think that? The fact is, unions are unnecessary and unwanted--except by people who still think its the 1930's and still view America as some Dickensian nightmare
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

This reminds me of a day I helped out my service department by delivering a load of computers to a fortune 500 company plant. The people that worked there refused to let me unload the truck because it was too close to lunch hour and they didn't think they could complete it before lunch hour. So I unloaded the truck myself and had the lazy idiot sign the receipt a full 10 minutes before lunch hour. That was the day that I truly turned anti union. Employees should be interested in the well being of their employer. The union at this plant was clearly interested in something else.

THis reminds me of what a cousin of mine described. He works in Vegas doing lighting and technical mostly at casinos.
So you have a show. Teamsters deliver the equipment. a labor union unloads the equipment, IBEW wires the electrical part of the equipment, IATSE operates the equipment. and none of them will overlap and do anything the other union does.

My own experience in CWA union of which I was in for about 4 years was mixed. What I didn't like was some of the leadership would strongly imply that if you might not get good representation if you did not donate to their political action committee fund. I did get representation when I was fired for dubious reasons. The representation started out pretty good but after 1.5 years of them representing me and them not getting any union dues from me the effort they put in waned. I did end up getting a settlement but I had to talk the union rep into even asking for it. he just wanted to give in to the company.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

And this one is going to hurt big time

Both Roberts and Kennedy appeared unsympathetic to the California Teachers Association's argument that non-members would become "free-riders" if not required to pay the fees to fund collective bargaining activities because they would benefit from collective bargaining without having to pay for it.

Kennedy said that non-members currently are "compelled riders" if they disagree with the union's stances on various issues. Roberts said the issue of "free-riders" was "insignificant."

The 10 teachers that filed the lawsuit in 2013 are asking the justices to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court ruling in the case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that allowed public sector unions to collect fees from workers who do not want representation as long as the money is not spent on political activities.

Conservative US top court justices skeptical over union fees

Conservative US top court justices skeptical over union fees - AOL

the 1977 rule was bad from go....

this will allow those who want to forego joining a union the complete right NOT to pay any fees....

about damn time
don't want to work in a union shop, don't apply there, simple as.....if you want the wages and benefits, and protections that the union has negotiated, pay up....don't want your dues going to pay for political activities? there are laws that allow you to opt out of that portion....nothing is free...you don't get to go into a fitness facility, and enjoy the equipment, or programs they offer, without being a member...you don't get your groceries, or gas for your vehicle for free...bottom line, you should not get the benefits the union has negotiated, or the pay, or the representation, without paying your dues.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

The only noteworthy and relevant thing that you point out is the timing.

Why, might we ask the logical question, did unionization suddenly change itself around 1980? Captain Adverse gives part of the answer, although it's pretty incomplete. Here's the rest of the story. Long story short, bad legislation was made earlier, corporations and businesses used lawyers to figure out how to abuse the law and have nearly destroyed unions in America.

Busting up unions was one of the most important aspects of the post-70's class warfare. It meant you now have extremely insecure workers (And indeed, Alan Greenspan gleefully discussed this in the 90's as being part of the success of his economic program).

None of this is relevant to your claim that unions are necessary to fight "the Kochs and their ilk." That's not what they're busy doing. They're busy organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

don't want to work in a union shop, don't apply there, simple as.....if you want the wages and benefits, and protections that the union has negotiated,

They don't. Some workers don't want anything from a union. They just want the freedom to sell their labor without being coerced into joining a cartel and sending them money.

nothing is free...

Not buying something is free. Some workers want to be able to sell their labor to buyers without being coerced to pay a third party they want nothing to do with. People don't want to buy a union's services or representation, hence they don't want those things from a union, but not wanting to be in or pay a union shouldn't deny them work opportunities.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

None of this is relevant to your claim that unions are necessary to fight "the Kochs and their ilk." That's not what they're busy doing. They're busy organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers.

Public service unions are not "organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers." They are organizing against the caprices of bought-and-paid-for politicians, and their transient policies enforced by their transient political appointees.

Or did you forget that every public service worker is ALSO a taxpayer??? There is no quid-pro-quo between government agencies when it comes to services provided. If you work in the unemployment dept. and go to the DMV, you don't get any special treatment. If you are a teacher and need a police officer, they don't respond any faster than they would for anyone else. They also pay the same tax rates as everyone else.

Public service employees also contribute to their pension funds like any other employee who has a pension fund. State governments abuse those funds, misusing them to pay for projects when taxes are insufficient. How would you like it if a private employer misused your pension funds?

Your animosity amazes me. Just how have you been hurt by public service unions?
 
Last edited:
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Public service unions are not "organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers."

That's who pays the bills, and that's who they're arguing aren't paying enough. The public is the employer in the public sector.

They are organizing against the caprices of bought-and-paid-for politicians, and their transient policies enforced by their transient political appointees.

Bull. They are the ones doing the buying-and-paying-for. "In a sense, we elect our own boss." - Victor Gotbaum

Or did you forget that every public service worker is ALSO a taxpayer???

I have seen this bull**** stupid comment more times than I can count from union ilk. A public employee that squeezes more out of the taxpayers gets all the benefit of that and a tiny fraction of the cost. So just pay public employees a million bucks a year, because after all, they are taxpayers too! Give me a ****ing break. Honestly.

I'm sure a Taco Bell cashier would have no problem with raising the food prices 300% in order to pay him a $3 million wage and benefit package, because hey, he eats there too!!!

Your animosity amazes me. Just how have you been hurt by public service unions?

I haven't been hurt personally by all sorts of things that are bad for society. Nonetheless I oppose things that are bad for society. Cartels and monopolies of all forms are bad for society. There is no justification for public sector unionism, especially when it so dramatically exceeds unionism in the private sector. FDR was right about public sector unions.
 
Last edited:
Re: Unions about to take another hit

None of this is relevant to your claim that unions are necessary to fight "the Kochs and their ilk." That's not what they're busy doing. They're busy organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers.

Insofar as the Koch's and the rest of their ilk are the same people who are fighting the labor movement, I consider that highly relevant. The only thing that removing public unions will do is decrease the quality of living of an addition group of Americans. All of the money saved (the tiny, irrelevant amount of money saved) will be converted into further tax cuts for the wealthy, so absolutely nothing positive will come of this to anyone who isn't wealthy.

The idea --the incredibly naive idea-- that it's the public unions that are bankrupting America is so laughably absurd upon even a cursory glance of the US budget, I don't feel the need even discuss the rest of your assertions.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Insofar as the Koch's and the rest of their ilk are the same people who are fighting the labor movement, I consider that highly relevant. The only thing that removing public unions will do is decrease the quality of living of an addition group of Americans.

Just pass a labor law standardizing and streamlining the things unions deceptively say they're assuring for public employees. Public employees can be fairly compensated and experience adequate working conditions without the public having to be subject to collective bargaining tactics.

The idea --the incredibly naive idea-- that it's the public unions that are bankrupting America is so laughably absurd upon even a cursory glance of the US budget, I don't feel the need even discuss the rest of your assertions.

Just because a current practice needs to be eliminated doesn't mean that it, by itself, is "bankrupting" the entire country. Regulations of many kinds are important. Antitrust regulations are important. Labor cartels should be excused from having to follow them.

I think intellectual property reform is needed for the same reason. Does that mean I think patent and copyright laws are "bankrupting America?" Why resort to such melodramatic language?
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

They don't. Some workers don't want anything from a union. They just want the freedom to sell their labor without being coerced into joining a cartel and sending them money.



Not buying something is free. Some workers want to be able to sell their labor to buyers without being coerced to pay a third party they want nothing to do with. People don't want to buy a union's services or representation, hence they don't want those things from a union, but not wanting to be in or pay a union shouldn't deny them work opportunities.
if it is a union shop, under federal law, the union must represent all those that work in the unit, whether they pay dues or not...this is wrong....if my union brothers and sisters are supposed to represent you, you can pay your dues....again, it is real simple, if you have a problem working in a unionized shop, find other employment in a shop that is not unionized, plenty of them out there....simple as.....
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

That's who pays the bills, and that's who they're arguing aren't paying enough. The public is the employer in the public sector.

Well then "boss," simply reduce the number and amount of public services demanded and your problem is solved.

Bull. They are the ones doing the buying-and-paying-for. "In a sense, we elect our own boss." - Victor Gotbaum

Oh, I see. Your claim that they are using union money on behalf of their membership to support union-friendly politicians is "bad." Of course the Koch's and their ilk using their money to support corporate friendly politicians, that's "good" politics. :roll:

I have seen this bull**** stupid comment more times than I can count from union ilk. A public employee that squeezes more out of the taxpayers gets all the benefit of that and a tiny fraction of the cost. So just pay public employees a million bucks a year, because after all, they are taxpayers too! Give me a ****ing break. Honestly.

So you return to rants and hyperbole? Hmm, would you prefer that their wages were reduced by the amount they pay in taxes in exchange for complete exemption from all taxation? :doh They ARE taxpayers, and they get no special treatment for being public employees.

I haven't been hurt personally by all sorts of things that are bad for society. Nonetheless I oppose things that are bad for society. Cartels and monopolies of all forms are bad for society. There is no justification for public sector unionism, especially when it so dramatically exceeds unionism in the private sector. FDR was right about public sector unions.

The reason why unionism has faltered in the private sector has been explained to you over and over. It's because we are no longer the prime industrial powerhouse we were in the 2 decades after the end of WWII. We only had that lead because the industry of every other competitor had either been destroyed or was miniscule in comparison. As soon as they resurged, the party was over here in the USA. Add to that the masses of cheap labor and lack of regulation in places like India, China, and Indonesia to name just the big three...and there you go.

So where do we see the struggle now? In the Private SERVICE sectors, where the mass of workers work for crap wages, part-time hours, with no benefits.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

if it is a union shop, under federal law, the union must represent all those that work in the unit, whether they pay dues or not...this is wrong....if my union brothers and sisters are supposed to represent you, you can pay your dues....again, it is real simple, if you have a problem working in a unionized shop, find other employment in a shop that is not unionized, plenty of them out there....simple as.....

Do you hold that equally true of society at large? That taxpayers alone deserve representation and access to public services? Your silly argument falls apart when your dopey all must pay equal dues (taxes?) or get the **** out is applied across the board.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Just pass a labor law standardizing and streamlining the things unions deceptively say they're assuring for public employees. Public employees can be fairly compensated and experience adequate working conditions without the public having to be subject to collective bargaining tactics.

Because the public labor management and private labor management are so different on this point? If a labor organization is not owned by the workers, then the organization is completely illegitimate, from my perspective, unless the workers have some form of ability to organize amongst themselves and an ability to seek redresses for their grievances.

Just because a current practice needs to be eliminated doesn't mean that it, by itself, is "bankrupting" the entire country. Regulations of many kinds are important. Antitrust regulations are important. [...] I think intellectual property reform is needed for the same reason. Does that mean I think patent and copyright laws are "bankrupting America?" Why resort to such melodramatic language?

We're in agreement on IP laws needing to be changed (although I'm not sure we'd agree on what the change was --a conversation for another day). However, the prototypical justification for breaking up unions is that they're doing damage to institutions, in this case the government.

If that's not your justification, then you may consider my statements inapplicable to you. With that said, we're still in disagreement over the legitimacy of any organization that doesn't allow the workers to organize and make the organization address their grievances. I don't make any distinction between privately-owned businesses or publicly-owned businesses in this regard.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

if it is a union shop, under federal law, the union must represent all those that work in the unit, whether they pay dues or not...this is wrong...

Damn right it's wrong, and I explained why it's wrong in another post. That aspect of the law needs to be changed. But unions don't want it to change. They would fight against changing it. Why? See below.

if my union brothers and sisters are supposed to represent you, you can pay your dues....again, it is real simple, if you have a problem working in a unionized shop, find other employment in a shop that is not unionized, plenty of them out there....simple as.....

This is why unions don't want this aspect of the law to be changed. It plays right into their hands so that they can use it as leverage to justify this "love it or leave it" coercive practice of forcing people to join their ranks in order to land jobs. It's a lot simpler to modify the law eliminating unions' requirement to do anything for non-paying individuals than it is to maintain a system of coercion that applies uniquely to labor cartels. It would be much easier to simply require union members to enter into contract with their own unions such that these terms are expressly laid out, and let employees agree to them and get benefits (that they pay for) or say no thanks and get no benefits (because they don't pay). The reason this is so easy is because it's how every other contract under the sun works. Unions will not tolerate it though, because then they lose the rationalization for their coercion.
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Do you hold that equally true of society at large? That taxpayers alone deserve representation and access to public services? Your silly argument falls apart when your dopey all must pay equal dues (taxes?) or get the **** out is applied across the board.
what I said stands....we are talking about a workplace....if that workplace is unionized, and my union brothers and sisters are expected to represent you, and you are going to get the same benefits , the same pay, you can at least pay the portion of your dues that cover the collective bargaining process...wanna opt out of the portion that is used in politics? fine....
 
Re: Unions about to take another hit

Oh, I see. Your claim that they are using union money on behalf of their membership to support union-friendly politicians is "bad."

Money taken by mandate is de facto tax money. The requirement to pay private sector insurance companies was ruled constitutional by declaring the penalty associated with not doing it to be a "taxing power." Money the government requires by rules be surrendered by people who don't want to engage in a trade is a de facto taxing power. Tax money is not allowed to be spent on politics. But other money that government requires one party surrender to another, can be? That's wrong. Money that law requires be taken from citizens is either a tax, or a tax by another name, and such money should not be able to be spent on politics.

Of course the Koch's and their ilk using their money to support corporate friendly politicians, that's "good" politics. :roll:

At least it's their money, which they did not take by force from anyone. That's what differentiates private money spent on politics (which is legal) from tax/public money being used on politics (which isn't).

The reason why unionism has faltered in the private sector has been explained to you over and over.

And no reason given, whether erroneous or not, for its faltering in the private sector provides additional support for why unionism should exist in the public sector.
 
Back
Top Bottom