• 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!

New union dues case on its way to SCOTUS for tie-breaker decision

Neomalthusian

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,821
Reaction score
3,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
New high court challenge to labor unions follows 4-4 split - CBS News

WASHINGTON - Conservative groups are wasting little time in trying to deal a crippling blow to labor unions now that Justice Neil Gorsuch has joined the Supreme Court.

A First Amendment clash over public sector unions left the justices deadlocked last year after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But union opponents have quickly steered a new case through federal courts in Illinois and they plan to appeal it to the high court on Tuesday.​
 
I would rule that dues cannot be used for political activities period.
 
I would rule that dues cannot be used for political activities period.

That is already the case. There are two types of money collected by unions, 1) voluntary political action committee contributions, and 2) financial core dues.

What this case would do is eliminate government unions' ability to coerce "union security clauses" into their bargaining agreements that allow them to order employers to fire people who aren't paying financial core dues.
 
Public sector unions should not exist... at all...

Private sector unions... of course should...
 
Public sector unions should not exist... at all...

Private sector unions... of course should...

Why should one group of workers be treated different than any other group of workers?
 
Why should one group of workers be treated different than any other group of workers?

Because the public sector is different from the private sector in very important ways.

But if you'd like, I would actually go ahead and disagree with celticwar17 and say that private sector unions shouldn't exist either.
 
Why should one group of workers be treated different than any other group of workers?

Because on group of workers are under the employ of the federal government and another group of employees are not.
 
Because the public sector is different from the private sector in very important ways.

Next question.

An overwhelming number of public sector workers are just common folks just like plumbers, electricians, etc. so why should they be stuck with a different level of protection?
 
Why should one group of workers be treated different than any other group of workers?

Because the public sector is not profit based. There is a balance in power in the private sector... the limiting factor of compensation is profit. The government funds are unlimited and have unlimited potential for corruption and bloat. If you want to negotiate wages for public sector jobs, contact your local congressmen.

All people though, do have the right to protest... so if the definition of Union to you is a unified protest... then sure there can be public sector "unions"... but no dues should be legal, and you can not hire or fire someone on the basis of participating in a "union" or not,and they would not legally be able to use money on behalf of the Union in government, they would have to organize like any other citizen would have to with political activism... no special treatment.
 
An overwhelming number of public sector workers are just common folks just like plumbers, electricians, etc.

An overwhelming number of everyone are common folks. This observation has no bearing on anything.

so why should they be stuck with a different level of protection?

They shouldn't. Just pass a law that establishes whatever worker protections we agree should exist. No need for third party labor cartels. Government has the lawmaking power.
 
That is already the case. There are two types of money collected by unions, 1) voluntary political action committee contributions, and 2) financial core dues.

What this case would do is eliminate government unions' ability to coerce "union security clauses" into their bargaining agreements that allow them to order employers to fire people who aren't paying financial core dues.

Again, I would not allow them to collect any political money as that would be a political activity that I have already indicated I oppose. If member want to contribute to a PAC, let them write the check themselves.
 
The government already has a pretty strict set of rules regarding employee rights.

Because the public sector is not profit based. There is a balance in power in the private sector... the limiting factor of compensation is profit. The government funds are unlimited and have unlimited potential for corruption and bloat. If you want to negotiate wages for public sector jobs, contact your local congressmen.

All people though, do have the right to protest... so if the definition of Union to you is a unified protest... then sure there can be public sector "unions"... but no dues should be legal, and you can not hire or fire someone on the basis of participating in a "union" or not,and they would not legally be able to use money on behalf of the Union in government, they would have to organize like any other citizen would have to with political activism... no special treatment.

While I will grant you that an employee in the public sector is less likely to require the assistance a union can provide there are those here who think the government is the most corrupt of all employers.

An overwhelming number of everyone are common folks. This observation has no bearing on anything.

Sure it does. There is no reason why Joe, an electrician for the City Of Fresno, should have a lower level of protection than Bob, a plumber working in Fresno.

They shouldn't. Just pass a law that establishes whatever worker protections we agree should exist. No need for third party labor cartels. Government has the lawmaking power.

Sure they do and we have seen in the past where public sector workers felt the need of a union to correct what they felt were injustices in their working environment.
 
Again, I would not allow them to collect any political money as that would be a political activity that I have already indicated I oppose. If member want to contribute to a PAC, let them write the check themselves.

That ship sailed with Citizens United. Preventing uniion political activities is a clear violation of the First Amendment as the modern court has interpreted it. Seems Corporate America wants it both ways against their workers.
 
New high court challenge to labor unions follows 4-4 split - CBS News

WASHINGTON - Conservative groups are wasting little time in trying to deal a crippling blow to labor unions now that Justice Neil Gorsuch has joined the Supreme Court.

A First Amendment clash over public sector unions left the justices deadlocked last year after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But union opponents have quickly steered a new case through federal courts in Illinois and they plan to appeal it to the high court on Tuesday.​
I agree with the conservatives on this one.

Guy does not belong to the union, does not want to belong to the union, hates the ****ing union, but the union demands he pay fees to the union. wtf? No wonder he's suing.
 
Why should one group of workers be treated different than any other group of workers?

Because one of those groups of workers gets to elect their boss.
 
Again, I would not allow them to collect any political money as that would be a political activity that I have already indicated I oppose. If member want to contribute to a PAC, let them write the check themselves.

Kind of a technicality that they can send their own money but their employer can't deduct it and send it on their behalf given those employers have to deduct and send other money anyway. But ok.

While I will grant you that an employee in the public sector is less likely to require the assistance a union can provide there are those here who think the government is the most corrupt of all employers.

Well when it comes to government employees hiring other government employees, they are wrong. Some people think they are Jesus Christ, and they're wrong too. People sometimes believe things that are wrong. There is no profit motive for government managers to exploit government workers, so some people's antipathy for government in general doesn't justify government unions. The government itself has lawmaking power, so there is no coherent need for a union to exist here.

Sure it does. There is no reason why Joe, an electrician for the City Of Fresno, should have a lower level of protection than Bob, a plumber working in Fresno.

This court case isn't about "protection." It's about unions being able to slip union shop security clauses into their contracts that Taft-Hartley was intended to prohibit. There is no reason unions can't negotiate members-only contracts, so the 1977 SCOTUS case that let public unions continue extorting dues out of people who don't want to be in the union needs to be overturned. This just eliminates the union security clause problem, and eliminates the union practice of coercing people who want a job to join the union's financial core membership and pay dues.

Sure they do and we have seen in the past where public sector workers felt the need of a union to correct what they felt were injustices in their working environment.

It doesn't matter that people have felt that they needed a union, this issue is about unions being able to coerce dues out of people who want nothing to do with a union, or coerce security clauses into their bargaining agreements to make employers do the union's financial bidding and enforcement.
 
Well when it comes to government employees hiring other government employees, they are wrong. Some people think they are Jesus Christ, and they're wrong too. People sometimes believe things that are wrong. There is no profit motive for government managers to exploit government workers, so some people's antipathy for government in general doesn't justify government unions. The government itself has lawmaking power, so there is no coherent need for a union to exist here.

And yet many times in history that has happened.

This court case isn't about "protection." It's about unions being able to slip union shop security clauses into their contracts that Taft-Hartley was intended to prohibit. There is no reason unions can't negotiate members-only contracts, so the 1977 SCOTUS case that let public unions continue extorting dues out of people who don't want to be in the union needs to be overturned. This just eliminates the union security clause problem, and eliminates the union practice of coercing people who want a job to join the union's financial core membership and pay dues.

I wasn't responding to your OP, I was responding to a statement from celticwar17 then you and others commented as well.

It doesn't matter that people have felt that they needed a union, this issue is about unions being able to coerce dues out of people who want nothing to do with a union, or coerce security clauses into their bargaining agreements to make employers do the union's financial bidding and enforcement.

You and others have come no closer to a legitimate reason why one citizen should be allowed a different level of protection over another regardless of who they work for.
 
Because the public sector is different from the private sector in very important ways.

But if you'd like, I would actually go ahead and disagree with celticwar17 and say that private sector unions shouldn't exist either.

I've seen what happens where there's no union influence. It ain't pretty.
 
Why should one group of workers be treated different than any other group of workers?

Because public unions deal with government employees who have no stake in negotiations.
 
Because public unions deal with government employees who have no stake in negotiations.

Not entirely true at least on the local/state level as there are elected official(s) representing the taxpayer's interest in negotiations.
 
Not entirely true at least on the local/state level as there are elected official(s) representing the taxpayer's interest in negotiations.

Yep, and they set the labor budget not the "civil servants" who are both voters and workers.
 
Back
Top Bottom