Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

  1. #41
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,848

    Re: Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

    Public sector unions are the last bastion of wedging the cost of labor against the recipient of those services, in this case wedging workers for the government against the tax payer.

    The issue of opt-in or opt-out for public sector unions 'indirectly' supporting a political ideology has become an epic mess.

    The intentions of collective bargaining in this case have obviously crossed swim lanes into political support for that bargaining, where control over extraction from the tax payer has more latitude for 'promise now and perhaps pay later' planning than the immediate impact to goods and services from private sector unions trying something similar.

    In today's context it is now nothing more than extortion of the tax payer as the position from public sector unions is a set of benefits and standards that have no equal application from the private sector now.

    This graphic, while a little aged, explains the story and what all the activity from unions to politicians then to now has really done...

    ED-AK923_1union_NS_20100202181620.gif

    There is no good answer here and Democrats especially will not politically allow for public sector unions to have their members be able to opt-out of that indirect support they tend to enjoy.
    "Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid." - Penn Jillette.

  2. #42
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,700

    Re: Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Public Employees should not have unions. "Government" should not be an interest group.
    Long-term, as actual labor becomes decreasingly necessary and valuable to get important things done, my biggest concern about enabling public sector unions is that they will just try to parasitize the basic transfer of money between the federal government and the people. There are already clues they're trying to do this when you look at how they've been trying to "unionize" home health aides who merely collect a little bit of CMS money to take care of an ailing relative, which is a cost-saving measure to prevent CMS from feeling obligated to pay for more expensive nursing and long-term care. Unions want people's receipt of money from government to make them de facto government employees which therefore entitles the union to a cut.

    So if Democrats and Big Labor got their way, eventually you could end up being a de facto "member" of the Social Security Recipients Union, where they take 3-5% of your SS checks. Or in 30 years we will have a Guaranteed Basic Income Recipients Union that will get its cut of every dollar transferred from the government to the people. As a Basic Income recipient, you'll be an "employee" of government's "job guarantee program" and unions would lobby government to keep the money flowing to them and call that lobbying "collective bargaining negotiation with government," and declare that as the justification for their cut. And with all of that money they will continue to become more and more political, as the main goal will be to continue the cycle of funds between their political party and themselves.

  3. #43
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    61,504

    Re: Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Long-term, as actual labor becomes decreasingly necessary and valuable to get important things done, my biggest concern about enabling public sector unions is that they will just try to parasitize the basic transfer of money between the federal government and the people. There are already clues they're trying to do this when you look at how they've been trying to "unionize" home health aides who merely collect a little bit of CMS money to take care of an ailing relative, which is a cost-saving measure to prevent CMS from feeling obligated to pay for more expensive nursing and long-term care. Unions want people's receipt of money from government to make them de facto government employees which therefore entitles the union to a cut.

    So if Democrats and Big Labor got their way, eventually you could end up being a de facto "member" of the Social Security Recipients Union, where they take 3-5% of your SS checks. Or in 30 years we will have a Guaranteed Basic Income Recipients Union that will get its cut of every dollar transferred from the government to the people. As a Basic Income recipient, you'll be an "employee" of government's "job guarantee program" and unions would lobby government to keep the money flowing to them and call that lobbying "collective bargaining negotiation with government," and declare that as the justification for their cut. And with all of that money they will continue to become more and more political, as the main goal will be to continue the cycle of funds between their political party and themselves.
    Oh damn. I did not even think of that. You are absolutely right - if they are willing to steal money from impoverished and disabled Medicaid recipients, they will absolutely go after the entire U.S. populace.

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,700

    Re: Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    Public sector unions are the last bastion of wedging the cost of labor against the recipient of those services, in this case wedging workers for the government against the tax payer.

    The issue of opt-in or opt-out for public sector unions 'indirectly' supporting a political ideology has become an epic mess.
    Point of clarification, the issue is opting in out of paying agency fees. You could always in theory opt out of full union membership, but previously could be forced to pay agency fees regardless (in lieu of dues). The distinction between “dues” (that members pay) and “agency fees” (that non-members used to have to pay) was name only.

    Now you (public sector employee) can’t be forced to pay anything, but unions are suing employers if they ask employees to sign new paycheck withholding consents (given their rights have changed).

    There is no good answer here and Democrats especially will not politically allow for public sector unions to have their members be able to opt-out of that indirect support they tend to enjoy.
    I think every leading (D) presidential candidate has said they would push for legislation that abolishes states’ right to work laws. This would only apply to the 27 states that have right to work laws, and it would only apply to the private sector, because right to work in the public sector is considered a constitutional freedom of speech issue. Pretty sure Congress couldn’t overrule the Supreme Court when it comes to that.

  5. #45
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,832

    Re: Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Recent story on which this topic is based, from my former home state: Gov. Dunleavy thrusts Alaska into a leading national role as he takes on union procedures

    Up until last year, public sector unions in non-Right-To-Work states pretty much forced new employees in union-represented jobs to sign withholding authorizations. These "dues authorizations" basically said "Whatever I am required to pay the union in order to be able to keep my job, I agree to have it withheld and sent to the union." If they didn't agree to this, they would have to independently send money separately to the union, or else the union would order the employer to fire the employee. That's what "union security agreements" are (or were).

    Then in June of 2017, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional for public sector employers and unions to do this. Specifically, it said:



    What Dunleavy and many other employers are starting to realize, is that the authorizations unions have strong-armed public employees into signing by threatening their firing if they don't (which prior to 2018 was legal), these consents really aren't valid anymore, because employees need to clearly, affirmatively and freely give consent to have money withheld from them to be sent to the union.

    Since the agency fee era (pre-2018) allowed employees to be strong-armed into signing these authorizations, Dunleavy and others say they need to get another chance to decide if they want their money withheld. So Dunleavy is requiring new consents that give employees a free and clear choice, and the unions are ready to fight to the death over it, because they don't want union-represented employees to have another shot at making a clear and free choice.

    Now that the law of the land has changed as it concerns withholding money from public employees, shouldn't public employees have to clearly opt in to having their money withheld and sent to unions? Shouldn't new consents have to be signed to express this free choice they didn't used to have?
    I taught in a public school for almost 30 years and never joined the union. I live in a right to work state. everyone should have that right.

  6. #46
    Guru bomberfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    12-14-19 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,233

    Re: Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I know, right? Gosh, it's almost as if having public sector unions allows state employees to abuse their power and act in horrific ways while avoiding responsibility for their actions.
    There is probably a higher chance of that happening though in a general sense i am not confident in agreeing with such sentiment.

  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,700

    Re: Shouldn't public employees have to OPT IN to have their money sent to unions?

    Brief update, here is a podcast with the Alaska Attorney General discussing this issue and the litigation going on about it. The DailySignal is not a good source but this is mostly just the AG talking.

    Starts at 7:08 - Podcast: Alaska Attorney General Talks Workers' Rights

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •