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

[Winchester]

No. Their agency's labor budget is fixed by the government. Who, exactly, would they be negotiating with?

The labor budget isn't "fixed" on the state and local level and labor certainly can negotiate during the budgeting process.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The labor budget isn't "fixed" on the state and local level and labor certainly can negotiate during the budgeting process.

Kind of a raw deal for the taxpayers since they are forced to fund both sides of the "negotiation".

 

[Winchester]

Kind of a raw deal for the taxpayers since they are forced to fund both sides of the "negotiation".

Corporations hire CEO's to negotiate with labor on behalf of the shareholders. How is it any different for taxpayers to elect mayors, city councils, county commissioners and school boards to negotiate on their behalf?

 

[backpacker]

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.

Maybe maybe not. Law ebbs and flows.

 

[natsb]

Irrelevant.

Of course it is relevant. Are you suggesting that if candidate one promises the union everything they want and more, while candidate two promises to reduce their bargaining power, it will have no impact on who the Union wants as their boss? And therefore, who they will vote for in an election.

 

[azgreg]

Of course it is relevant. Are you suggesting that if candidate one promises the union everything they want and more, while candidate two promises to reduce their bargaining power, it will have no impact on who the Union wants as their boss? And therefore, who they will vote for in an election.

No it isn't. Nothing said in this thread has convinced my why one citizen should be afforded the protections and representation that a union can provide while another citizen shouldn't.

 

[fmw]

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

More than entirely true. Politicians spend other people's money. They aren't responsible for the the results of a negotiation. I might accept a panel of taxpayers. Otherwise public unions should be buried.

 

[Winchester]

More than entirely true. Politicians spend other people's money. They aren't responsible for the the results of a negotiation. I might accept a panel of taxpayers. Otherwise public unions should be buried.

The elected officials are taxpayers, hell our town council and school board are unpaid. Now I will grant you elected officials who get paid do like to vote themselves raises. Our mayor and all 3 county commissioners are shameless (all Republican's I might add) when doing this.

 

[fmw]

The elected officials are taxpayers, hell our town council and school board are unpaid. Now I will grant you elected officials who get paid do like to vote themselves raises. Our mayor and all 3 county commissioners are shameless (all Republican's I might add) when doing this.

Irrelevant. Then perhaps the better approach would be to bury the public unions.

 

[natsb]

No it isn't. Nothing said in this thread has convinced my why one citizen should be afforded the protections and representation that a union can provide while another citizen shouldn't.

Well, convincing you is certainly not a litmus test for right versus wrong. It is simply a demonstration of your unfettered bias. What each citizen does for a living matters. This is far from a one size fits all issue. Surely, even on your most biased day, you must see some difference between the US Army, and a bunch of auto workers going on strike.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Corporations hire CEO's to negotiate with labor on behalf of the shareholders. How is it any different for taxpayers to elect mayors, city councils, county commissioners and school boards to negotiate on their behalf?

Nobody is forced to do business with or buy stock in a corporation that they do not wish to patronize.

 

[azgreg]

Well, convincing you is certainly not a litmus test for right versus wrong. It is simply a demonstration of your unfettered bias. What each citizen does for a living matters. This is far from a one size fits all issue. Surely, even on your most biased day, you must see some difference between the US Army, and a bunch of auto workers going on strike.

No. Using your train of thought anybody receiving benefits shouldn't be allowed to vote and that's horse ****. No citizen should be afforded a different level of protection from their employer than any other citizen regardless of where they work or for who.

 

[danarhea]

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.

I agree with that, but at the same time, corporations should not be allowed to buy influence either.

 

[natsb]

No. Using your train of thought anybody receiving benefits shouldn't be allowed to vote and that's horse ****. No citizen should be afforded a different level of protection from their employer than any other citizen regardless of where they work or for who.

Vote??? Wow, your struggle to move the goal post has become too much of a strain. I'll give you a rest and hope you get better.

 

[azgreg]

Vote??? Wow, your struggle to move the goal post has become too much of a strain. I'll give you a rest and hope you get better.

You brought it up first in post #30.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Because on group of workers are under the employ of the federal government and another group of employees are not.

So one group is less deserving of rights than another?

 

[Neomalthusian]

And yet many times in history that has happened.

Bull. Just pass a law that says public sector employees who are managers of other public sector employees shall not exploit their public sector employees. There is no need for a government union in any scenario.

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.

There shouldn't be a difference. No employee should have a union that collectively bargains.

The reasons are entirely legitimate and obvious: because the employee is offered a wage, benefits, and policy that governs the employment before she or he decides to accept the job. The terms and conditions are explicit, written, read, understood, and signed by the employee and employer as agreeable before employment begins. If one employee/employer agree to x, y and z, and another employee and employer agree to a, b, and c, that's fine. They agreed to different things, so they get different things.

There is nothing relevant in this context to "protection." The sale of services is inherently contractual, and contracts have terms and conditions that are known in advance before signing on the dotted line agreeing to those terms and conditions.

 

[Neomalthusian]

So one group is less deserving of rights than another?

Nothing in this topic is about "rights."

No it isn't. Nothing said in this thread has convinced my why one citizen should be afforded the protections and representation that a union can provide while another citizen shouldn't.

No one should be afforded the privilege of belonging to a labor cartel, i.e. labor unions should be just as illegal as any other cartel is, pursuant to antitrust laws.

But to more directly answer your question, again, the reason different citizens are afforded different terms in their respective contracts is because contracts differ. There is nothing wrong with the fact that different contracts for different types of services between different buyers and sellers should somehow all be the same. And even where unionism is rampant, they already aren't the same.

 

[azgreg]

Bull. Just pass a law that says public sector employees who are managers of other public sector employees shall not exploit their public sector employees. There is no need for a government union in any scenario.



There shouldn't be a difference. No employee should have a union that collectively bargains.

The reasons are entirely legitimate and obvious: because the employee is offered a wage, benefits, and policy that governs the employment before she or he decides to accept the job. The terms and conditions are explicit, written, read, understood, and signed by the employee and employer as agreeable before employment begins. If one employee/employer agree to x, y and z, and another employee and employer agree to a, b, and c, that's fine. They agreed to different things, so they get different things.

There is nothing relevant in this context to "protection." The sale of services is inherently contractual, and contracts have terms and conditions that are known in advance before signing on the dotted line agreeing to those terms and conditions.

Keep in mind that at no time in this thread have I argued for or against unions at all. My only argument is if a union is to be allowed for private sector employees it should also be allowed for public sector employees.

In a perfect world there wouldn't be a need for anybody to look out for workers. However, that utopia doesn't exist.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I've seen what happens where there's no union influence. It ain't pretty.

Pass a law establishing the compensation and working conditions the people agree should exist for public sector employees. It's easy when government has lawmaking power.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Nothing in this topic is about "rights."



No one should be afforded the privilege of belonging to a labor cartel, i.e. labor unions should be just as illegal as any other cartel is, pursuant to antitrust laws.

But to more directly answer your question, again, the reason different citizens are afforded different terms in their respective contracts is because contracts differ. There is nothing wrong with the fact that different contracts for different types of services between different buyers and sellers should somehow all be the same. And even where unionism is rampant, they already aren't the same.

The right to a fair return for your labour is Biblical.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Keep in mind that at no time in this thread have I argued for or against unions at all. My only argument is if a union is to be allowed for private sector employees it should also be allowed for public sector employees.

It shouldn't be "allowed" for anyone, so to that end I disagree with whoever said private sector unions should exist.

In a perfect world there wouldn't be a need for anybody to look out for workers. However, that utopia doesn't exist.

I agree, therefore government agencies funded by taxpayers should look out for workers.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The right to a fair return for your labour is Biblical.

No one has a right, "biblical" or otherwise, to force a buyer to accept your price.

 

[ocean515]

So one group is less deserving of rights than another?

LOL

Cute appeal to emotion. However, that is not the issue.

Public sector employees are paid by taxpayers. There is no skin in the game. They don't care about the long term.

For example, California is heading for economic disaster because of the actions of public sector unions, and the actions of state legislators who have received massive contributions from those unions in return for legislation and regulations that favor them.

Private sector unions can put their employers out of business, so there is some degree of incentive to maintain some degree of objectivity during contract bargaining discussions.

 

[azgreg]

It shouldn't be "allowed" for anyone, so to that end I disagree with whoever said private sector unions should exist.

What do you have against the constitution?

I agree, therefore government agencies funded by taxpayers should look out for workers.

Sure, however there are those who believe that the government doesn't have the ability to properly place a stop sign much less look out for it's population.