SCOTUS gets another one right.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-collect-mandatory-fees-from-non-members.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-collect-mandatory-fees-from-non-members.html
About damned time...Say "buh-bye" Public Sectior Unions
- Thread starter MarinePMI
- Start date
I realize conservative-minded people tend to hate unions, especially public sector unions...but nobody here likes "freeloaders", right? The people in this world who only "take" without contributing anything themselves?
That's exactly what union non-members are: freeloaders who now (in the public sector) won't contribute a single penny toward the cost of collective bargaining, yet stand to benefit from the compensation and benefits achieved via collective bargaining.
That's self-interested, welfare-level fuckery if I've ever seen it.
That's exactly what union non-members are: freeloaders who now (in the public sector) won't contribute a single penny toward the cost of collective bargaining, yet stand to benefit from the compensation and benefits achieved via collective bargaining.
That's self-interested, welfare-level fuckery if I've ever seen it.
I can see your point, but with this ruling, it just means the unions will now have to prove their worth, versus before, where there was no incentive to perform. Now the unions have to listen to the majority in the union, and decide when to step in politically, if at all, and risk offending or losing membership over a decision. It gets them more out of politics, and focused back on what they were there for, collective bargining for the group.
JMTCW...
JMTCW...
I feel you, but us non supporting union people now aren't forced to pay union dues that don't really benefit anyone.
Unions had their time and place, now we have labor laws that simply replace the need for unions. Unions often times breeds laziness!
This is the best news ever! Good bye unions.
Self correcting problem....without their extortion money, unions will have no motivation to exist in the public sector...
Maybe soon we’ll be able to fire all these leaches who show up and don’t work...and something will get done without union mandated breaks every hour
Mandatory public union fees are little more than forced campaign donations to the DNC.
You aint kidding.
and in return these unions have basically screwed over their membership with that support.
While the stewards and bosses rub elbows with the political elite those same pols are promoting open borders and H1B visas to replace their memberships with cheaper labor and more compliant voters.
actually that issue is a bipartisan problem as the elite entrenches and tries to replace Americans with others to better ensure their place at the slop trough.
This is HUUUUUGE! as Trump would say. Maybe now RBG or Kennedy will retire so trump can appoint another conservative like Gorsuch. These 5-4 decisions are getting old.
You can justify it anyway that helps you sleep at night, but if someone was taking part of my income BY FORCE and giving it to people who I believe are enemies of my Constitution and my liberty, I would be absolutely livid.
My professional organization has a PAC that gives money to political parties and politicians. It is almost exclusively to Democrats. They are 100% anti-business, and absolutely detrimental to our profession in every way, but they will vote the way we tell them to vote on individual bills we tell them to vote on, because they are bought and paid for, period. I don't give them one red cent. It's run by progressive imbesils who waste the money. Instead of voting for people who would vote for business and the economy because they believe in it, they pay money to socialists and communists to vote the way we tell them to vote. I HATE THEM!!!!!
I would be suing them and raising hell too if some unjust law allowed them to steal my earnings by force! FUCK THAT, AND FUCK ANYONE WHO EXCUSES OR CONDONES THAT THEFT! As it is I am free to criticize them and NOT give them one red cent.
You don't speak for all government employees. All they're asking is for the union to stop stealing from them and funding political ideology they disagree with. If any of your excuses had any merit they wouldn't need to take the money by force. The fact is that unlike all other unions, in a government union your goal is to sit on both sides of the table, negotiate with yourselves and fuck the tax payer. I wonder how much of your political PAC money went to Democrats who want to grow the government?
The prosecution rests.
Public sector unions should be illegal from the start.
It's simply 2 sides bargaining to see how they can best rip off the tax payers.
It's simply 2 sides bargaining to see how they can best rip off the tax payers.
Fig said:
Union PACs are funded by voluntary donations, NOT by dues or nonmember agency fees.
You are correct that I don't speak for all government employees; I speak only for myself. I also am not a government employee, nor am I a public sector union member.
I fully and completely understand the heartburn many feel if they think their union dues are going toward politicians and policies that run counter to their own opinions. I wouldn't want my hard-earned money being donated to politicians who run counter to my beliefs either. There are times, however, that a particular politician one doesn't agree with ideologically might be advocating for a specific policy that is in the best interest of you as an employee and union member. In those instances, I don't think it is unreasonable to provide support for that politician; that isn't the same thing as a carte blanche endorsement.
That doesn't change the basic reality that non-members who don't pay agency fees for collective bargaining efforts are freeloaders, getting all the benefits negotiated by the bargaining agent without contributing a cent to that end.
If somebody does not wish to be a member of their bargaining agent, and they don't wish to pay agency fees for bargaining efforts, they absolutely under no circumstances should be allowed to benefit from the compensation, work rules and benefits negotiated by the bargaining agent. THAT is my principle beef with this.
Unions "sell" a service. Over the past few decades, the union turned from servicing members to servicing the union leadership. The leadership and worthless employees became the freeloaders.
If unions want to become relevant again, they need to offer a better service to potential members.
If someone works in a field dominated by a union workforce, the non-union worker is likely going to get the same deal even though he chose to not be a union member. Is that necessarily a good thing for him? His compensation is being based on the performance of the union, not his value to the company.
It's about time after 40 long years that SCOTUS got this one correct!
So, just to be clear, you don’t believe union association should be voluntary? You believe it should be forced, and the dues confiscated?
I believe if you accept employment where union membership is mandatory (closed shop), you should be a damn man and take responsibility for your decision as nobody held a gun to your head and made you go work there.
I believe if you accept employment where union membership is optional (open shop or “right to work” state), you shouldn’t be a freeloader taking all the benefit of collective bargaining while accepting none of the cost. Pay your “fair share” for the work it took to negotiate the work rules, benefits and compensation you enjoy, because again, nobody held a gun to your head and made you go work there.
Accepting employment at an employer that has a union then bitching about “being forced into a union” is disengenuous snowflake horseshit. It is a free labor market which perhaps you’ve noticed has tightened recently; take your talent elsewhere if you aren’t willing to accept the terms that you already accepted...
Nothing is stopping an employer from having a two tiered compensation program. One for union members, and one for individuals.
so i have to limit my choices in employment because unions "got there first"??
i dont want your services.....im not going to pay for them......if they benefit me anyways, thats not my problem.
if i dont want to spray my yard for ticks......but my neighbor sprays his yard for ticks......and because im down wind, his tick spray gets in my yard......does he have a right to come over and demand payment?
im benefiting afterall.....but its not for a service i wanted or requested.
frankly ide slam the door in his face and tell him to screw.
I worked for many years at a company that did just that. I was management so I was not affected, but there were Union and non-Union employees and their benefits and wages were dealt with separately.
Interestingly, since the union wanted to play hard ball, the contract said that it was a clean slate every year. Ultimately, the regular non-Union people ended up with better benefits and pay scale than the union members. It seems that in this case the local union was more interested in the dues than in representing the rank and file.
Buh-bye...
Anyone who believes the union is looking out for the member probably still believes in Santa.
I’ll take that 2 tiered system every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I wish I could negotiate my salary based upon the differential between my performance and that sad sack union worker whose job is protected by tenure and not performance. As it is, i have to prove my worth, based upon performance, against a field of my peers...
I wish I could negotiate my salary based upon the differential between my performance and that sad sack union worker whose job is protected by tenure and not performance. As it is, i have to prove my worth, based upon performance, against a field of my peers...
Being angry about a non union employee getting the same benefits as a union guy is like being angry about someone else making more money than you. Everybody sits down at the negotiating table to agree on the terms of their employment with an employer and resposible for the outcome. Never been in a union and that was my choice with the consequences that came with it. I am responsible for my choices not someone else?
I completely agree with this. I've belonged to 2 unions and am currently in a non union shop but the same company has a union plant about 5 miles from it. We see most of the pay and benefits from this arrangement although I have no clue why it's setup that way. I laugh at all the people that say unions protect the worthless ones because I never once saw that in the 13 years I was a member. Now the place I'm at now bitches about the union plant and the way they protect employees but the only way they fire people is attendance. I've seen 2 fuck ups in a one week period that is about a 10k fuck up each time and the kids are still employed.
What benefits and bargaining has these unions done that a normal person coming into a job can't do?
Several of my facilities I oversee, I run Skilled Nursing Facilities, have unions. They aren't getting better benefits, more vacation, the best part the non union staff at other buildings make more money! Ha ha ha ha idiots. So honestly what good do they really do.
They don't increase your pay.. maybe they say that then the increase you got just went to your union dues, are you getting 1 more week of vacation, more sick days? Nada my man. Not happening there is no benefit. Oh it's harder to fire you, best part is the union doesn't help to find a replacement ... so then the people stuck have to work harder because they end up being short staffed. Ha ha ha ha
So in seriousness can you elaborate on what a Union does that isn't already offered to employees?
I worked under that. $12 an hour with no benefits (non-union) vs. $15 an hour with benefits (union total of $21.50 per hr.) to pour concrete all day. I don't miss that work at all, for any amount of pay. But, at that time my health insurance paid for my $10k kid who had to spend a week in intensive care. I worked for too many non-union companies who'd dump your ass in two seconds if they thought you were going to be on the "excessive cost" side of employees. Health insurance wasn't even an option with most of them. Even for the guys who'd been there a long time.
Work rules? I didn't see any individuals hammer them out. But, I do see individuals thinking they would always benefit if they "went it alone" because they are so valuable. Without an entity to actually have your back, you'll be out the door in two seconds if the company wants it so.
I find it interesting too, that Janus took this all the way to the Supreme Court over $550 a year. There's some backing money there, ya think? Maybe he's got some Koch up his nose. I think what this guy needs to be allowed to do at this point is, negotiate his own compensation package. If he doesn't get as much as the union people, so be it. He wanted to be on his own.
Unions raise wages for everyone in this country. They are not bad. They should be like the trade unions though. Where if you don't work, well you don't work. Unions have no place in Govt though. The manufacturing and service Unions have gotten out of control and this is just the pendulum swinging back the other way.
I agree with that.
What I find extremely interesting and telling is that those who are against public sector unions are making the distinction between different kinds of unions that the pro-union people are not. We are getting specific while those who want to defend it are happy to generalize between themselves, teachers unions, government workers unions, etc.
You would think that trade unionists or manufacturing unionists would not want to be tarred with the same contradictions and negative outcomes for the tax paying public that these public sector unions cause. I see this at the national level where, "A union is a union", kind of like in the teacher's union, "A teacher is a teacher"..., but it's not true.
The whole idea of a "closed shop" is ridiculous on it's face. Who determines this? The union, or the company who employs the union workers? If it's the latter I'm fine with it. We use all union contractors all the time, and when I talk to the owners they say they make more money with more highly skilled guys who know what they're doing than rolling the dice with guys off the street. I generally see the difference in quality with the finished product too. These are unions with apprenticeship programs and lots of training and mentoring. It works. It adds cost, but most of the time it's worth it for everyone, including the person who developing the property (the person paying everyone).
This can't be transferred to the public sector for so many glaring reasons that to compare the two is absurd, yet I see that happening all the time...
Why?
By trade I am a framer and now a commercial PM. Arizona is a right to work state so I am sure that my experience is much different than say another state on the east coast. I think that there was a time that unions had their place and that the apprentice/mentor programs had merit for educating those trying to learn a trade. For me it made no sense to pay union dues to learn skills that I could learn on the job. Perhaps I would have felt differently if the only way to get the job I wanted was to join a union but that was not my experience.
I can tell you that as a framing foreman, nobody wanted a union guy on their crew as they were lazy and unproductive with a ready complaint at every turn. Spin the clock forward to current day and there is no need for a union as the market along with current labor laws drives the bus for employee pay/benefits. The GC that I work for also has a concrete and masonry division with an ear to the ground for what the market is doing for wages/benefits lest they loose their top foreman to the competition. IMHO......unions have outlived their usefulness.
I can tell you that as a framing foreman, nobody wanted a union guy on their crew as they were lazy and unproductive with a ready complaint at every turn. Spin the clock forward to current day and there is no need for a union as the market along with current labor laws drives the bus for employee pay/benefits. The GC that I work for also has a concrete and masonry division with an ear to the ground for what the market is doing for wages/benefits lest they loose their top foreman to the competition. IMHO......unions have outlived their usefulness.
In my trade which is Air Conditioning the talent level of union labor far exceeds non-union. No doubt whatsoever. The pay far exceeds non-union too.
That being said long ago I bought a Residential non union company. I actually explored unionizing but I currently compete against all non union companies so I just can’t pay that much. I pay more than my competitors though.
If I had bought a commercial A/C company I would have taken it Union no doubt.
I have not been active for many many years. But I still pay my dues. I do that because I believe in what they do. I believe in Craftmanship.
That being said long ago I bought a Residential non union company. I actually explored unionizing but I currently compete against all non union companies so I just can’t pay that much. I pay more than my competitors though.
If I had bought a commercial A/C company I would have taken it Union no doubt.
I have not been active for many many years. But I still pay my dues. I do that because I believe in what they do. I believe in Craftmanship.
i agree with your take, but realize that there is a big, big difference between a union as a trade organization and a public sector unoin
My experiences with unions have all been negative. Refinery techs going home with no call mid-drive to reboot a router because they hit 40 hours kind of bullshit. Leaving the entire refinery network down.
Not responding to outage calls on the weekend because they weren’t required to. Keeping in mind the equipment being monitored has the capability to blow things up causing lots of monetary and environmental damage.
Then finally some of the contractors we use for comm work are union and some are not. The union ones tend to be far less efficient and far more concerned with the rules of break time than getting a job done. As well as generally being difficult to work with because it’s difficult to fire them. We have stopped using the union comm companies unless absolutely necessary because of this even tho the rates are comparable.
I guess I could see how in highly skilled trades it could be a positive thing, but would imagine a certification process could accomplish the same thing.
With all of that said, the hell with forced dues. Either be good enough to merit the membership or die off.
Not responding to outage calls on the weekend because they weren’t required to. Keeping in mind the equipment being monitored has the capability to blow things up causing lots of monetary and environmental damage.
Then finally some of the contractors we use for comm work are union and some are not. The union ones tend to be far less efficient and far more concerned with the rules of break time than getting a job done. As well as generally being difficult to work with because it’s difficult to fire them. We have stopped using the union comm companies unless absolutely necessary because of this even tho the rates are comparable.
I guess I could see how in highly skilled trades it could be a positive thing, but would imagine a certification process could accomplish the same thing.
With all of that said, the hell with forced dues. Either be good enough to merit the membership or die off.
As a lawyer I have to wholeheartedly agree. The argument by the plaintiff was spot on, his dues were being used for political purposes thereby denying him his freedom of speech. Lagan claiming after that the conservatives have started using the 1st amendment as a sword for political purposes is hog wash.
Unions may still have some use but not in any government business. They don't belong there when taxes are being used to pay them.
As for closed and open shops they still exist and closed shops can be pretty painful to deal with. I passed on a few jobs because I refused to join the union. Would still refuse now. Never worked in union shop as a non union member either and I can understand....a little, why it would upset some of you to have "freeloaders" working in your shop. I don't agree though. Every job I've ever had has been one where I negotiated my own setup so I alone was responsible for whatever I worked out. I didn't give a damn what others were making around me and I don't care if they did. Not their business.....
I used to argue with an uncle who was a union president about whether they were worth the cost. He seemed to think so but didn't like it when I pointed out the nice house, car and bank account he had compared to the average worker in the union he "worked" for. Not a big union and not mob controlled that I could see but even so the money seemed to go places the union members wouldn't have liked. Union hierarchy should be more like priests or monks who do the work to make sure the purpose is served rather then serving themselves. At least that is the case if they really care.....obviously it isn't the case. Unions are in the biz to make money, not to serve their members in many cases. As always its not true of all but is of many.
Frank
As for closed and open shops they still exist and closed shops can be pretty painful to deal with. I passed on a few jobs because I refused to join the union. Would still refuse now. Never worked in union shop as a non union member either and I can understand....a little, why it would upset some of you to have "freeloaders" working in your shop. I don't agree though. Every job I've ever had has been one where I negotiated my own setup so I alone was responsible for whatever I worked out. I didn't give a damn what others were making around me and I don't care if they did. Not their business.....
I used to argue with an uncle who was a union president about whether they were worth the cost. He seemed to think so but didn't like it when I pointed out the nice house, car and bank account he had compared to the average worker in the union he "worked" for. Not a big union and not mob controlled that I could see but even so the money seemed to go places the union members wouldn't have liked. Union hierarchy should be more like priests or monks who do the work to make sure the purpose is served rather then serving themselves. At least that is the case if they really care.....obviously it isn't the case. Unions are in the biz to make money, not to serve their members in many cases. As always its not true of all but is of many.
Frank
I think all of these Unions need to "Drain their Swamps" too.
Plenty of corruption going on.
Cleaned up a bunch they might register a GAF from me.
Plenty of corruption going on.
Cleaned up a bunch they might register a GAF from me.
The unions bargain with the elected officials they politically support, until now at the forced funding of the workers and the taxpayers. That is corruption at its worst. In any other industry, it would bring racketeering and bribery charges. For any other class of non for profit, it would cause a loss of their status.
Private sector, unionize all you want, the government should stay the fuck out of it as that is the conservative way. Don't want to be a member of a union, don't apply for that job. Don't want to support union businesses, don't buy their products. The opposite applies as well.
Public sector, the citizen is not being best served by their government with a unionized public workforce. The elected governments have no obligation to their workers, they only have an obligation to their citizens. If a government is failing to serve their citizens by having an insufficient workforce, they are voted out of office and replaced by those who will. It's a self correcting problem. If someone wants to serve their community by working for their government but don't want to join or fund a union, they should not be obligated to pay to an organization they are opposed to. I'm glad SCOTUS saw it that way.
I wonder what portion of the national debt is due to collective bargaining causing payments being far over market value...
Private sector, unionize all you want, the government should stay the fuck out of it as that is the conservative way. Don't want to be a member of a union, don't apply for that job. Don't want to support union businesses, don't buy their products. The opposite applies as well.
Public sector, the citizen is not being best served by their government with a unionized public workforce. The elected governments have no obligation to their workers, they only have an obligation to their citizens. If a government is failing to serve their citizens by having an insufficient workforce, they are voted out of office and replaced by those who will. It's a self correcting problem. If someone wants to serve their community by working for their government but don't want to join or fund a union, they should not be obligated to pay to an organization they are opposed to. I'm glad SCOTUS saw it that way.
I wonder what portion of the national debt is due to collective bargaining causing payments being far over market value...
Similar threads
