Another win for the little guy!

[GMDino]

They can get all the benefits of the union without contributing to it.

Yay?

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/27/606208436/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-government-unions?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180627

Quote:In a blow to organized labor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government workers who choose not to join a union cannot be charged for the cost of collective bargaining.


The vote was a predictable 5-to-4 margin. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion with the court's conservatives joining him.

"Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities," Alito wrote. "We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

The decision reverses a four-decades-old precedent and upends laws in 22 states. It also comes on the last day of this Supreme Court term, the period on the final sentence of a chapter that began with the appointment of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and saw conservative wins in decision after decision. This term was also an affirmation of the risky political gambit played by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who denied even a confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama's pick for the court after Justice Antonin Scalia died.

The plaintiff in this case, Mark Janus, a child-support specialist for the state of Illinois, challenged a requirement that government workers who opt out of a union still have to pay partial dues to cover the union's cost of negotiation and other functions.

In 1977, the Supreme Court had drawn a distinction between such mandatory "agency fees" and other, voluntary union dues, which might be used for lobbying or other political activity.

POLITICS
Supreme Court Hears Fiery Arguments In Case That Could Gut Public Sector Unions

Wednesday's decision erases that distinction. The court's conservative wing found that negotiations by public sector unions are inherently political and nonmembers cannot be compelled to pay for them.

The high court heard a similar case in 2016, but deadlocked 4 to 4 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, giving public sector unions a two-year reprieve.

While the Obama administration sided with the union in that earlier case, the Trump administration backed Janus and his fellow union holdouts.

Wednesday's ruling is a victory for conservative activists who have been waging a multipronged battle against organized labor — and a potentially crippling blow for public sector unions.

"This case is yet another example of corporate interests using their power and influence to launch a political attack on working people and rig the rules of the economy in their own favor," Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, said in a statement when the case reached the high court.

Government workers have been a relative stronghold in an otherwise shrinking labor movement. More than a third of the public sector workforce is unionized, compared with less than 7 percent in the private sector.

A survey by the AFSCME — the union Janus would have to pay into — found that if agency fees were no longer mandatory, 15 percent of employees would stop paying them while 35 percent would continue to pay. The balance of workers were "on the fence."

More destruction of unions in favor of businesses.  The pendulum continues to swing away from the working man.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 11:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: They can get all the benefits of the union without contributing to it.

Yay?

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/27/606208436/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-government-unions?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180627



More destruction of unions in favor of businesses.  The pendulum continues to swing away from the working man.

Or in favor of someone forced to pay for something he/she does not want.  Being forced to pay for a union you don't want to be a part of seems as bad as not allowing people to organize.  

[*Nately120*]

If you don't want a union job can't you just get a different job? There are plenty of non-union jobs out there.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 12:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If you don't want a union job can't you just get a different job?  There are plenty of non-union jobs out there.

The union isn't the employer.  Make a law saying if you are not in the union you don't get to be part of the collective bargaining and have to fend for yourself.   

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 11:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Or in favor of someone forced to pay for something he/she does not want.  Being forced to pay for a union you don't want to be a part of seems as bad as not allowing people to organize.  

But they still get the benefits of the union.  Go get another job without a union.

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2018, 12:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: But they still get the benefits of the union.  Go get another job without a union.

That's what I was thinking.  A union that is optional doesn't unite the workers (for good or ill) and therefore isn't really a union.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 12:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: But they still get the benefits of the union.  Go get another job without a union.

That's not their fault. They work for their employer, not the union.  Forcing someone to be in a union is no better than not allowing them.  Like I said, make a law that leaves them on their own.  

[GMDino]

And in one tweet the POTUS shows he doesn't understand how unions work and says the GOP is against them.

Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2018

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 12:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If you don't want a union job can't you just get a different job?  There are plenty of non-union jobs out there.

Not in teaching. I opted out of the Ohio teacher's union, but am required to pay "fair share" which is supposed to be because I receive the benefit of collective bargaining.

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2018, 12:18 PM)Beaker Wrote: Not in teaching. I opted out of the Ohio teacher's union, but am required to pay "fair share" which is supposed to be because I receive the benefit of collective bargaining.

Seems like the perfect opportunity to work harder and get rich and then never have to worry about unions again.

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 12:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Seems like the perfect opportunity to work harder and get rich and then never have to worry about unions again.

I personally don't care for unions based upon personal experiences. And I consider myself a working man...except in summer.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 12:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: And in one tweet the POTUS shows he doesn't understand how unions work and says the GOP is against them.

Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2018

I'm shocked.  I don't really even care about the politics of who unions support, even though I guess that was part of the decision, I just think it's unfair to force someone to pay money to a third party when they get a job. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2018, 12:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: I personally don't care for unions based upon personal experiences. And I consider myself a working man...except in summer.

I've had two union jobs and I honestly can't recall any great highs nor lows about it.  Again, it seems like something that is real but also wildly fictionalized for profit (you know, like Bigfoot).

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 12:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm shocked.  I don't really even care about the politics of who unions support, even though I guess that was part of the decision, I just think it's unfair to force someone to pay money to a third party when they get a job. 

Then they don't get to do that job.

Well now they can.

And the Union will still stand up for the workers while some employees can say they don't want to financially support the group getting them better wages and protecting their jobs.

Someone also told me "life isn't always fair". I am not a huge fan of unions as much as I am a fan of having negotiations be fair and equal. As we have seen we can't rust most businesses to treat individuals fairly unions have been the best solution so far.  Had I stayed in radio I would have been forced to join a union.  That's not why I got out, but it would have been something I was not a fan of in order to continue my career.

That's life.

Or it was until now.

[Belsnickel]

Unfortunately, this is another major wound to unions in this country. It is unfortunate because a unionized workforce correlates to a stronger middle-class, so this will likely just be one more nail in the coffin of the working people in the US. This doesn't mean I disagree with the ruling, I think free association is an important right, it's just a matter of the difficulty in overcoming the free rider problem with labor organization and how to be effective moving forward. As a public employee in a state with no public sector union to represent us, I can tell you how much of the shaft we get.

Right-to-work laws, and this decision is in line with those, kill unions. They remove the ability to unionize from those that wish to do so because of that free rider problem. I only hope that recent teacher strikes can serve as an example to others that we can organize for our benefit without the structure of the union. I say this because I fear that with the death of unions, many of the things that they have gained for us over the decades may be the target of reversals as the elected officials that are supposed to be representing us more often represent the interests of corporations who see those improvements as being against their best interests.

[jj22]

I don't think it's fair to force someone to pay if they aren't apart of the Union. I don't know the whole argument tho. But on the surface, I don't think that's fair. Now they shouldn't benefit from the Union etc either. So hopefully they aren't trying to have their cake and eating it too. So when Union employees get raises, retirement benefits security etc.... Well, they are on their own.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then they don't get to do that job.

Well now they can.

And the Union will still stand up for the workers while some employees can say they don't want to financially support the group getting them better wages and protecting their jobs.

Someone also told me "life isn't always fair". I am not a huge fan of unions as much as I am a fan of having negotiations be fair and equal. As we have seen we can't rust most businesses to treat individuals fairly unions have been the best solution so far.  Had I stayed in radio I would have been forced to join a union.  That's not why I got out, but it would have been something I was not a fan of in order to continue my career.

That's life.

Or it was until now.

You say they don’t get that job as if unions are the ones hiring them.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Unfortunately, this is another major wound to unions in this country. It is unfortunate because a unionized workforce correlates to a stronger middle-class, so this will likely just be one more nail in the coffin of the working people in the US. This doesn't mean I disagree with the ruling, I think free association is an important right, it's just a matter of the difficulty in overcoming the free rider problem with labor organization and how to be effective moving forward. As a public employee in a state with no public sector union to represent us, I can tell you how much of the shaft we get.

Right-to-work laws, and this decision is in line with those, kill unions. They remove the ability to unionize from those that wish to do so because of that free rider problem. I only hope that recent teacher strikes can serve as an example to others that we can organize for our benefit without the structure of the union. I say this because I fear that with the death of unions, many of the things that they have gained for us over the decades may be the target of reversals as the elected officials that are supposed to be representing us more often represent the interests of corporations who see those improvements as being against their best interests.

I have no problem with disallowing free riders. They are on their own. You may even people not so quick to opt out.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-27-2018, 12:30 PM)jj22 Wrote: I don't think it's fair to force someone to pay if they aren't apart of the Union. I don't know the whole argument tho. But on the surface, I don't think that's fair. Now they shouldn't benefit from the Union etc either. So hopefully they aren't trying to have their cake and eating it too. So when Union employees get raises, retirement benefits security etc.... Well, they are on their own.

This.....but it won't go down that way.

This is more, in a long line of, wage suppression legislation.

[BmorePat87]

My employer isn't going to have a separate pay scale for non-union workers nor are they going to purchase alternative health care packages for those workers.