SCOTUS Rules Non-Union Workers Can't Be Forced To Pay Union Dues

[Revoltingest]

I have no problem with allowing a worker to opt out of joining a union, especially if that Union helps fund things they find objectionable. (I'm a freedom kind of guy). At the same time the worker who opts out of the Union should not expect to receive Union benefits.

And the union needn't offer them.
It seems a fair trade off.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, One "bub" is plenty for this forum. You two are gonna have to decide amongst yourselves as to who gets to retain that title.

He gets to keep it, since it was his first.
I could be "buster".

 

[David1967]

Republicans attacking middle class workers again? Derped.

Really?? Not again. Evil GOP.

 

[PureX]

In the news....
Supreme Court ruling deals major blow to public worker unions

It's interesting how NBC spins the title....
Instead of a victory for non-union worker rights,
it's a blow to unions. It could've been reported
upon neutrally, but...agenda, you know.

This is one of those incredibly stupid things we do in the U.S. that people think it's inevitable, like weather. That is labor unions.

If our form of government was not so idiotically slanted in favor of the wealthy elites and instead offered good representation to the working classes, we wouldn't even need labor unions. But because our government is so slanted in favor of the wealthy elites and ignores the well-being of the working class, workers were forced to create labor unions and to fight to protect and maintain them, to gain any voice in government or commerce at all. So squabbling over union dues is really just a silly waste of time, since it avoids and distracts us from the fundamental problem of there being far too much representation for the wealthy elites and the investor class, and too little for the working class.

We do the same thing with the insanely stupid health care mess in this country, where we have employers providing health insurance as part of their "pay". And then we squabble over what to do with all those who are being left out. When we should be addressing the complete idiocy of ever having connected people health care to their employment in the first place.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is one of those incredibly stupid things we do in the U.S. that people think it's inevitable, like weather. That is labor unions.

If our form of government was not so idiotically slanted in favor of the wealthy elites and instead offered good representation to the working classes, we wouldn't even need labor unions. But because our government is so slanted in favor of the wealthy elites and ignores the well-being of the working class, workers were forced to create labor unions and to fight to protect and maintain them, to gain any voice in government or commerce at all. So squabbling over union dues is really just a silly waste of time, since it avoids and distracts us from the fundamental problem of there being far too much representation for the wealthy elites and the investor class, and too little for the working class.

We do the same thing with the insanely stupid health care mess in this country, where we have employers providing health insurance as part of their "pay". And then we squabble over what to do with all those who are being left out. When we should be addressing the complete idiocy of ever having connected people health care to their employment in the first place.

As an employer (before getting rid of all employees), I certainly never
wanted to take on the complexity of providing health insurance, withholding
& paying their taxes, or garnishing their wages for this or that legal loss.
I never expected to become their nanny.
That's government's job.

 

[Quetzal]

In the news....
Supreme Court ruling deals major blow to public worker unions

It's interesting how NBC spins the title....
Instead of a victory for non-union worker rights,
it's a blow to unions. It could've been reported
upon neutrally, but...agenda, you know.

Wait a minute, non union workers... were paying union fees? That doesn't make sense.... does it?

 

[David1967]

They can bargain on their own.
Perhaps they'll do even better, eh.
In my experience, non-union workers are more productive.

True story. Had a truck deliver some products to my store couple years ago. Wasn't UPS, or FEDEX. They always unload the product and bring them into the store. This guy (wasn't familiar with the trucking company) came in the store and said that I had to unload the truck. I asked why and he said their union said he didn't have to. I don't know if he was telling the truth or was just too lazy to unload. ( I suspect the latter) I promptly called the company and said to never to use that freight company again to ship to my store.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait a minute, non union workers... were paying union fees? That doesn't make sense.... does it?

It makes sense under the 1977 ruling, which excluded political activity.
They only had to pay a portion which benefited them.

 

[Revoltingest]

True story. Had a truck deliver some products to my store couple years ago. Wasn't UPS, or FEDEX. They always unload the product and bring them into the store. This guy (wasn't familiar with the trucking company) came in the store and said that I had to unload the truck. I asked why and he said their union said he didn't have to. I don't know if he was telling the truth or was just too lazy to unload. ( I suspect the latter) I promptly called the company and said to never to use that freight company again to ship to my store.

 

[David1967]

That was them.

 

[Shad]

Good ruling. Unions should have set the condition with the employer that all employees must join the union as part of the employment contract.

 

[Revoltingest]

That was them.

Most of my engineering career, I worked as an outside contractor (aka "job shopper").
While at GM Truck & Bus in the early 80s, I designed a new kind of air brake control
system. We needed a mock-up to demonstrate the concept, so employees at another
plant (#13) were assigned to build it for me. The first thing my boss told me before
going there was that I wasn't permitted to wake anyone up. Go figure.

 

[Wu Wei]

well speaking as a Government worker with over 20 years in, who is also a Union member.... I just hope my pension survives this...... and the next contract negotiations should be interesting......I'm guessing any promotions an raises are out of the question for the rest of my tenure in government service.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's the way it was under the 1977 USSC ruling.
The justices saw a difference regarding government workers (not private sector workers?).
From the linked article....
""States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees," Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion for the court's five conservative justices.

I wager that the cost of bargaining is minimal compared to dues.

It appears that the ruling only applies to public sector workers because
union bargaining affects government, & is therefor political in nature.
I'd think that fans of government wouldn't see a need for strong unions
to fight with the very organization they trust (unlike businesses).

As I read news coverage of the ruling, it wouldn't change things for
private sector unions. Thoughts on this?

I missed that pretty important distinction, actually. I'm glad you pointed that out.

I don't disagree that the bargaining costs don't always necessitate the dues. But workers are also paying for the networking of organizing and promoting certain movements, for example. As with any organization, the cost of operation is a bit more than the direct service provided.

One caveat that I'm familiar with is that of Teacher's unions. I come from a long line of educators, and there are certain things that happen at the State level, for example, that are mandated by legislators who have absolutely no idea what they're doing (to be curt.) I'm of the belief that professionals in any given field are the best voices for change that may (or may not) need to occur in that field. When non-professionals legislate certain methods or monetary restrictions on a broadly important part of society, some manner of organization needs to exist in order to protect that profession, if not only the professionals.

 

[Quetzal]

well speaking as a Government worker with over 20 years in, who is also a Union member.... I just hope my pension survives this...... and the next contract negotiations should be interesting......I'm guessing any promotions an raises are out of the question for the rest of my tenure in government service.

Luck you. Anytime someone talks about a union around here the management comes down harder than ACME on Wile Coyote.

 

[Revoltingest]

I missed that pretty important distinction, actually. I'm glad you pointed that out.

I don't disagree that the bargaining costs don't always necessitate the dues. But workers are also paying for the networking of organizing and promoting certain movements, for example. As with any organization, the cost of operation is a bit more than the direct service provided.

One caveat that I'm familiar with is that of Teacher's unions. I come from a long line of educators, and there are certain things that happen at the State level, for example, that are mandated by legislators who have absolutely no idea what they're doing (to be curt.) I'm of the belief that professionals in any given field are the best voices for change that may (or may not) need to occur in that field. When non-professionals legislate certain methods or monetary restrictions on a broadly important part of society, some manner of organization needs to exist in order to protect that profession, if not only the professionals.

I see this ruling as an incentive for unions to keep dues lower.
Around here, we see teachers spending vast sums to keep incompetent
teachers on the job. One of them worked for me as a self storage facility
manager. He was not only dumb as a stump, he broached sexual &
medical subjects with tenants....from whom he also stole.

I see unions & employers as involved in a complex give-&-take, each trying
to better its position. This messy ever-changing result looks to be better
than either extreme fully having its way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Drudge has the best headline I've yet seen.
It's the first to address the limitation of the ruling.
Supremes curb power of public sector unions...

 

[Nakosis]

In the news....
Supreme Court ruling deals major blow to public worker unions

It's interesting how NBC spins the title....
Instead of a victory for non-union worker rights,
it's a blow to unions. It could've been reported
upon neutrally, but...agenda, you know.

Spin is the name of the game. You got to blame the internet. You create a title that'll drive folks to your site. More clicks the more advertising dollars. I suppose you can blame capitalism too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Spin is the name of the game. You got to blame the internet. You create a title that'll drive folks to your site. More clicks the more advertising dollars. I suppose you can blame capitalism too.

It's hard to blame capitalism in a ruling which
appears to apply only to government employees.

 

[metis]

Careful those Union guys got baseball bats and the backing of the mob.

Are you that old-- er, I mean mature?