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

[Shaul]

Yeah, that's all nonsense. Very few individuals do better negotiating than the union does. We aren't talking about Harvard graduates.

People don't care about the union negotiations. They care about the money coming out of the paycheck every week.

And the only way union members would get more than those not in the union is if the employers enforced it. That will never happen as employers don't want unions.

Of course it's union busting. Why do you think the same (republicans) who have been undermining unions for decades are supporting this?

There are plenty of bad negotiations unions have done. There are plenty more people that can negotiate very well for themselves. I’m sorry you have such a low opinion of the common citizen.

It is a question of compulsion. A union that does what it is supposed to do does not need to compel membership and one that doesn’t do what it should doesn’t deserve the ability to compel it. Compulsory union membership is actually bad for its members and unions. It only benefits thug union bosses, lower level union toadies and corrupt politicians.

 

[metis]

Well, I can see why you are in error. No, businesses are not a political entity even if they have political elements. Businesses do not have the powers a State has.

Again, all you are doing is conflating the issues. We're talking about unions representing workers or not, and politics is intrinsic to this because decisions have to be made. IOW, decisions simply don't happen by themselves-- Logic 101. Yes, there are some differences, as there is even between a company and a corporation, but that doesn't negate the fact that governmental enterprises also conduct operations much like any business does.

But the real issue is the worker, and I strongly feel that an employee should have some say in his/her employment because they are integral to the function of a business, a corporation, or a governmental entity.

A government employee union can influence the government which in turn is negotiating with the same union and grants the union a monopoly. Corrupt politicians pander to the union leaders for influence and political contributions. Around and around it goes. The taxpayer loses. It is a conflict of interests.

And so can and have businesses influenced the government, so should they be eliminated as well?

Secondly, in regards to the issue of "monopoly", this is why I said that in areas of essential services that mediation and arbitration can be used to protect the public good.

Fourthly, it's sorta funny you focus on possible union corruption but ignore the fact I mentioned earlier, namely that the FBI had given an estimate that there's about four times more money tied up in white-collar crime than street crimes, so why would you focus only on one and exclude the other?

And finally it's sorts funny as well that you cite "corrupt politicians" in regards to unions but not businesses and corporations. My guess, and there's more than one reason why I would guestimate as such, is that there's probably more unsavory quid-pro-quo each year with businesses and corrupt politicians than there are with unions and the like.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that's all nonsense.

Bless your heart.

 

[Underhill]

There are plenty of bad negotiations unions have done. There are plenty more people that can negotiate very well for themselves. I’m sorry you have such a low opinion of the common citizen.

You do understand the history of unions right? Of course they don't always get it right. But historically people have been vastly better off with unions than without. If you think otherwise you need to read some history books.

It is a question of compulsion. A union that does what it is supposed to do does not need to compel membership and one that doesn’t do what it should doesn’t deserve the ability to compel it. Compulsory union membership is actually bad for its members and unions. It only benefits thug union bosses, lower level union toadies and corrupt politicians.

A shop votes on whether to be union or not. Traditionally it has always been the case that in a union shop everyone pays dues. If someone doesn't want to work in a union shop, then get a job elsewhere. You know why people don't and seek out union shops? Because union shops tend to pay better. Even non union shops are forced to pay better if there is a union shop down the street.

This is not about compulsion, it's about undermining unions. Always has been.

Pay has been stagnating in this country for decades. This stagnation correlates nicely with the destruction of unions, among other things. This is just another nail in the coffin.

 

[Underhill]

Bless your heart.

I laid it out pretty clearly. History tells us what happens without unions. There is a balancing act that needs to be maintained between management and unions. Sometimes power shifts too far one way or the other. The answer is not to destroy them and leave employees, who are already being attacked from all directions, out on their own. It's to keep them in check with reasonable regulation. But since unions cost employers money, they want them gone and republicans are all too happy to comply.

 

[Revoltingest]

I laid it out pretty clearly. History tells us what happens without unions. There is a balancing act that needs to be maintained between management and unions. Sometimes power shifts too far one way or the other. The answer is not to destroy them and leave employees, who are already being attacked from all directions, out on their own. It's to keep them in check with reasonable regulation. But since unions cost employers money, they want them gone and republicans are all too happy to comply.

I never advocated destroying unions.

 

[Underhill]

I never advocated destroying unions.

Just undermining them...

 

[Revoltingest]

Just undermining them...

Or instead, protecting the wallets of other workers.
The larger picture:
There are competing rights to be balanced.

 

[metis]

Pay has been stagnating in this country for decades. This stagnation correlates nicely with the destruction of unions, among other things. This is just another nail in the coffin.

Exactly, and the proof of that is that while hourly wages have been stagnant and benefits have declined in their coverage, millionaires and billionaires have reaped huge profits overall.

What some just don't get is that unions are an exercise in democratic values versus authoritarian ones, and these values were highly valuable in creating the middle class that is one of the major economic driving forces in this and many other countries.

 

[Underhill]

Or instead, protecting the wallets of other workers.
The larger picture:
There are competing rights to be balanced.

Sure, the right to be represented by a meaningful and powerful entity versus the right to save a few bucks out of a smaller paycheck.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, the right to be represented by a meaningful and powerful entity versus the right to save a few bucks out of a smaller paycheck.

Yes, that's the only way to see it.
(Read that in a sarcastic voice.)

 

[Shaul]

You do understand the history of unions right? Of course they don't always get it right. But historically people have been vastly better off with unions than without. If you think otherwise you need to read some history books.



A shop votes on whether to be union or not. Traditionally it has always been the case that in a union shop everyone pays dues. If someone doesn't want to work in a union shop, then get a job elsewhere. You know why people don't and seek out union shops? Because union shops tend to pay better. Even non union shops are forced to pay better if there is a union shop down the street.

This is not about compulsion, it's about undermining unions. Always has been.

Pay has been stagnating in this country for decades. This stagnation correlates nicely with the destruction of unions, among other things. This is just another nail in the coffin.

You so want to make this about the worth of unions. It isn’t about that at all. It is about the fact that compulsory union dues from non-members violates those non-members rights. That is more important. The Courts recognize this.

FTA:”The court has long held that requiring nonunion members to pay the full amount of union dues would violate their right of free expression, forcing them to subsidize a union's political activities whether they agree with its goals or not.”

The Court got that right. I have worked at jobs where the union took dues from my pay, even though I was not a member, and supported political causes abhorrent to me. That violated my rights.

 

[Shaul]

Sure, the right to be represented by a meaningful and powerful entity versus the right to save a few bucks out of a smaller paycheck.

If it is just a few bucks, why not doesn’t the union just do without them? But it isn’t about “a few bucks”. (Nice that you are so cavalier about other people’s money, BTW) It is about unions taking money from non-union employees and then using that money for political causes those employees have no control over. Would you want your money taken from your paycheck and given to a candidate you detest? How would you feel if someone took money out of your paycheck and gave it to Trump’s campaign, would that be all right?

 

[metis]

It is about the fact that compulsory union dues from non-members violates those non-members rights. That is more important. The Courts recognize this.

This is the only time that SCOTUS has recognized this, and it was a 5-4 decision with the 5 being conservatives. It has long been known that these "right to work" laws were designed with one main purpose, namely to hurt unions, and this is the same element that also largely opposes minimum-wage legislation.

IOW, it's all about money and the power that comes with it. If it was about concern for laborers Joe & Mary Schmoe, then they certainly wouldn't be doing what they repeatedly are doing. To favor the rich at the expense of the poor is unethical according to Torah, plus it also violates what Jesus taught for Christians. To hurt the poor (massive cuts to Medicaid and the ACA) and the young (increasing the deficit by over $1 Trillion over 10 years estimated -- 1.4, according to the CBO) is unethical by almost any standard one can think of.

And to repeat, a non-union member benefits from labor contracts and yet contributes 0 to pay for it, so they are freeloading. That's the reality. With the last job I had, we had a union, and we voted on what programs we may or may not want the union to get involved with, and that's called "democracy". Were there things I didn't like? Yes, but that's how "democracy works".

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

I think that is a fair ruling.

 

[Falvlun]

Unions are legally required to negotiate for all workers, even the non-members. This was a ruling from 2014, Harris vs Quinn. With the recent court decision saying that unions cannot take dues from non-union members, the unions are placed in a double-bind.

“In every state, workers who want to collectively bargain with an employer must get support from a majority of the workers in a unit (sometimes a whole workplace, sometimes a particular group of employees). When the union gets majority support, it has a legal duty to bargain on behalf of all the workers in the unit, including those who object to the union.

This is the so-called rule of exclusive representation, and it applies everywhere in the country.

In right-to-work states, however, objecting workers can refuse to pay the union for its services. Hence, the double bind: Unions are obligated to provide free services for workers who don't want a union.”

....

“Requiring unions to offer free representation to workers who do not want a union in the first place makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to have a system in which workers can benefit from union representation without paying their fair share.” - Source

 

[Revoltingest]

Unions are legally required to negotiate for all workers, even the non-members. This was a ruling from 2014, Harris vs Quinn. With the recent court decision saying that unions cannot take dues from non-union members, the unions are placed in a double-bind.

That line of thought might be based upon non-union workers having to pay union dues.
This might now change for government employees (the ones affected by the ruling).
But private sector workers can still be required to pay union dues.

 

[Falvlun]

That line of thought might be based upon non-union workers having to pay union dues.
This might now change for government employees (the ones affected by the ruling).
But private sector workers can still be required to pay union dues.

It’s an issue in any right-to-work states: employees who decline to join the union are still represented by and benefit from that union, by law.

I hope the law does change: if you don’t pay you don’t get the bennies.

 

[Revoltingest]

It’s an issue in any right-to-work states: employees who decline to join the union are still represented by and benefit from that union, by law.

The ruling only applied to government employees.
But there are complexities...
In Michiganistan, a public school teacher who wishes to quit the union can only do so in August
(per MI law).....oops! Just found out that changed this year. As of March, they can quit at any time.
That obscure aspect of law is unknown to many who discovered they cannot quit the union.
It still appears that union contracts requiring non-union private sector workers to pay partial dues
(to cover non-political stuff) are still enforceable.

I hope the law does change: if you don’t pay you don’t get the bennies.

That's fine with me.

 

[Shaul]

This is the only time that SCOTUS has recognized this, and it was a 5-4 decision with the 5 being conservatives. It has long been known that these "right to work" laws were designed with one main purpose, namely to hurt unions, and this is the same element that also largely opposes minimum-wage legislation.

IOW, it's all about money and the power that comes with it. If it was about concern for laborers Joe & Mary Schmoe, then they certainly wouldn't be doing what they repeatedly are doing. To favor the rich at the expense of the poor is unethical according to Torah, plus it also violates what Jesus taught for Christians. To hurt the poor (massive cuts to Medicaid and the ACA) and the young (increasing the deficit by over $1 Trillion over 10 years estimated -- 1.4, according to the CBO) is unethical by almost any standard one can think of.

And to repeat, a non-union member benefits from labor contracts and yet contributes 0 to pay for it, so they are freeloading. That's the reality. With the last job I had, we had a union, and we voted on what programs we may or may not want the union to get involved with, and that's called "democracy". Were there things I didn't like? Yes, but that's how "democracy works".

No this isn’t the only yeti me they have recognized this. Even the article mentions previous times. Then there was Friedrichs v. CTA which was a split decision only because Scalia died! This issued would have been ruled similarly years ago save for Scalia dying.

So you would have no problem with a union taking money from your paycheck, with no say by you, and giving it to re-elect President Trump? That would have been the case before this decision.

It’s all water under the bridge now. The Court has ruled, correctly, that unions can not take money from non members for political purposes. As someone that has had unions take money from my paychecks and give it to candidates I did not support, I say hurray!