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

[metis]

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.

Elections have consequences in a democracy, therefore I would abide by the decision of the union members, much like what would happen if I moved to a different state whereas some of their laws may differ from the state where I currently reside, and thus I would have to abide by what the people in that state decided upon.

Also, what is charged in union dues I would also vote on, so I do have a say, contrary to your charge.

You don't seem to put much emphasis on democratic values, and democracy implies that we can't always have our own way. If you belong to a synagogue, you probably vote for your board of trustees, but just because you vote doesn't mean you'll always get your own way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Elections have consequences in a democracy, therefore I would abide by the decision of the union members, much like what would happen if I moved to a different state whereas some of their laws may differ from the state where I currently reside, and thus I would have to abide by what the people in that state decided upon.

Also, what is charged in union dues I would also vote on, so I do have a say, contrary to your charge.

You don't seem to put much emphasis on democratic values, and democracy implies that we can't always have our own way. If you belong to a synagogue, you probably vote for your board of trustees, but just because you vote doesn't mean you'll always get your own way.

If one has a legal right to not join or support a union which votes
to do things one opposes, then this is pretty democratic too.
Note also that the current state of affairs regarding union dues
is also the result of elections, both Michiganistanian & federal.

 

[Shaul]

Elections have consequences in a democracy, therefore I would abide by the decision of the union members, much like what would happen if I moved to a different state whereas some of their laws may differ from the state where I currently reside, and thus I would have to abide by what the people in that state decided upon.

Also, what is charged in union dues I would also vote on, so I do have a say, contrary to your charge.

You don't seem to put much emphasis on democratic values, and democracy implies that we can't always have our own way. If you belong to a synagogue, you probably vote for your board of trustees, but just because you vote doesn't mean you'll always get your own way.

No, you would NOT get to vote, contrary to your misunderstanding. Non-union members do not get to vote in union elections nor contract ratification. Get it now? They take your money. They spend it however they want. You have no say in the matter. Sound like “democracy” to you?

 

[Falvlun]

The ruling only applied to government employees...

Just to note, while the current ruling only applies to public workers, right-to-work states cover all workers, private and public. So in right-to-work states the double-bind issue is currently present in private employment. The article I quoted was from 2014, so it wasn’t referencing this current ruling.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Only those in the Union should pay dues, I'm surprised it was any other way.

 

[Willamena]

No, you would NOT get to vote, contrary to your misunderstanding. Non-union members do not get to vote in union elections nor contract ratification. Get it now? They take your money. They spend it however they want. You have no say in the matter. Sound like “democracy” to you?

It sounds like a cartel.

 

[metis]

No, you would NOT get to vote, contrary to your misunderstanding. Non-union members do not get to vote in union elections nor contract ratification. Get it now? They take your money. They spend it however they want. You have no say in the matter. Sound like “democracy” to you?

I was not referring to non-union members and the issue of voting, so you are NOT understanding what I wrote. I was rather clearly referring to those in a union shop, whereas just because they may vote doesn't mean they'll always get their own way. Get it now?

Also, there are far more non-union shops than union ones, so those who want the former have a far greater opportunity of getting employment if this truly is that important to them.

I much prefer all people to be able to have a voice in that which affects them. Clearly, you don't. So, maybe you can enjoy joining Trump in Russia whereas you two can have such a lovely menage de trois with Putin since it seems you all think alike. However, please don't send me any pictures.

Anyway, I'm gonna be gone for a few days, so you can enjoy your love affair without my interference. Also, I'll be moving on to greener pastures here anyway, so go right ahead and have the last word-- see, I am more than willing to give you a say even though you're not willing to give millions of Americans having a say in dealing with their own employment.

 

[Shad]

And to repeat, a non-union member benefits from labor contracts and yet contributes 0 to pay for it, so they are freeloading.

If the union failed to ensure membership is part of employment that is the union's problem.

 

[Shad]

No, you would NOT get to vote, contrary to your misunderstanding. Non-union members do not get to vote in union elections nor contract ratification. Get it now? They take your money. They spend it however they want. You have no say in the matter. Sound like “democracy” to you?

It's tyranny of the majority style democracy

 

[metis]

If the union failed to ensure membership is part of employment that is the union's problem.

What does that have to do with what we were talking about?

 

[metis]

It's tyranny of the majority style democracy

Nice try using Jefferson's words, but they really don't apply here, unless one simply is opposed to democracy.

"Democracy is a worst form of government, except for all the others". W/O looking it up, who said this?

 

[Shad]

What does that have to do with what we were talking about?

How does it not? If a union wants to keep benefits based on membership only the union should have negotiated such terms with the employers. It didn't so that makes it the union's problem.

 

[Shad]

Nice try using Jefferson's words, but they really don't apply here, unless one simply is opposed to democracy.

"Democracy is a worst form of government, except for all the others". W/O looking it up, who said this?

Nope. Read the comment I was responding to. Non-members have no vote but are subject to the whims of the union majority.

 

[metis]

Nope. Read the comment I was responding to. Non-members have no vote but are subject to the whims of the union majority.

This has already been covered ad nauseum, so maybe check back through earlier posts

 

[metis]

Nope. Read the comment I was responding to. Non-members have no vote but are subject to the whims of the union majority.

If they want a say, they can join. If I choose not to vote in a political election, I have removed myself from having a say. Also, maybe check back on some previous discussions that dealt with this.

Anyhow, outta here for a while.

 

[Shaul]

If one has a legal right to not join or support a union which votes
to do things one opposes, then this is pretty democratic too.
Note also that the current state of affairs regarding union dues
is also the result of elections, both Michiganistanian & federal.

That isn’t democratic, it’s theft. If you join the union they should get your money . But if you don’t join they shouldn’t.

It sounds like a cartel.

Or a shakedown extortion racket.

 

[Shad]

If they want a say, they can join. If I choose not to vote in a political election, I have removed myself from having a say. Also, maybe check back on some previous discussions that dealt with this.

Anyhow, outta here for a while.

Unions are not government.

This has already been covered ad nauseum, so maybe check back through earlier posts

Sure it was covered yet here you are still advocating nothing more than theft via government edict and calling others freeloaders. All under the facade of "unions".

 

[Revoltingest]

That isn’t democratic, it’s theft. If you join the union they should get your money . But if you don’t join they shouldn’t.

Or a shakedown extortion racket.

I was referring to the right to not pay dues to a union
one doesn't belong to, & to not join the union.

 

[Underhill]

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

That is what it boils down to or should. This ruling pits short term greed against the long term stability of the unions. And in that scenario Republicans are betting greed will win out. They are probably right.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is what it boils down to or should. This ruling pits short term greed against the long term stability of the unions. And in that scenario Republicans are betting greed will win out. They are probably right.

Do you think there are other perspectives?