James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Just when I thought the anti-union pendulum couldn't swing any farther to the right...


Supreme Court Weighs Changes That Would Hurt Public Unions' Bottom Lines

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday about whether public employee unions should be able to collect some dues from nonmembers. A majority of the justices seemed to be leaning against it.

Nearly four decades ago the court said that while nobody is required to join a union, nonunion members can be required to pay so-called fair-share fees to cover the costs of negotiating the contract they benefit from.

The caveat is that nonmembers do not have to pay for the union's lobbying and political expenses.

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/11/462698255/supreme-court-weighs...

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If they benefit, yes they should pay. Of course a better solution is two contracts, union and non union.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
The conservative line seems to be that corporations are people with rights, while organizations of actual people, namely workers, who collectively bargain are not and do not.


This is a pretty blatant insistence on looking at the question from the union's side only.

The plaintiffs include a teacher who objects not merely to the idea of paying dues but to the fact that the union works against his interest with those dues. He would rather prioritize smaller classrooms, for example, so he's being forced to pay for an organization that he sees as working against his interests.

Quote:
Freedom is important for multi-national corporations, but not for workers.


You don't actually want freedom for workers -- you want workers represented by powerful unions and required to support that representation. That's fine -- there's a totally reasonable case to be made that the best way to look after a group's interest is to compel them to be part of an association -- but don't try to claim the mantle of worker freedom when you're arguing that they should only be allowed to make the choices you approve of.
17 
 Thumb up
3.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
How the fuck do these guys win elections?


They don't.

You know, you are otherwise a rather reasonable and intelligent person. But to ask how SCOTUS justices "win elections" is kind of stupid on your part. And rather unexpected.

Or did you mean someone else when referring to election winning?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
chrisnd wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
How the fuck do these guys win elections?


They don't.

You know, you are otherwise a rather reasonable and intelligent person. But to ask how SCOTUS justices "win elections" is kind of stupid on your part. And rather unexpected.

Or did you mean someone else when referring to election winning?

An oversight, I assume. But presidents are elected and they appoint the justices...


As pointed out, this is an interesting case because who wants to be forced to pay dues for something they don't want to join?

But who is looking out for employees if unions don't do it? Seems to me the balance has tipped way toward employers.

If someone can come up with a better solution than traditional unions, I'm all for it.

History has shown that raw capitalism isn't going to result in a humane workplace. It just results in all workplaces exploiting workers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
For a variety of reasons, I'm incredibly poorly served by the public employees union I'm required to contribute to. I'm watching this case with great interest...hopefully the result will be that I can tell "my" union that they're going to have to start serving my interests if they want my money.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe California unions by law refund to employees the portion of the union dues that go towards political advocacy. But nevertheless, "political advocacy" is the grounds the conservatives on the Court will use to gut public sector unions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
fizzmore wrote:
For a variety of reasons, I'm incredibly poorly served by the public employees union I'm required to contribute to. I'm watching this case with great interest...hopefully the result will be that I can tell "my" union that they're going to have to start serving my interests if they want my money.

I hope that happens.

Would you rather have no union than your current poor union? I'm curious
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Yes, I would prefer no union representation. Many of the situations in which unions are most useful (relatively homogeneous workforce, replaceable positions, little individual bargaining power) do not apply to my job...union representation forces me to be lumped in with a large group of people whose negotiating interests and bargaining position are very different from my own.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
The conservative line seems to be that corporations are people with rights, while organizations of actual people, namely workers, who collectively bargain are not and do not.

So what you are saying is that corporations already are people with rights, unions should be people with rights So the only people who you think are not considered people with rights are actual people.

By giving unions the right to force others to pay dues, or be a member of a union to work somewhere, you diminish the rights of people.

I still do not know and understand how unions work in the US and don't really care to know. But if they have the right to force non-members into compliance I understand why there is such a dislike of unions in the US.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
Just when I thought the anti-union pendulum couldn't swing any farther to the right...


I think you may have got this wrong.The extreme benefits that labor unions enjoy that no other entity in our society can , are finally coming back into legal balance. Labor unions should not have more preferential treatment then any other member of society.

Harvard University's Edward Chamberlin once described the unique legal status that labor unions had been granted:

Quote:
If A is bargaining with B over the sale of his house, and if A were given the privileges of a modern labor union, he would be able (1) to conspire with all other owners of houses not to make any alternative offer to B, using violence or the threat of violence if necessary to prevent them, (2) to deprive B himself of access to any alternative offers, (3) to surround the house of B and cut off all deliveries, including food (except by parcel post), (4) to stop all movement from B's house, so that if he were for instance a doctor he could not sell his services and make a living, and (5) to institute a boycott of B's business. All of these privileges, if he were capable of carrying them out, would no doubt strengthen A's position. But they would not be regarded by anyone as part of "bargaining" – unless A were a labor union.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.