Unions brace for Supreme Court Janus decision: RULING= "Right to Work" Law of the Land, Unions Lose

Non union members shouldn’t have to pay fees that go to propping up the democrats.
 
Unions have lost much of their usefulness in today's work environment.
 
Johnny Mac said:
Unions have lost much of their usefulness in today's work environment.
Click to expand...
In a related story, today's work environment has lost much of its usefulness to the American people.
 
Non members shouldn't have to pay union dues, that's dumb. If things get bad enough they will join the unions and they will strengthen on their own. Or unions should negotiate on behalf of their own members only and non members can fend for themselves.
 
I believe this applies only to public sector unions, not private industry unions, for what it’s worth
 
PoundMeToo said:
Non members shouldn't have to pay union dues, that's dumb. If things get bad enough they will join the unions and they will strengthen on their own. Or unions should negotiate on behalf of their own members only and non members can fend for themselves.
Click to expand...

It's funny how the right is only in support of free-riders when the context is organized labor.

It's impossible to separate the terms of a union contract from a certain segment of a company's employees.

Why don't you follow the line of reasoning you apply to non-union houses: If an employer opts to change a policy in his business and a worker doesn't agree with the change that worker has the freedom to quit. Otherwise, the worker must submit to every aspect of the change. Right?

So you should likewise affirm that if a majority of workers vote to unionize, those who voted against unionization have the option of either quitting or submitting to every aspect of the unionization.
 
bobgeese said:
Non union members shouldn’t have to pay fees that go to propping up the democrats.
Click to expand...

That's what Abood was about; SCOTUS said fees could only be used to cover nonunion members’ share of collective bargaining, not for political purposes.

Unions have statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agents to negotiate for all members of their labor class; including non-union members who fall in the class. Today's ruling basically allows unfettered free riding. Unions must, by law, negotiate for the benefit of non-members, without compensation.
 
ultramanhyata said:
It's funny how the right is only in support of free-riders when the context is organized labor.

It's impossible to separate the terms of a union contract from a certain segment of a company's employees.

Why don't you follow the line of reasoning you apply to non-union houses: If an employer opts to change a policy in his business and a worker doesn't agree with the change that worker has the freedom to quit. Otherwise, the worker must submit to every aspect of the change. Right?

So you should likewise affirm that if a majority of workers vote to unionize, those who voted against unionization have the option of either quitting or submitting to every aspect of the unionization.
Click to expand...

How is it impossible to seperate union members from non members? Most places individuals negotiate their own deals for employment.
 
A lot of people didn't learn from Nader electing Bush. Let's hope that the lesson sinks in this time.
 
HockeyBjj said:
I believe this applies only to public sector unions, not private industry unions, for what it’s worth
Click to expand...
Right. But private sectors are probably going to follow. Precedent is now set and GOP SCOTUS is in place.
 
nobody cares about the unions in the public sector, even though they actually still have decent power due to people not accurately receiving performance evals that reflect their true effort/output

I don't even have to pay into mine hahaha
 
PoundMeToo said:
How is it impossible to seperate union members from non members? Most places individuals negotiate their own deals for employment.
Click to expand...

Not union places. Set wages/vacation based on work title and experience years

Union negotiate wages and terms for the plant workers as a whole
 
Lol, what third world country fucks up labor protections?
 
Obviously this will hurt if not completely destroy unions. The private sector is next. It's been along campaign but republicans are finally completing their dreams. Keep supporting the GOP that hates the American workers.
 
PoundMeToo said:
How is it impossible to seperate union members from non members? Most places individuals negotiate their own deals for employment.
Click to expand...

Having just two sides in a contract negotiation is challenging enough. Imagine 75 sides. And is each non-union employee going to pay for their own lawyer at the table?

Do some basic fucking research...
 
irish_thug said:
This has the potential to be very very bad. You pay your share, the Union has your back. That's how it works.
Click to expand...
I wish I could dictate to my union how they use my share though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,700
Messages
56,665,441
Members
175,338
Latest member
sesen

Share this page

Back
Top