SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Printable Version +- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com) +-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html) +--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html) +---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html) +---- Thread: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? (/thread-766300.html) |
SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Hitch - 01-11-2016 03:45 PM https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-majority-is-critical-of-compelled-public-employee-union-fees/2016/01/11/80437fde-b7cb-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html About time. I've long maintained that if Unions provided a valuable service, they wouldn't need to worry about membership retention. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - UofMstateU - 01-11-2016 04:25 PM They have a right to be concerned about it, because the unions have been losing left and right, and it appears the scotus is leaning that way in the arguments. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - dfarr - 01-11-2016 05:47 PM If the unions in this case were smart then the contracts that they negotiate would be for union members only and they would be significantly better than what non-union members get, thus attracting more members. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - HeartOfDixie - 01-11-2016 05:57 PM (01-11-2016 05:47 PM)dfarr Wrote: If the unions in this case were smart then the contracts that they negotiate would be for union members only and they would be significantly better than what non-union members get, thus attracting more members. That isn't an option; that would be a form of discrimination. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Owl 69/70/75 - 01-11-2016 06:01 PM (01-11-2016 05:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(01-11-2016 05:47 PM)dfarr Wrote: If the unions in this case were smart then the contracts that they negotiate would be for union members only and they would be significantly better than what non-union members get, thus attracting more members.That isn't an option; that would be a form of discrimination. Agreed. Could not do that. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - dfarr - 01-11-2016 06:36 PM (01-11-2016 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(01-11-2016 05:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(01-11-2016 05:47 PM)dfarr Wrote: If the unions in this case were smart then the contracts that they negotiate would be for union members only and they would be significantly better than what non-union members get, thus attracting more members.That isn't an option; that would be a form of discrimination. How come? One person negotiated a certain pay/benefit package and the other had the union package negotiated for them. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Owl 69/70/75 - 01-11-2016 06:49 PM (01-11-2016 06:36 PM)dfarr Wrote:(01-11-2016 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:How come? One person negotiated a certain pay/benefit package and the other had the union package negotiated for them.(01-11-2016 05:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Agreed. Could not do that.(01-11-2016 05:47 PM)dfarr Wrote: If the unions in this case were smart then the contracts that they negotiate would be for union members only and they would be significantly better than what non-union members get, thus attracting more members.That isn't an option; that would be a form of discrimination. Discrimination. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - john01992 - 01-11-2016 06:58 PM (01-11-2016 03:45 PM)Hitch Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-majority-is-critical-of-compelled-public-employee-union-fees/2016/01/11/80437fde-b7cb-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html If you had a basic understanding of philosophy, economics, or political science you would understand the concept of tragedy of the commons. It doesn't matter how "valuable" a service is. If you are going to reap the same benefits of something regardless of whether you pay dues or not, why pay dues? RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Bull_In_Exile - 01-11-2016 07:30 PM (01-11-2016 05:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(01-11-2016 05:47 PM)dfarr Wrote: If the unions in this case were smart then the contracts that they negotiate would be for union members only and they would be significantly better than what non-union members get, thus attracting more members. Not at all. Employers often pay two people with "the same job" a different wage. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Bull_In_Exile - 01-11-2016 07:30 PM (01-11-2016 06:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(01-11-2016 06:36 PM)dfarr Wrote:(01-11-2016 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:How come? One person negotiated a certain pay/benefit package and the other had the union package negotiated for them.(01-11-2016 05:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Agreed. Could not do that.(01-11-2016 05:47 PM)dfarr Wrote: If the unions in this case were smart then the contracts that they negotiate would be for union members only and they would be significantly better than what non-union members get, thus attracting more members.That isn't an option; that would be a form of discrimination. no more than when I make a few grand more or less than another senior Engineer at my $Employer RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - blunderbuss - 01-11-2016 07:37 PM (01-11-2016 06:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:Lol.(01-11-2016 03:45 PM)Hitch Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-majority-is-critical-of-compelled-public-employee-union-fees/2016/01/11/80437fde-b7cb-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Hitch - 01-11-2016 08:06 PM (01-11-2016 06:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:(01-11-2016 03:45 PM)Hitch Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-majority-is-critical-of-compelled-public-employee-union-fees/2016/01/11/80437fde-b7cb-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Fort Bend Owl - 01-11-2016 08:44 PM I opted out of my union a couple of years ago. It was the most convoluted system to get out of the union, but I was patient and able to submit my paperwork within two weeks of my anniversary date of hire. Best move I ever made - the union at my office is a farce and dues are way too high. The whole concept of unions I think is outdated. Basically, if you're a good employee, I think most companies will reward you eventually for your hard work and productivity. And I think companies should be able to quickly fire the bad employees with just cause, but unfortunately most unions seem to be more interested in retaining the bad employees, than working with the companies to come up with effective ways to improve a company's bottom line and also help its employees at the same time. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - UofMstateU - 01-11-2016 09:15 PM (01-11-2016 08:44 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: The whole concept of unions I think is outdated. Completely agree. There was a time and place for them, but that time and place ended the moment people were forced into them. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - john01992 - 01-11-2016 09:53 PM (01-11-2016 08:06 PM)Hitch Wrote:(01-11-2016 06:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:(01-11-2016 03:45 PM)Hitch Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-majority-is-critical-of-compelled-public-employee-union-fees/2016/01/11/80437fde-b7cb-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html LOL the only person who missed the point was you. My statement completely destroys your argument and you don't have a legitimate counter to it. Same with Blunder. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Crebman - 01-11-2016 09:58 PM I guess what bothers me the most about public sector unions is that the whole goal of said unions is to extract as much as possible from the public treasury in pay, benefits, and pensions which is almost by definition "not in the best interests of the public at large". Don't get me wrong, public servants should be fairly paid and generally their actual pay isn't too much out of line. Where things are out of kilter is the benefits side - particularly health insurance much better than the private sector and worst of all in the pension benefits. The pensions agreements have bankrupted cities and may well yet do the same to states. Somehow, I don't think a bankrupt city or state is in the "best public interest". Unions in the private sector are IMO a different animal. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - Bull_In_Exile - 01-11-2016 10:32 PM (01-11-2016 09:58 PM)Crebman Wrote: I guess what bothers me the most about public sector unions is that the whole goal of said unions is to extract as much as possible from the public treasury in pay, benefits, and pensions which is almost by definition "not in the best interests of the public at large". This is the part leftist have no answer for, so they pivot onto some other isssue.. There is *zero* balance between the employer and the employee in public sector unions. When the two sides sit down to deal on one side is the Unions and on the other is some schmuck that the unions can work via campaign donations to "fire". In the private sector the threat is "give us what we want or we strike"... Then both sides are hurt. Ideally some decent compromise happens. When it does not happen the company goes under and is replaced by a new company. In the Public sector the threat is "give us what we want or we, the largest political donors on the planet, will spend you out of a job for someone who will give us all we ask for". There is capitulation and when things go too far there is no correction. RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues? - pharaoh0 - 01-11-2016 11:12 PM (01-11-2016 09:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:(01-11-2016 08:44 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: The whole concept of unions I think is outdated. I have to agree. Most companies and corporations will pay to compensate good employees. If you are a valuable member of the team, you do not need a union...you will get paid. The unions hover around the public sector jobs because they run political ads for the very candidates that pad their pockets. They also like the low wage employee. This is the kind of employee that has very little value to most businesses, but a union could milk the businesses for dues. A union is unnecessary in either of these cases. |