First of all, I can't believe something like this even makes it to the Supreme Court. Why anyone would think that a non-menber should be FORCED to pay union dues to an organization that he/she doesn't even belong to makes absolutely no sense.

Supreme Court Takes Up Dispute over Union Fees

Snippet:

Quote:The Supreme Court will consider limiting the power of government employee unions to collect fees from non-members in a case that labor officials say could threaten membership and further weaken union clout.

The justices said Tuesday they will hear an appeal from a group of California teachers who say it violates their First Amendment rights to have to pay any fees if they disagree with a union's positions and don't want to join it.

Because the Union negotiates their contract. The fair share fee covers the costs of negotiating. The fair share people don't pay the full haul of what Union members do. What surprises me we have people that want to get the higher Union wage but not pay the cost of freight. The worst kind of people.

Forced association...

Not a strong leg but we shall see.

(06-30-2015 10:35 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Why anyone would think that a non-menber should be FORCED to pay union dues to an organization that he/she doesn't even belong to makes absolutely no sense.

Or why there are still people out there who think it's ok to force someone to join an organization they don't want to join simply because of where they choose to work.

(06-30-2015 11:02 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Forced association...

Not a strong leg but we shall see.

I agree that legally this is probably not going to be found valid, but VA is making an idiotic statement if he wants to act like there isn't a legitimate issue with free riders in this sort of system.

Union support of political candidates on 'stolen' money is the most outrageous abuse perpetrated by unions today.

Unions which take money from everybody, forced or not, have no legitimate place in the political arena. To take money from a person and then support a cause they themselves have no say in is a total outrage.

(06-30-2015 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Union support of political candidates on 'stolen' money is the most outrageous abuse perpetrated by unions today.

Unions which take money from everybody, forced or not, have no legitimate place in the political arena. To take money from a person and then support a cause they themselves have no say in is a total outrage.

I feel similarly about public corporations, honestly.

(06-30-2015 11:07 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:02 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Forced association...

Not a strong leg but we shall see.

I agree that legally this is probably not going to be found valid, but VA is making an idiotic statement if he wants to act like there isn't a legitimate issue with free riders in this sort of system.

I think you can think of the issue in multiple 'chunks.'

Free riding is one issue.
Political support is another.

You can deal with one but if you do then the second one must also be triggered.

If we force people in to prevent free riders that is fine but if you do so then the union cannot take part in the political process if even a single member does not support the candidate or party the unions wished to donate to or provide any support whatsoever for.

(06-30-2015 11:09 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Union support of political candidates on 'stolen' money is the most outrageous abuse perpetrated by unions today.

Unions which take money from everybody, forced or not, have no legitimate place in the political arena. To take money from a person and then support a cause they themselves have no say in is a total outrage.

I feel similarly about public corporations, honestly.

Well, the two are world apart. Nobody forces any individual to purchase stock in a company, or to trade or do any business with them.

When you force people to pay union dues as part of their employment you are effectively taxing them.

If General Mills or GM was taking money out of your paycheck I would agree with you.

HoD your feigned outrage is already taken care of with fair share laws. The fair share fee can not in any way shape or form be used in any political campaign. The fee must be derived specifically from costs associated with negotiations and they "do" have to show how they came up with the calculation. With one iota of effort you could research and find your concerns met.

(06-30-2015 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  HoD your feigned outrage is already taken care of with fair share laws. The fair share fee can not in any way shape or form be used in any political campaign. The fee must be derived specifically from costs associated with negotiations and they "do" have to show how they came up with the calculation. With one iota of effort you could research and find your concerns met.

You know as well as I do that approach is bull**** and does nothing to alleviate the problem as a whole.

It's forced participation from the start to finish. If that is what unions folks want then the sooner the unions dry up and die the better for everybody here.

This is all about weakening the power of unions as a political force. If people can skip out on paying the share of what it costs to negotiate, you have for all intent purposes destroyed them. Why else would you join the union?

(06-30-2015 11:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is all about weakening the power of unions as a political force. If people can skip out on paying the share of what it costs to negotiate, you have for all intent purposes destroyed them. Why else would you join the union?

Because you choose to.

Nobody is stopping you from choosing to be a member but your choice alone doesn't guarantee you any power.

Have your club Mach, but just because you want it to doesn't mean the rest of us have to deal with it.

Dry up and die.................



Yes, that is the purpose. The only BS associated with the argument is any other reasoning for supporting the ban of a fair share fee. I'm sure most people would like to eat a Ruth Criss steak and pay the price of a Big Mac. Ruth Criss will dry up and die very quickly if that's the case. If these people don't want to pay a Union maybe they should look for employment in a non Union career.

Oh, so if you don't want to join Mach's club and pay for it then you can't work.

This is why Unions suck and everybody with a brain dislikes them in their current form.

Thank you Mach, I couldn't have summed up how backward and terrible the union mindset was quite as well as you have.

If that club improves your life style and they are forced to negotiate on your behalf then you owe that club the cost associated for that representation.

(06-30-2015 11:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:09 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Union support of political candidates on 'stolen' money is the most outrageous abuse perpetrated by unions today.

Unions which take money from everybody, forced or not, have no legitimate place in the political arena. To take money from a person and then support a cause they themselves have no say in is a total outrage.

I feel similarly about public corporations, honestly.

Well, the two are world apart. Nobody forces any individual to purchase stock in a company, or to trade or do any business with them.

When you force people to pay union dues as part of their employment you are effectively taxing them.

If General Mills or GM was taking money out of your paycheck I would agree with you.

I think that's a bit simplistic.

Not if you do not want to be a part of it.

(06-30-2015 11:27 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:09 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Union support of political candidates on 'stolen' money is the most outrageous abuse perpetrated by unions today.

Unions which take money from everybody, forced or not, have no legitimate place in the political arena. To take money from a person and then support a cause they themselves have no say in is a total outrage.

I feel similarly about public corporations, honestly.

Well, the two are world apart. Nobody forces any individual to purchase stock in a company, or to trade or do any business with them.

When you force people to pay union dues as part of their employment you are effectively taxing them.

If General Mills or GM was taking money out of your paycheck I would agree with you.

I think that's a bit simplistic.

You can say that but it doesn't make it true.

(06-30-2015 11:27 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not if you do not want to be a part of it.

But I have to be a part of the GM political machine if I want to work there? Same argument bud.