Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
Author Message
Hitch Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,535
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Maryland
Location: Washington
Post: #1
SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

About time.

I've long maintained that if Unions provided a valuable service, they wouldn't need to worry about membership retention.
01-11-2016 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


UofMstateU Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #2
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
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.
01-11-2016 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dfarr Offline
Murse Practitioner
*

Posts: 9,402
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation: 166
I Root For: UAB
Location:

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #3
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
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.
01-11-2016 05:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #4
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(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.
01-11-2016 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(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.
01-11-2016 06:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


dfarr Offline
Murse Practitioner
*

Posts: 9,402
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation: 166
I Root For: UAB
Location:

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #6
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(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.

Agreed. Could not do that.

How come? One person negotiated a certain pay/benefit package and the other had the union package negotiated for them.
01-11-2016 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #7
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(01-11-2016 06:36 PM)dfarr Wrote:  
(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.
Agreed. Could not do that.
How come? One person negotiated a certain pay/benefit package and the other had the union package negotiated for them.

Discrimination.
01-11-2016 06:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #8
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(01-11-2016 03:45 PM)Hitch Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

About time.

I've long maintained that if Unions provided a valuable service, they wouldn't need to worry about membership retention.

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?
01-11-2016 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #9
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(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.

Not at all. Employers often pay two people with "the same job" a different wage.
01-11-2016 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #10
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(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:  
(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.
How come? One person negotiated a certain pay/benefit package and the other had the union package negotiated for them.

Discrimination.

no more than when I make a few grand more or less than another senior Engineer at my $Employer
01-11-2016 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #11
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(01-11-2016 06:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  
(01-11-2016 03:45 PM)Hitch Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

About time.

I've long maintained that if Unions provided a valuable service, they wouldn't need to worry about membership retention.

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?
Lol.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
01-11-2016 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hitch Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,535
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Maryland
Location: Washington
Post: #12
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(01-11-2016 06:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  
(01-11-2016 03:45 PM)Hitch Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

About time.

I've long maintained that if Unions provided a valuable service, they wouldn't need to worry about membership retention.

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?

[Image: tyTc1Nl.jpg]
01-11-2016 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fort Bend Owl Online
Legend
*

Posts: 28,346
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 448
I Root For: An easy win
Location:

The Parliament Awards
Post: #13
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
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.
01-11-2016 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


UofMstateU Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #14
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(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.
01-11-2016 09:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #15
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(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/...story.html

About time.

I've long maintained that if Unions provided a valuable service, they wouldn't need to worry about membership retention.

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?

[Image: tyTc1Nl.jpg]

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.
01-11-2016 09:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crebman Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,407
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 552
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #16
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
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.
01-11-2016 09:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #17
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(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".

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.

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.
01-11-2016 10:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
pharaoh0 Offline
Triggered by Microaggressions
*

Posts: 2,926
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Duke, L'ville
Location:
Post: #18
RE: SCOTUS likely to rule against mandatory union dues?
(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.

Completely agree. There was a time and place for them, but that time and place ended the moment people were forced into them.

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.
01-11-2016 11:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.