SCOTUS to Rule on Union: Could be "Radical" Change

generally said employers pay for that membership if it's required. even if they don't it's peanuts generally compared to union dues.

 

You act as if the union has some unilateral power. Management agrees to the terms that create those monopolies.

 

with the public unions they are literally electing "management" to the position or at least spending a crapload of money to try to get him elected.

 

Exactly.
These are contractual issues. And while there is a requirement that management negotiate in good faith, there is no requirement that management accept terms (except in right to work states where management is not allowed to have a single (and efficient) employee contract.

 

It's transparent. If people have a problem with it, don't vote for the union backed candidate. This is nothing but a bunch of tea party minded freeloaders trying to get benefits without paying the freight.

 

I can agree that that is somewhat troubling.

Public employee unions are somewhat different for largely that reason.

 

you give the voting public way too much credit.

 

Then that's on the public, not the unions.

 

I can't disagree with that logic.

 

Eh, I don't know. In this case, I don't believe they should be forced to support the union. I also don't think they should necessarily receive any benefit from the union's efforts.

That being said, unless the state decides to make it so that Medicaid pays a scale that includes union representation as a determining factor, then they should continue to receive whatever rate is established for however long rates are defined as they are currently. Whether it would be right and prudent for the state to differentiate between union and non-union home healthcare providers when making Medicaid payments is another discussion.

I admittedly know little about Medicaid and how the arrangement between these providers are paid, so it may be less black and white than I think.

 

You should not be allowed to extort money from a person as a condition to obtain or maintain their employment. I'm greatly offended by the notion that they're allowed to do this at all, and hope that the court finds for the plaintiffs (employees) and prevents it.

If you don't want those "freeloaders" from gaining the "benefit" of your "services", then figure out a way to carve them out of what you're doing. But they should never be required to pay anything to a Union, if they do not wish to do so. The only reason that unions wish to protect this legal shake-down is because they know that a sizable portion of those same employees would not elect to pay those dues, were they not required to do so.

Either way, it seems like little more than two more examples of the many failings of unions, and which the employees are having to shoulder.

Simply, sounds to me like the unions are either too stupid to figure out a way to carve non-union members out of their representation, or that they are all too aware that they are not providing a service of requisite value in relation to the amount of dues that they require of their members, and wish to continue to rig the system, instead.

And, as a parting shot, I'll just casually mention my belief that were the situation politically reversed, and the unions were firmly in the back pocket of the GOP, instead of the Dems - the worker's forced participation and mandated payments would incite and perpetually flame an outrage of unprecedented size and severity, both on this board and in the "real" world. It would be a travesty that would have long ago been compared to both slavery and Naziism - likely, even both. There would be marches of protest held in the streets of cities across the U.S., each with increasingly more tambourines than the last.

But not now, because the situation isn't reversed. Instead of simply admitting the obvious, some will prefer to twist and contort their intellectual honesty until it somehow makes sense to allow this, and what is wrong can become right.

 

We must be reading different threads if you think people here are agreeing with forced dues. For a parting shot, it seems to have missed the mark.

 

Oh, and I forgot this little piece of irony.....

Obviously, the only time that Dems believe that "freeloaders" should be paying their own way, is when it comes to union dues, which isn't even a true "benefit" per se (unlike welfare, food stamps, etc.), but only affords some opportunity of possibly realizing some in/direct benefit, as some point in time, in the near or distant future....hopefully.

What's wrong with expecting these "freeloaders" to pay for other shit, too?

 

So, you oppose the forced payment of due to any union / organized workforce?

 

Yes. No one should be forced. They should be excluded from negotiated compensation deals, though.

 

We agree.

I yield to you on the point. And no others.

 

Freeloaders didn't build jack shit.

 

I do not mind forced union dues as a condition of employment. That is because I believe in freedom of contract.

If an employer contracts with employees and part of the bargaining is that all employees must be a dues paying member of the union then where is the problem?

 

the unions know they will lose members if this happens. how could they not lose members? on some hand I agree with those who say that if someone really has a problem with it no one is forcing anyone to work at these jobs, but I also agree it's ridiculous to force membership.

 

I really do agree in principal, but I doubt that most of the employers want their people to be forced to be in the unions.