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

Doesn't Federal law allow for a workforce vote, requiring only a strict majority of voting workers in order for a group to unionize? Or am I confused?

Because if so, it seems that management has little say if whether their labor force can unionize.

 

To practice law requires bar membership. To have architecture stamp requires AIA cert or PE license. One can call himself a chicken, but that doesn't have anything to do with be regulatorily a fryer.

 

association with a union, which is no authority on professional capability or certification shouldn't be a requirement for anything. It doesn't in any provide the consumer with any protections or guarantees of minimal qualifications. Making the unions out to be comparable is ridiculous.

I don't care if the unions exist, but compulsory membership should absolutely be illegal.

 

I also think unions should not be able to exclude workers already in the industry/working for a contracted employer. I have a friend in the hotel business who moved back to NYC. She makes a third of the pay as her coworkers because she isn't union, and the union won't let her in. She also can't get promoted without being in the union.

 

Look at the workers they employ. I don't think that having a face and an automatic breathing response is a skill tthat can be leveraged.

 

The Tennesse Legislature disagrees. They cut out the paycheck deduction for teachers, voluntary mind you, for all in their union busting efforts.

 

So TN doesn't allow payroll deduction for union dues, or am I misunderstanding?

 

Do your groups give money/work to elect folks that share their views?

 

I don't think that people of Tennessee should lose tax revenue and be placed at some risk, simply because unregulated and unlawful person(s) wish to make moonshine in their back yards. Given that stills must be busted to prevent that, then I would be for that.

 

No

 

Sure, to be a lawyer you have to be a member of the bar and pay your fees and cle. But you do not have to be a member of any state or local bar associations.
Same with the AIA.

 

I am not equating them. You misunderstood or do not know the difference - see above

 

the bar associations are for networking and any number of purposes, but aren't in any way compulsory. Passing the bar to perform the function is and should probably be compulsory, but it isn't comparable to compulsory union membership.

 

The point I am making about memberships in associations is that employers are and have been free to REQUIRE membership as a condition of employment.
Why should an employer not be able to require membership, likewise, in a union as a condition of employment?

 

is it the employer that is really requiring membership in a union?

 

Yes - in states that allow for freedom of contract on the issue. It has to be part of any agreement the employer makes with the union.

 

Yeah, it happens.

 

The employer isn't requiring. They can't require membership in any organizations. They can suggest. They can require professional certs.

You're not seriously comparing a negotiating pact to a professional certification?

 

But it's stupid to require it for people not affiliated with particular employers. It's stupid even within an employer, but should be against the law without.

 

Only via some shoddy old political shenanigans.