The Supreme Court today ruled against mandatory union fees/dues for public sector employees who are represented by unions. It changes it from a requirement of employment to the choice of the employee:

The 5-4 decision overturns a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that had let public-sector unions collect so-called agency fees from non-members to help cover the cost of collective bargaining. [...]

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said mandatory fees violated the free speech rights of workers who disagree with the union’s positions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-jix6vl5x

I honestly can't I disagree with the decision. The idea that you must join a union and are compelled to pay for its activities in order to even get the job never sat well with me. If a union does a good job for you you will contribute, if it doesn't then they haven't earned their fee. Additionally it allows a "double dip" with legislators as you are both negotiating with the people that control your pay and contributing to these same legislators, supporting those that are most likely to give you the best benefits and pay etc. That I disagree with.

This only covers public-sector unions, so the public in the end is the one that pays for all this. Public sector employees are still able to be in a union and to pay the due or fees, is just can't be compelled, a requirement of employment anymore.

Tugg

I understand the rationale of not paying for a service you didn't request in the first place. However, in the end, the non-payer benefits from the union's work as much as the payer so why not make the playing field equal?

From this, I expect that union workers will have their dues increased or attempt to survive as they are with other benefits that will be marginally better than the non-payer.

My mom is union (local university) and she has always been upset with coworkers who weren't part of the union but still reaped the benefits. If a strike happened, these workers would attempt to cross picket lines or criticize what was being done...but boy oh boy, having a health plan with extremely low deductibles and free tuition for your children was all the rage (I wonder who got that for the employees). What unions should do is bargain for its employees alone. Not a union member? No benefits for you.

Now, this only applies to public-sector unions. Does it open the door to other groups?

While I sympathize with the issue of benefits bleeding over to non-payers this was the right decision. I am a classical liberal in the sense that I believe that people should be able to do what they want without government telling them they can't. If anything it will make unions more responsible to their customers.

einsteinboricua wrote:

What unions should do is bargain for its employees alone. Not a union member? No benefits for you.

I would support this, it makes sense. Of course I think the bene's are almost always from the government entity that employs the person and not the union. But hey that would be a hell of a tactic with the local government: "We'll cover all health care and other bene's". Then the employees get to choose.

Of course I don't see the unions doing that, to expensive and risky, but offering other good bene's with membership would certainly be a smart tool.

But again, it is the political endeavors of unions that are an issue and all fees and payments for benefits would possibly have to be confined to those products alone.

Tugg

Unions should be able to negotiate a closed shop with management, however.

I realize this is a public union topic, but be careful to transfer this logic to the private sector. There are distinct differences although in neither case should it ever be a matter of the law enforcing a union shop across the board.

Not unexpected and I can’t say that I really disagree with it, and I’m a union member. The political activities of public sector unions are troubling when dues are compelled and it’s a governmental agency.

I’ll have to read the decision later to see if any room was left for some kind of work around, or exception if unions don’t engage in political activities.

PPVRA wrote:

Unions should be able to negotiate a closed shop with management, however.

I realize this is a public union topic, but be careful to transfer this logic to the private sector. There are distinct differences although in neither case should it ever be a matter of the law enforcing a union shop across the board.

As far as I know in Germany you cannot have a closed union shop. But there are other provisions to make sure that the labour force has bargaining power. A company has to allocate some board sits to labor representatives, usually to unions.

PPVRA wrote:

Unions should be able to negotiate a closed shop with management, however.

I realize this is a public union topic, but be careful to transfer this logic to the private sector. There are distinct differences although in neither case should it ever be a matter of the law enforcing a union shop across the board.

Yes, absolutely. It is very important to remember public sector versus private. It is public sector unions that I have concerns with.

I do think that very often unions are good and important (as long they do something and aren't just an employment agency for high paid union leadership. It seems that causes them to lose sight of the true function of the union which is solely to improve the workers situation.).

Tugg

“States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. “This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... af6ff3ae1b

Having a hard time figuring out how this is a First Amendment issue. I also have a hard time with let say: Union B spends union funds to successfully negotiate a new benefit for the members, and non-members are entitled to the same benefit without helping pay for process that got the benefit.

I suspect the lasting result of this decision will be lower wages and less benefits for the worker just as we seen in right to work states.

910A wrote:

I suspect the lasting result of this decision will be lower wages and less benefits for the worker just as we seen in right to work states.

I can't say for sure how it will impact and reduce a union's power but I will for sure. However for public unions they still have a lot of power and influence because they push favorable candidates to be elected and those people then sit across the table from them during negotiations and approve the negotiated package.

That has always been my issue with the situation. Don't campaign for and elect the people that will approve your pay and benefits package or if you do then don't accept money for that task.

And I have to admit, as the taxpayer who pays their wages and benefits I think they have had to much of an advantage and the wages and benefits in particular, have gotten too much for many municipalities to manage (at least in my area, I can't speak for everywhere of course).

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

910A wrote:

I suspect the lasting result of this decision will be lower wages and less benefits for the worker just as we seen in right to work states.

I can't say for sure how it will impact and reduce a union's power but I will for sure. However for public unions they still have a lot of power and influence because they push favorable candidates to be elected and those people then sit across the table from them during negotiations and approve the negotiated package.

That has always been my issue with the situation. Don't campaign for and elect the people that will approve your pay and benefits package or if you do then don't accept money for that task.

Tugg

I understand what you're saying. Not so much for down ballot positions for State Rep or something like that. Probably should not endorse in a public manner for executive branch like Governors, Mayors if they are the ones that hold the purse strings. I have no problems with the union leadership informing members that candidate A might be better for us overall than candidate B. No reason to splash it in the news media, really does endorsements really mean anything to the voters?

My ex worked in the public sector and had to join the union. She never liked the idea of paying dues to the union who supported political candidates that she was opposed to. Made sense to me why she'd be against having to pay dues to help elect someone she couldn't stand.

ER757 wrote:

My ex worked in the public sector and had to join the union. She never liked the idea of paying dues to the union who supported political candidates that she was opposed to. Made sense to me why she'd be against having to pay dues to help elect someone she couldn't stand.

Some pubic positions such as public safety positions joining the union/association whatever is like having an insurance policy. In my case if I shot someone, as a member of the association I would have a fully paid attorney vetted by the association in knowledge of police procedure to represent me pronto. If I wasn't a union member, I would be out of luck.

910A wrote:

ER757 wrote:

My ex worked in the public sector and had to join the union. She never liked the idea of paying dues to the union who supported political candidates that she was opposed to. Made sense to me why she'd be against having to pay dues to help elect someone she couldn't stand.

Some pubic positions such as public safety positions joining the union/association whatever is like having an insurance policy. In my case if I shot someone, as a member of the association I would have a fully paid attorney vetted by the association in knowledge of police procedure to represent me pronto. If I wasn't a union member, I would be out of luck.

Nobody is taking this away from you. They are just giving you the choice of whether or not you want it.

Casobs wrote:

910A wrote:

ER757 wrote:

My ex worked in the public sector and had to join the union. She never liked the idea of paying dues to the union who supported political candidates that she was opposed to. Made sense to me why she'd be against having to pay dues to help elect someone she couldn't stand.

Some pubic positions such as public safety positions joining the union/association whatever is like having an insurance policy. In my case if I shot someone, as a member of the association I would have a fully paid attorney vetted by the association in knowledge of police procedure to represent me pronto. If I wasn't a union member, I would be out of luck.

That's why you have a personal umbrella policy.

A personal umbrella policy wouldn't cover a situation like I described.

910A wrote:

ER757 wrote:

My ex worked in the public sector and had to join the union. She never liked the idea of paying dues to the union who supported political candidates that she was opposed to. Made sense to me why she'd be against having to pay dues to help elect someone she couldn't stand.

Some pubic positions such as public safety positions joining the union/association whatever is like having an insurance policy. In my case if I shot someone, as a member of the association I would have a fully paid attorney vetted by the association in knowledge of police procedure to represent me pronto. If I wasn't a union member, I would be out of luck.

That's why you have a personal umbrella policy.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

910A wrote:

ER757 wrote:

My ex worked in the public sector and had to join the union. She never liked the idea of paying dues to the union who supported political candidates that she was opposed to. Made sense to me why she'd be against having to pay dues to help elect someone she couldn't stand.

Some pubic positions such as public safety positions joining the union/association whatever is like having an insurance policy. In my case if I shot someone, as a member of the association I would have a fully paid attorney vetted by the association in knowledge of police procedure to represent me pronto. If I wasn't a union member, I would be out of luck.

Nobody is taking this away from you. They are just giving you the choice of whether or not you want it.

Right, but in this situation the answer is also a no-brainer. Do you want to paid $35/month or paid an attorney a $10,000 retainer..

I am a union member, and I will start by saying even if my position were subject to Right to Work, I would still choose to pay union dues. Working my job without some sort of Union Backing would not be good in my opinion. I do believe that unions are still necessary in our country, as I believe that even the threat of a union can even compel a company to treat the employees right.

That being said though, there are a lot of issues that I have with unions. This case addressed a lot of them in the public sector. One issue with the public sector is that by nature, your wages come from taxpayers. Taxation is a government function, and by its very nature, political. It is impossibe for a public sector union to not be political. This naturally becomes an issue because politicians are more likely to help you if you donate to their campaign, and by its very nature the Union Dues come from the members, and by default the taxpayer. So in a sense you have taxpayer money funding political campaigns. This is problematic to me. And as the person in this case says, why should his dues support guys he doesnt agree with? There is so many conflicts of interest here. I think the supreme court got this one right.

As for Private sector unions, I will say this. My workgroup just voted to replace our union. Unions need to remember that they still represent their members first and foremost. Too many unions are set up as dictatorships where guys at the top are pulling in six figure incomes and are neglecting their membership. While an employee does have the right to claim Duty of Fair Representation, they would be on the hook for their own legal fees against a union with an army of lawyers. And the law is set up in such a way to make it difficult to hold unions accountable, and difficult to decertify them. These are usually passed by politicians who are sympathetic to unions. What should be passed is legislation that holds unions accountable to their membership, and to make it easier for the membership to ensure they are getting fair representation. Compelled membership doesnt do this.

apodino wrote:

That being said though, there are a lot of issues that I have with unions. This case addressed a lot of them in the public sector. One issue with the public sector is that by nature, your wages come from taxpayers. Taxation is a government function, and by its very nature, political. It is impossibe for a public sector union to not be political. This naturally becomes an issue because politicians are more likely to help you if you donate to their campaign, and by its very nature the Union Dues come from the members, and by default the taxpayer. So in a sense you have taxpayer money funding political campaigns. This is problematic to me.

You forgot the most insidious aspect of this situation: The people who are negotiating also control increasing hiring, adding union jobs. So you want my support? You want more money for you campaign? Promise to adds jobs (and certainly don't support cutting those jobs). Politicians looking for support from public unions also tend to advocate moving tasks or jobs that could be private sector into public sector.

Tugg

I cannot bring myself to cross a union line when a strike is in place - for a private company. However I don't believe that public employees should have unions.

Those who opt out of unions should also opt out of union benefits (retirement, health care, etc) and accept federal minimum wages and benefits the company wants to give them. Seems fair.

Tugger wrote:

If a union does a good job for you you will contribute, if it doesn't then they haven't earned their fee.

This is like saying you could go into a store, pick something off the shelf and then take it home to try it out and see whether or not you want to pay for it (and, if you don't want to pay for it, you still get to keep the item). No business model works this way.

Or, put another way, could I decide that since the current government isn't doing a good job of representing my interests, I'm not going to pay taxes? I'd still be entitled to the same public services, of course; I'd just get them for free until I decided I felt like paying for them again.

Tugger wrote:

Additionally it allows a "double dip" with legislators as you are both negotiating with the people that control your pay and contributing to these same legislators, supporting those that are most likely to give you the best benefits and pay etc. That I disagree with.

That has been illegal for forty years. Unions can't use member dues to fund political activities (contributions, lobbying not specifically related to the union, etc.).

Tugger wrote:

You forgot the most insidious aspect of this situation: The people who are negotiating also control increasing hiring, adding union jobs. So you want my support? You want more money for you campaign? Promise to adds jobs (and certainly don't support cutting those jobs).

Sounds exactly what private companies do when they go begging for tax breaks in exchange for jobs. People have the right to petition their government. And again, campaign donations aren't coming out of union dues.

Tugger wrote:

unions

Gross.

apodino wrote:

What should be passed is legislation that holds unions accountable to their membership, and to make it easier for the membership to ensure they are getting fair representation. Compelled membership doesnt do this.

You started this paragraph by saying your workplace voted to replace your union, and thus both held the union accountable and sought better representation. So I'm not seeing a problem that requires a legislative fix.

MikeDrop wrote:

However I don't believe that public employees should have unions.

And why would you believe that? They are badly needed because all too often there are dodgy, unscrupulous middle managers who do everything but follow the proper rules and processes when restructures are happening.

I've been in a union for something like ten years. I've not had to use them myself, but they did help out a former colleague who wasn't a member - and without any questioning or delay. They swung into action immediately and quickly.

There are fairly few union members where I am though.

seb146 wrote:

Those who opt out of unions should also opt out of union benefits (retirement, health care, etc) and accept federal minimum wages and benefits the company wants to give them. Seems fair.

We all get those benefits regardless of union/non-union. It's the accepted thing and has been for as long as I can remember. Only contractors don't get that, but contractors are also paid a lot more, they are very costly.

Mir wrote:

Sounds exactly what private companies do when they go begging for tax breaks in exchange for jobs. People have the right to petition their government. And again, campaign donations aren't coming out of union dues.

But professional/company unions (or what is called industry bodies) are surely donating to political parties in some countries and that is seemingly okay. Yet when a employee union thinks to do it, there is an outrage. I think it should be banned for all kinds of unions, including industry bodies/unions.

In France we don't have this closed shop concept, and there is no significant advantage to being in a union. As a result unions are quite weak and they have fewer and fewer members. As a consequence social dialogue is made more difficult.

I definitely think some benefits should be linked to union membership, while keeping the freedom to choose your union. Fees could be relatively low thanks to membership being high.

As an example in my company there is a union that gets the majority of the votes that I quite disagree with, and a smaller one that corresponds more to my views (and several others, still), but in the end I'm not a member of either.

seb146 wrote:

Those who opt out of unions should also opt out of union benefits (retirement, health care, etc) and accept federal minimum wages and benefits the company wants to give them. Seems fair.

Seems unconstitutional.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Those who opt out of unions should also opt out of union benefits (retirement, health care, etc) and accept federal minimum wages and benefits the company wants to give them. Seems fair.

Seems unconstitutional.

How so? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to pay dues to the union, you don't get the benefits. Simple.

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Those who opt out of unions should also opt out of union benefits (retirement, health care, etc) and accept federal minimum wages and benefits the company wants to give them. Seems fair.

Seems unconstitutional.

How so? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to pay dues to the union, you don't get the benefits. Simple.

No, you can get what you negotiate for. Forcing someone to work for no benefits and to work for the minimum wage just because they chose not to join a union is unquestionably unconstitutional.

A good employee might actually come out a lot better if the company doesn’t want to lose them.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Forcing someone to work for no benefits and to work for the minimum wage just because they chose not to join a union is unquestionably unconstitutional.

No it's not. My company has a union but it's only on some sites. Those unionized sites have different payscales and benefits from the non-union sites. Even in the unionized sites, there are folks that are not union. Since they're not covered under the collective bargaining agreement, they're set up to whatever the company deems they're worth.

What seb is saying (and I agree with) is that if the union jobs have negotiated better benefits than the non-union jobs, you either pay into the collective bargaining agreement (i.e. pay union dues) or sit out its benefits. If the union has slightly higher pay than minimum wage, become a union member and you're covered; if not, then settle for that minimum wage.

What YOU'RE proposing, however, is the main issue of why this became a contentious issue in the first place: the free rider problem. Don't pay dues but reap the benefits of the union.

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Forcing someone to work for no benefits and to work for the minimum wage just because they chose not to join a union is unquestionably unconstitutional.

No it's not. My company has a union but it's only on some sites. Those unionized sites have different payscales and benefits from the non-union sites. Even in the unionized sites, there are folks that are not union. Since they're not covered under the collective bargaining agreement, they're set up to whatever the company deems they're worth.

What seb is saying (and I agree with) is that if the union jobs have negotiated better benefits than the non-union jobs, you either pay into the collective bargaining agreement (i.e. pay union dues) or sit out its benefits. If the union has slightly higher pay than minimum wage, become a union member and you're covered; if not, then settle for that minimum wage.

What YOU'RE proposing, however, is the main issue of why this became a contentious issue in the first place: the free rider problem. Don't pay dues but reap the benefits of the union.

No, that’s not what he said. Keep moving those goal posts. He/she said that if you do not join the union, by operation of law, you must be forced to work for minimum wage. That is patently unconstitutional.

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Forcing someone to work for no benefits and to work for the minimum wage just because they chose not to join a union is unquestionably unconstitutional.

No it's not. My company has a union but it's only on some sites. Those unionized sites have different payscales and benefits from the non-union sites. Even in the unionized sites, there are folks that are not union. Since they're not covered under the collective bargaining agreement, they're set up to whatever the company deems they're worth.

What seb is saying (and I agree with) is that if the union jobs have negotiated better benefits than the non-union jobs, you either pay into the collective bargaining agreement (i.e. pay union dues) or sit out its benefits. If the union has slightly higher pay than minimum wage, become a union member and you're covered; if not, then settle for that minimum wage.

What YOU'RE proposing, however, is the main issue of why this became a contentious issue in the first place: the free rider problem. Don't pay dues but reap the benefits of the union.

Actually, what he is suggesting is being able to negotiate ones own salary and benefits. Why do I need a union to negotiate what I am worth? Especially since even the laziest of the lazy in the union gets paid the same as those that are motivated to work?

I'll continue to negotiate my salary, seeing as i tend to make more than what a union can get me.

LittleSprocket wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Forcing someone to work for no benefits and to work for the minimum wage just because they chose not to join a union is unquestionably unconstitutional.

No it's not. My company has a union but it's only on some sites. Those unionized sites have different payscales and benefits from the non-union sites. Even in the unionized sites, there are folks that are not union. Since they're not covered under the collective bargaining agreement, they're set up to whatever the company deems they're worth.

What seb is saying (and I agree with) is that if the union jobs have negotiated better benefits than the non-union jobs, you either pay into the collective bargaining agreement (i.e. pay union dues) or sit out its benefits. If the union has slightly higher pay than minimum wage, become a union member and you're covered; if not, then settle for that minimum wage.

What YOU'RE proposing, however, is the main issue of why this became a contentious issue in the first place: the free rider problem. Don't pay dues but reap the benefits of the union.

Actually, what he is suggesting is being able to negotiate ones own salary and benefits. Why do I need a union to negotiate what I am worth? Especially since even the laziest of the lazy in the union gets paid the same as those that are motivated to work?

I'll continue to negotiate my salary, seeing as i tend to make more than what a union can get me.

And seb says that by law you must be made to work for minimum wage. Because apparently in seb’s world only unions know how to negotiate a pay rate. Which is funny, because millions of people who work for companies with no unions seem to have been able to figure it out.

Here is a hint: If you think that your union needs statutory thuggery to get you join, maybe your union sucks.

I actually think that the unintended consequence of the recent court ruling is that public unions will get better out of necessity.

Mir wrote:

Tugger wrote:

If a union does a good job for you you will contribute, if it doesn't then they haven't earned their fee.

This is like saying you could go into a store, pick something off the shelf and then take it home to try it out and see whether or not you want to pay for it (and, if you don't want to pay for it, you still get to keep the item). No business model works this way.

Ummm... A.) People do that already, we all have purchased items and returned them when they don't satisfy us/our need. As to your "keeping without paying" concept, no you don't get to do that. B.) The bigger difference is you can always choose to shop at another store. You don't have that option with compelled payments to a union for your job.

Aesma wrote:

As an example in my company there is a union that gets the majority of the votes that I quite disagree with, and a smaller one that corresponds more to my views (and several others, still), but in the end I'm not a member of either.

Now this is something to look at and I think I could support for union participation in the public sector. If multiple unions are allowed and people can choose to joins whichever one they want, that might work. However with the current ruling I don't know if one can be required to choose to join one for employment. However if the free speech, right to free association aspects are addressed I guess it could pass such a test.

Again my issue is the fact that you already vote for those that are employing you, that the union you work under then gets to also advocate for who is voted for is an issue to me.

Tugg

That’s one of my biggest issue as well. The legislature created a statutory requirement that all public employees had to join the union. Then the legislators took money from these unions so they would be re-elected. For all of the left’s concern with money in politics, how they can justify this is beyond me.

Tugger wrote:

Ummm... A.) People do that already, we all have purchased items and returned them when they don't satisfy us/our need. As to your "keeping without paying" concept, no you don't get to do that.

A union is obligated to bargain on behalf of all the employees at a company, not just its members. Someone could not be part of the union, not pay dues, but still get the benefits of the collective bargaining the union does. So that would be equivalent to getting to keep the item whether or not you pay for it. As you admit, that makes no sense.

Tugger wrote:

B.) The bigger difference is you can always choose to shop at another store. You don't have that option with compelled payments to a union for your job.

If you don't like what the union is doing, you could work to change its leadership. And, of course, you could seek employment at a non-union job.

Mir wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Ummm... A.) People do that already, we all have purchased items and returned them when they don't satisfy us/our need. As to your "keeping without paying" concept, no you don't get to do that.

A union is obligated to bargain on behalf of all the employees at a company, not just its members. Someone could not be part of the union, not pay dues, but still get the benefits of the collective bargaining the union does. So that would be equivalent to getting to keep the item whether or not you pay for it. As you admit, that makes no sense.

Then don't grant the benefits to non-members. I don't have a problem with that. Of course the state is how covers the majority of the benefits for public union employees, not the union.

Mir wrote:

Tugger wrote:

B.) The bigger difference is you can always choose to shop at another store. You don't have that option with compelled payments to a union for your job.

If you don't like what the union is doing, you could work to change its leadership. And, of course, you could seek employment at a non-union job.

Why not allow multiple unions as Aesma noted? That would solve the problem completely.

And regarding seeking "nonunion employment, that is exactly what people are/were seeking. But they were not allowed to do that, in order to do the public service job they were compelled to fund the union.

Tugg

VTKillarney1 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Seems unconstitutional.

How so? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to pay dues to the union, you don't get the benefits. Simple.

No, you can get what you negotiate for. Forcing someone to work for no benefits and to work for the minimum wage just because they chose not to join a union is unquestionably unconstitutional.

A good employee might actually come out a lot better if the company doesn’t want to lose them.

The whole point of a union and paying union dues is to get a living wage and benefits and things like that. If you do not want to pay union dues and have the union represent you during contract negotiations, then you get what you negotiate for yourself. If you demand $30 an hour with benefits, the employer can say "we counter with $10 and no benefits." You only have you to negotiate that because you opted out of the union.

Do you know what it is like to negotiate with a major corporation? Besides, many low wage employees are not allowed to unionize. If a cashier at Wal-Mart or Target went to their supervisor and made those demands, they would be laughed at.

Mir wrote:

That has been illegal for forty years. Unions can't use member dues to fund political activities (contributions, lobbying not specifically related to the union, etc.).

Huh? Have you ever been to a union meeting?

For example...https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summar ... d000000077

VTKillarney1 wrote:

That’s one of my biggest issue as well. The legislature created a statutory requirement that all public employees had to join the union. Then the legislators took money from these unions so they would be re-elected. For all of the left’s concern with money in politics, how they can justify this is beyond me.

And other politicians took money from NRA, mass shootings happen, and those politicians still get elected. Besides, what is wrong with looking out for the working class? There are more of them than the wealthy who seem to get all the money.

But, the solution to unions is simple: if you don't want to join the union, opt out and get whatever the employer gives you. If you don't like it, find another non-union job with the benefits you want.

seb146 wrote:

And other politicians took money from NRA, mass shootings happen, and those politicians still get elected.

But no one is required to contribute to the NRA. THAT is the issue.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

seb146 wrote:

And other politicians took money from NRA, mass shootings happen, and those politicians still get elected.

But no one is required to contribute to the NRA. THAT is the issue.

Tugg

And, yet, NRA still buys politicians.

That too is an issue.

Like I said: if a person does not want to belong to a union, they should not enjoy the benefits that come with union membership. That's like saying "I have a driver's licence and enough money to buy a Kia Soul, so I demand a Bentley and if I don't get a Bentley, I will sue."

seb146 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

seb146 wrote:

And other politicians took money from NRA, mass shootings happen, and those politicians still get elected.

But no one is required to contribute to the NRA. THAT is the issue.

Tugg

And, yet, NRA still buys politicians.

That too is an issue.

Like I said: if a person does not want to belong to a union, they should not enjoy the benefits that come with union membership. That's like saying "I have a driver's licence and enough money to buy a Kia Soul, so I demand a Bentley and if I don't get a Bentley, I will sue."

Start a new thread if you want to debate the NRA. This is a good discussion about unions.

Mike Drop

MikeDrop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

But no one is required to contribute to the NRA. THAT is the issue.

Tugg

And, yet, NRA still buys politicians.

That too is an issue.

Like I said: if a person does not want to belong to a union, they should not enjoy the benefits that come with union membership. That's like saying "I have a driver's licence and enough money to buy a Kia Soul, so I demand a Bentley and if I don't get a Bentley, I will sue."

Start a new thread if you want to debate the NRA. This is a good discussion about unions.

Mike Drop

Financial contributions to politicians. Unions, NRA, banks, big pharma, oil, Koch Bros. And who reaps the benefits? All you righties outraged when unions do exactly the same thing as your beloved NRA, banks, big pharma, oil, and Koch Bros. I wonder why that is? You don't mind when they all buy politicians but, heaven forbid unions do the exact same thing.

Since you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the thread, Mike, I guess you agree that anyone who opts out of a union should also not enjoy union benefits.

seb146 wrote:

Like I said: if a person does not want to belong to a union, they should not enjoy the benefits that come with union membership. That's like saying "I have a driver's licence and enough money to buy a Kia Soul, so I demand a Bentley and if I don't get a Bentley, I will sue."

Nobody is arguing with you. The argument is the suggestion that if you don't join a union you must be forced to work for the federal minimum wage. As I said earlier, that is patently unconstitutional.

seb146 wrote:

Financial contributions to politicians. Unions, NRA, banks, big pharma, oil, Koch Bros. And who reaps the benefits? All you righties outraged when unions do exactly the same thing as your beloved NRA, banks, big pharma, oil, and Koch Bros. I wonder why that is? You don't mind when they all buy politicians but, heaven forbid unions do the exact same thing.

You forgot Soros.

My understanding is that the right is not offended that there is money in politics. They took offense that someone, just for taking a job, was forced to give money to a third party. The Koch Brothers have never forced me to give them money. Neither has the NRA. If I don't like who my bank donates to I can always find another bank. See the difference?

At the end of the day this is about personal freedom. Forcing someone to join a union gives them less freedom over how to live their life. We live in a very twisted world when it is the Democrats who are insisting that government should have the power to force you to live your life in a certain way.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Like I said: if a person does not want to belong to a union, they should not enjoy the benefits that come with union membership. That's like saying "I have a driver's licence and enough money to buy a Kia Soul, so I demand a Bentley and if I don't get a Bentley, I will sue."

Nobody is arguing with you. The argument is the suggestion that if you don't join a union you must be forced to work for the federal minimum wage. As I said earlier, that is patently unconstitutional.

How? If you don't pay for it and don't sign up for it, how is it unconstitutional? You want your cake and eat it too. It does not work that way. You are demanding First Class service on EK but paying Greyhound prices. It does not work that way.

If you want union salary and benefits, join the union. If you don't want to pay union dues, you do not need union representation, pay, or benefits. Simple as that.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

The argument is the suggestion that if you don't join a union you must be forced to work for the federal minimum wage. As I said earlier, that is patently unconstitutional.

THAT is unconstitutional. However, seb never said anything about being FORCED to work for minimum wage:

seb146 wrote:

Those who opt out of unions should also opt out of union benefits (retirement, health care, etc) and accept federal minimum wages and benefits the company wants to give them. Seems fair.

I don't see the word forced anywhere. And no...it's not "between the lines". My interpretation of this was stated above: pay union dues if you want to be a part of the collective bargaining. If not, then if minimum wage is what the company pays, then minimum wage it is.

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

The argument is the suggestion that if you don't join a union you must be forced to work for the federal minimum wage. As I said earlier, that is patently unconstitutional.

THAT is unconstitutional. However, seb never said anything about being FORCED to work for minimum wage:

seb146 wrote:

Those who opt out of unions should also opt out of union benefits (retirement, health care, etc) and accept federal minimum wages and benefits the company wants to give them. Seems fair.

I don't see the word forced anywhere. And no...it's not "between the lines". My interpretation of this was stated above: pay union dues if you want to be a part of the collective bargaining. If not, then if minimum wage is what the company pays, then minimum wage it is.

He said “should . . . accept.” You may be right. He may have just been giving horrible advice.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

The argument is the suggestion that if you don't join a union you must be forced to work for the federal minimum wage. As I said earlier, that is patently unconstitutional.

THAT is unconstitutional. However, seb never said anything about being FORCED to work for minimum wage:

seb146 wrote:

Those who opt out of unions should also opt out of union benefits (retirement, health care, etc) and accept federal minimum wages and benefits the company wants to give them. Seems fair.

I don't see the word forced anywhere. And no...it's not "between the lines". My interpretation of this was stated above: pay union dues if you want to be a part of the collective bargaining. If not, then if minimum wage is what the company pays, then minimum wage it is.

He said “should . . . accept.” You may be right. He may have just been giving horrible advice. If that’s the case, I can see why he would be deathly afraid of going it on his own.