Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

[The Thriller]

If not being able to forcibly take money from people who have chosen not to be in a union is the death of unions then unions absolutely deserve to die. If unions have value then it seems that the people they serve would join them and pay dues. This crazy idea that the way for unions to survive is to allow them to take money from people who don't want to be in them and don't want to give them money is ridiculous.

Why join a union when you can just freeload off of them?

If you’re a teacher (for example) you benefit from the union and their fighting for pay increases, benefits, and protections even if you’re a nonmember. Some states forced teachers to join the union to maintain the union’s ability to fight for your compensation.

From what I understand about this ruling:

This essentially weakens unions. Now its unconstitutional to charge fees/force workers to join the union even if members benefit from their negoitations. Will we see a mass exodus of people leaving the unions where they are already strong? Probably not. But it certainly doesn’t strengthen them. And it will probably force them to be even more picky about which battles to fight since their ability to raise money has been hamstrung.

It’s funny. American workers (especially trumpers) bitch nonstop about “the elites” and whine about wealth inequality. Yet the very vessels that would help their cause they attack. I guess it’s just much easier to blame brown people, Hollywood actors, and “the unions” for your plight.

Furthermore, it’s hard to compete with the Kochs and Mercers who are legally able to spend as much as they want on elections and political party bribes while unions are hamstrung. How are democrats supposed to compete if unions are crushed and if republicans keep bribing big corporations with tax cut handouts?

Big win for the oligarchs like the Kochs and Devoses.
Big loss for unions, democrats, and workers in general. A weak union makes for weak workers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...df6bf4-7a0c-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html

 

[Stoked]

I’m a union member and will continue to be so and pay my fees.

But I think this is the right decision. People shouldn’t be forced to pay.

 

[RandyForRubio]

It’s a free speech issue.

If I’m opposed to a union, I shouldn’t be forced to pay dues for it.

 

[The Thriller]

I’m a union member and will continue to be so and pay my fees.

But I think this is the right decision. People shouldn’t be forced to pay.

Why join if you can just freeload?

 

[Stoked]

Why join if you can just freeload?

If you have to ask you wouldn’t understand.

Forcing dues is wrong imo. But I’m also ok with them being removed from union membership as well. No problem for it being pay to play.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Why join if you can just freeload?

Why work if you can just get welfare?

 

[colton]

Colton, what are the worse top3 laws in history of USA, that were activated thanks to the combination of bad lawmakers and bad group of SCOTUS?

I'm not really qualified to answer that, but here's a website list that you should find interesting: https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/10/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time.html

Am i correct that the only way to abolish bad laws approved by SCOTUS is to replace all SCOTUS members with better ones?

That's the main way. The only other way would be to pass a new amendment to the Constitution.

By the way, where are you from? From the questions, I assume it's not the U.S.

 

[moevillini]

Interesting to me the correlation between the Janus decision and the Citizens United decision (wasn't Kennedy the author of that?) - - perhaps if that decision had gone the other way, and corporations and unions were not granted the same Freedom of Speech protections for their political spending, the Janus situation would not have become such an issue.

 

[Gameface]

Are you familiar with the issues engendered by free-riders?

Yes. I work in a right to work state and belong to a union.

Now that free-riders might put the union itself in jeopardy of existing those free-riders can decide if taking a free ride is worth losing their union over. So, ultimately, if this is the death of the union the free ride is over, right?

 

[Gameface]

From my understanding public sector unions are required to offer their services to non-members as well as members. Seems like it was 'unfair' both ways to me before the ruling in a way that somewhat balanced out. Now it seems like a way to hamstring unions, as they're legally required to offer their service, but aren't allowed to require payments.

What if the people not paying don't want the services of the union? Wish that they worked in a non-union environment? Think that the union isn't getting them anything more than they would get without the union?

 

[Eminence]

What if the people not paying don't want the services of the union? Wish that they worked in a non-union environment? Think that the union isn't getting them anything more than they would get without the union?

It doesn't matter? The Union is required to do so, it's state law in most places (I believe originally stemming from racism in letting members join the unions).

I guess the Unions should probably take it to court and try to change it to not be required to represent them I suppose, but as it is with this decision it's incredibly one sided.

 

[RandyForRubio]

It doesn't matter? The Union is required to do so, it's state law in most places (I believe originally stemming from racism in letting members join the unions).

I guess the Unions should probably take it to court and try to change it to not be required to represent them I suppose, but as it is with this decision it's incredibly one sided.

So they should be forced to pay money to something they don’t agree with, don’t belong to, and don’t support?

Furthermore, that money goes to political contributions that they may not agree with. If 90% of the political contributions that unions made went to the Republican Party rather than the Democrat Party, I can guarantee you people like Thriller would have a big problem with that. I, and everybody else, have the right to not see our money spent that way if we don’t want it to.

Maybe rather than forcing people to pay, unions will have to earn their pay by providing the best service there is. And even if they do, there will be a few leechers, and hanger-ons, just like there are in every service. That doesn’t override the people’s right to free speech though.

 

[Gameface]

It doesn't matter? The Union is required to do so, it's state law in most places (I believe originally stemming from racism in letting members join the unions).

I guess the Unions should probably take it to court and try to change it to not be required to represent them I suppose, but as it is with this decision it's incredibly one sided.

I completely understand what you're saying, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

People who work in job covered by a collective bargaining agreement (aka, a union) are bound to that union even if they would prefer there be no union in their workplace. Even if they wish they could negotiate directly with management and deal with other issues on an individual basis.

I think you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union. Working in a union workplace and being represented by an incompetent union, I can tell you that I would have better pay, better shift flexibility and a better work/life balance if my garbage *** union wasn't there.

My union represents primarily unskilled labor. I am in a skilled labor field that has a pretty significant shortage of skilled people qualified to work with the automated systems that are becoming more and more common every day. The people in my field make up a very small portion of the overall hourly workforce at my workplace. The union is all but hostile to us. When they find out the managers are working with our schedules for the benefit of everyone and the harm of no one they shut that **** down. When market forces should drive our wages up they actually refused to allow the company to increase just our wages on the last contract, demanding that entry level inexperienced forklift drivers needed to have a pay increase if the mechanics were going to get a pay increase. When the company refused to give the forklift drivers a pay increase, the union said then they wouldn't agree to mechanics getting a pay increase. There were no strings attached, the company just wanted to adjust our wages to be competitive so that they could attract employees. I've worked at the place I'm at for about five years and they have never had full staff in my department.

I've also worked in non-union places and the work environment was better. The pay was just as good. Raises were better. Benefits were better. There was more flexibility.

I don't want my stupid *** union to represent me. I want them to go away.

 

[fishonjazz]

I completely understand what you're saying, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

People who work in job covered by a collective bargaining agreement (aka, a union) are bound to that union even if they would prefer there be no union in their workplace. Even if they wish they could negotiate directly with management and deal with other issues on an individual basis.

I think you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union. Working in a union workplace and being represented by an incompetent union, I can tell you that I would have better pay, better shift flexibility and a better work/life balance if my garbage *** union wasn't there.

My union represents primarily unskilled labor. I am in a skilled labor field that has a pretty significant shortage of skilled people qualified to work with the automated systems that are becoming more and more common every day. The people in my field make up a very small portion of the overall hourly workforce at my workplace. The union is all but hostile to us. When they find out the managers are working with our schedules for the benefit of everyone and the harm of no one they shut that **** down. When market forces should drive our wages up they actually refused to allow the company to increase just our wages on the last contract, demanding that entry level inexperienced forklift drivers needed to have a pay increase if the mechanics were going to get a pay increase. When the company refused to give the forklift drivers a pay increase, the union said then they wouldn't agree to mechanics getting a pay increase. There were no strings attached, the company just wanted to adjust our wages to be competitive so that they could attract employees. I've worked at the place I'm at for about five years and they have never had full staff in my department.

I've also worked in non-union places and the work environment was better. The pay was just as good. Raises were better. Benefits were better. There was more flexibility.

I don't want my stupid *** union to represent me. I want them to go away.

You know I love ya and I don't want you to take this the wrong way but it sounds like you should go where the work environment is better, benefits are better, flexibility is better and raises are better and you get treated better.
Why are you staying in the worse place rather than the better places?

 

[Gameface]

I like my job, the people I work with and things in general. I want everyone to get the most pay and best situation possible. I don't think our incompetent union helps any of us.

 

[lauriandres]

I'm not really qualified to answer that, but here's a website list that you should find interesting: https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/10/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time.html



That's the main way. The only other way would be to pass a new amendment to the Constitution.

By the way, where are you from? From the questions, I assume it's not the U.S.

Tallinn, Estonia

 

[One Brow]

I like my job, the people I work with and things in general. I want everyone to get the most pay and best situation possible. I don't think our incompetent union helps any of us.

Skilled workers do occasionally get the hurt in unions where the majority are unskilled.

 

[fishonjazz]

I like my job, the people I work with and things in general. I want everyone to get the most pay and best situation possible. I don't think our incompetent union helps any of us.

The one thing I wonder about and no one has any way of knowing is whether we would be getting more with a different union or with no union at all.
Many of us think we would but maybe with no union we don't get any raises at all rather than the small ones we got in the contract. Maybe we lose our pension and don't get the 401k thing in return.
No one knows unfortunately. Grass isn't always geener.

 

[Gameface]

The one thing I wonder about and no one has any way of knowing is whether we would be getting more with a different union or with no union at all.
Many of us think we would but maybe with no union we don't get any raises at all rather than the small ones we got in the contract. Maybe we lose our pension and don't get the 401k thing in return.
No one knows unfortunately. Grass isn't always geener.

It isn't always, but you worked there for several years without a union. I've talked to several other people and there was definitely a give and take when the union came in, right? It wasn't a horrible place to work without a union, was it? You got raises didn't you?

With the union, when we try to ask management why this or that (pay, time off, benefits) they throw their hands in the air and tell us that's between us and our union. They don't have to take responsibility for it to us. In non-union places I've worked they have to take responsibility for those things, they can't pass the buck to the union.

I'm still salty about this garbage contract our union very foprcefully jammed down our thoats. Not sure if you can tell, lol.

 

[fishonjazz]

It isn't always, but you worked there for several years without a union. I've talked to several other people and there was definitely a give and take when the union came in, right? It wasn't a horrible place to work without a union, was it? You got raises didn't you?

With the union, when we try to ask management why this or that (pay, time off, benefits) they throw their hands in the air and tell us that's between us and our union. They don't have to take responsibility for it to us. In non-union places I've worked they have to take responsibility for those things, they can't pass the buck to the union.

I'm still salty about this garbage contract our union very foprcefully jammed down our thoats. Not sure if you can tell, lol.

I will try to respond when I have more time. I have been here 15 years. It's not black and white in pre union vs post union.