In exactly the same way as shareholders do for a company they have a share of ownership in–if you have a share, you have a meaningful vote (according to the rules of the organization, in this case a corporation, and the laws that attach thereto). If you are a dues-paying member of a union, similarly, you have a meaningful vote (according to the rules of the organization, in this case a union, and the laws that attach thereto).
I’m having a hard time zeroing in on where we have a disagreement, here, Zeriel.
And if it were a black person who did wrong, do you think it would be okay to make an anti-black screed out of it? Because that’s what you’re doing here. You’re taking one union’s bad actions, and using prejudice to put it on all of them. And that’s what’s so dadblasted offensive. Well, that and your constant rubbing people’s faces in it, acting as if you’re being moral when you do so.
The basic concept of unions is good, even if there are abuses in the system. The basic concept is to help out the little guy, the relatively poor, by taking away a little power from the big guy, the relatively rich. It’s basic Christian morality. You’ve indicated in the past that you want to hurt unions: not make them work better, but hurt them. And as long as you hold that position, I can’t see any way to engage you rationally on the subject.
Because, rationally, the only real difference between a corporation and a union is that the former prioritizes money, while the latter prioritizes fairness. (Even if you disagree with their tactics being fair, you can’t deny they are doing these actions because they believe the outcome will be more fair.)
Well, if we drop all that idealistic fairness stuff, if we accept an amoral premise of utter self-interest, unions and union members have the same right to fight for themselves, and by any means necessary. That would be funny. A union so powerful and predatory, the CEO has to go for food stamps.
Nonsense. The unions don’t want fairness. They want money. At any given point it time all they want is “more”.
As far as you bringing race into this, please. The factor of the matter is that what transpired here is part and parcel to what unions want and try to get away with. So, unless you feel that doing wrong is part of simply being black, you bringing race into this is pure ridiculosity.
Aren’t they required to say “Please, sir, can I have some more?”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!
Of COURSE I can deny it. It is absolutely untrue. That was perhaps the original goal, but now unions like SEIU Local 1000 don’t want fairness. If thy did, they would not have refused to refund the Fight Back Fee until the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, then refunded it, then tried to argue the case was moot. That’s not anywhere near a fair tactic OR a fair outcome.
You don’t help the little guy by throwing eggs at him and calling him a scab, either, as long as you want to talk about basic concepts.
Bricker, if you were legal counsel for the union, would you have advised them to offer refunds to try to moot the case?
Union members are free to quit their jobs at any time, too:rolleyes: (actually, no, you can’t divest yourself of shares at any time. Some shares are “restricted” and other stocks can’t be sold on certain markets).
No, because the shareholder is the equivalent (roughly) of a union member. This is about charging NON-union members.
I am pro-union, but I agree that non-members should have the right to get reimbursed for charges that go to political purposes.
This isn’t about union members though. Union members have no right to opt out of any dues or assessments and no court has said so. They shouldn’t, since they choose to be members and have a say in how the union is run.
This is about unions charging assessments to NON-members.
Absolutely not. Wholly apart from the crappiness of the move, it has too big of a downside risk.
Sure – but that’s bringing a third party into play. They have no desire to quit their jobs… just not have the local union take their money,even though they are not a member.
And look at this situation, and how you and others are desperately trying to justify what’s happened here. The SEIU took money from non-members, when it wasn’t allowed to. It refused to refund the money. Then when the case was accepted by the Supreme Court, it tried to refund the money and then tell the court there was no controversy left to decide.
How can you look at that and think anything positive?
That’s the idea of a closed shop - that nonmembers benefit from the union’s actions, such as in setting pay rates and vacation and insurance, even if they choose not to join, and should therefore be required to pay for the benefits they receive as a result of the union’s actions. Do you disagree that that’s fair and appropriate?
As for the union’s political efforts, it is disingenuous to assert that they’re extracurricular activities for which nonmembers receive no benefits. At a time when their very existence is under strong political attack, *certainly *political efforts are required in their defense. Certainly that includes campaigning against their, well, enemies and for their supporters, all on behalf of their members and those who get the benefits of membership. And what’s wrong with that? Why *should *nonmembers get a free ride?
Yep, sure do.
I agree. But I can see myself strongly objecting if I were in a similar situation. So I’m willing to tolerate the exception for politics. People can disagree, even if it’s against their own self-interests. Politics encompasses more than one particular issue.
You’re not required to be a member of a union, but in certain shops non-union members must pay a smaller fee to cover collective negotiation services.
In those shops, it is absolutely correct that they can opt out of paying anything over and above the base negotiation fee, and should not be forced to contribute the portion of the membership dues that pays for political action, as happened in the case under discussion in this thread.
Because that’s what the law says. The current law is that non-union members do not have to pay for political lobbying services, and unions are required to disclose the percentage of their funding that is used for such and bill non-members accordingly at the lesser rate.
I’m pro-union (so much so that I’d re-legalize true closed shops), but the union’s job under the current legal structure is to convince non-members that those political services are valuable enough to make the dues worth paying, not to just taken them in contravention of the legal requirements.
I thought it was the Beck decision, not statutory law, that said this. In any event, I think he’s questioning the wisdom of this policy in the first place, which is legitimate.
Decisional law is “the law.”
I know, but it can be confusing to call it that. Just clarifying.