Unions fear SCOTUS could destroy them...

[Ruken]

I’m not sure I qualify as right-wing or hostile, but I don’t like third parties inserting themselves into my negotiation with my employer unless I ask them to.
I realize they are occasionally required by law to do so. That’s a reason to change the law, not a reason for allowing an unwanted third party to confiscate my paycheck.

[Bone]

@BrainGlutton

Why the RW hostility to labor unions anyway? After all, collective bargaining is just another form of negotiation-in-the-marketplace.

That would be fine, except unions are specifically exempted from anti-trust laws. In addition to that, a typical option when in negotiation is to walk away from the table - decide it’s not worth pursuing further. With a union, once they are certified, this is no longer an option by law. Employers are forced to negotiate, and may be forced into arbitration. This is no longer voluntary. So it’s another form of negotiation, except it’s not.

I personally would have no issue with collective bargaining at all if employers faced no legal ramifications from either refusing to negotiate, or terminating anyone for refusing to work (striking).

[Bricker]

@Hector_St_Clare

Bricker on what grounds do you feel further weakening labor unions in America is a good thing?

@Bricker

On the grounds that forcing someone to pay for membership in a union they don’t wish to belong to runs counter to our fundamental notions of fairness.

Not only that, but the First Amendment guarantees us, inter alia, freedom of association; when the government forces a person to pay union fees when the person does not wish to be a part of the union, this violates the First Amendment right of association.

Four years later, the Court finally puts a stake in the heart of Abood.

@SCOTUS June 2018 in Janus v. City

The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled.

[Bricker]

@Hector_St_Clare

I don’t see why paying union fees is inherently different than paying taxes. Can I get out of paying my taxes because I don’t approve of our foreign policy?

Because unions are not vested with sovereign power, as governments are.

For the record, Bricker you’re a Catholic right? Catholic social teaching strongly favours labour unions as a bulwark both against capitalists and against the state, last I checked.

Sure. But nothing in Catholic teaching suggests that MANDATORY union membership is a strongly favored thing.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

I will be asking my local to look into the legality of having to advocate for people who are not members and who do not pay us dues. My union should have the same right of free association as any other person, right?

[Slash1972]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I will be asking my local to look into the legality of having to advocate for people who are not members and who do not pay us dues. My union should have the same right of free association as any other person, right?

Why WOULD they advocate for people who are not members and who do not pay dues?

[Ruken]

@Slash1972

Why WOULD they advocate for people who are not members and who do not pay dues?

If they insist on exclusive representation, they have to. Exclusive representation is not, however, a requirement.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

It’d be a damn fine thing if previous decisions couldn’t be overturned on a 5-4 vote. This is some fine bullshit that a highly partisan court, put in place by the most partisan of legislatures, has enacted.

[Slash1972]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

It’d be a damn fine thing if previous decisions couldn’t be overturned on a 5-4 vote. This is some fine bullshit that a highly partisan court, put in place by the most partisan of legislatures, has enacted.

Could you expand upon this? I don’t see the issue with not making people pay dues to a union that they don’t belong to.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Slash1972

Could you expand upon this? I don’t see the issue with not making people pay dues to a union that they don’t belong to.

Do you see an issue with unions being forced to advocate for non-members who do not pay dues?

[Slash1972]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Do you see an issue with unions being forced to advocate for non-members who do not pay dues?

Of course. I said a few posts ago, I don’t know why they would do that.

[Ruken]

And they don’t have to. They didn’t last week and they don’t after this decision. Members-only unions are legal, just unpopular when you could force dues and have exclusive representation.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Slash1972

Could you expand upon this? I don’t see the issue with not making people pay dues to a union that they don’t belong to.

The issue is that LHOD is an unabashed liberal, and in the last few decades, unions have been very strongly pro-Democrat, providing plenty of cash to that cow. So this decision reduces the ability of public-sector unions to fund Democratic Party activities. QED.

I remember back in the day when there were unions that were pro-Republican Party. Then, it wasn’t so straightforward a calculus.

[2ManyTacos]

Aaaaaaaand this is what a stolen Supreme Court seat gets you. Like I’ve said in other threads, the Court-packing fight of 2022 is gonna be LIT AF…

[Slash1972]

@2ManyTacos

Aaaaaaaand this is what a stolen Supreme Court seat gets you. Like I’ve said in other threads, the Court-packing fight of 2022 is gonna be LIT AF…

People keep saying things like this, but fail to mention why this decision is so bad. Care to elaborate?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Do you see an issue with unions being forced to advocate for non-members who do not pay dues?

@Slash1972

Of course. I said a few posts ago, I don’t know why they would do that.

@Ruken

And they don’t have to. They didn’t last week and they don’t after this decision. Members-only unions are legal, just unpopular when you could force dues and have exclusive representation.

Right to fair representation | National Labor Relations Board

You have a right to be represented by your union fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.

Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not-fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. This duty applies to virtually every action that a union may take in dealing with an employer as your representative, including collective bargaining, handling grievances, and operating exclusive hiring halls. For example, a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. But the duty does not ordinarily apply to rights a worker can enforce independently - such as filing a workers’ compensation claim - or to internal union affairs - such as the union’s right to discipline members for violating its own rules.

Op-Ed: Why should unions negotiate for workers who don't pay their fair share?

In every state, workers who want to collectively bargain with an employer must get support from a majority of the workers in a unit (sometimes a whole workplace, sometimes a particular group of employees). When the union gets majority support, it has a legal duty to bargain on behalf of all the workers in the unit, including those who object to the union.
This is the so-called rule of exclusive representation, and it applies everywhere in the country.

In right-to-work states, however, objecting workers can refuse to pay the union for its services. Hence, the double bind: Unions are obligated to provide free services for workers who don’t want a union.

[Shodan]

Did the union advocate on behalf of the home health workers before they tried to force them into the union?

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

It’d be a damn fine thing if previous decisions couldn’t be overturned on a 5-4 vote. This is some fine bullshit that a highly partisan court, put in place by the most partisan of legislatures, has enacted.

Huh.

Obergefell v. Hodges was a 5-4 decision. Did I miss your post lamenting it?

[Ruken]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Request Rejected

These describe exclusive bargaining units. Unions do not have to be exclusive bargaining units. You might remember when workers at a VW plant in TN voted against forming an exclusive union. After the failed vote, they formed a non-exclusive, members-only union. However, last I checked they have not reached a contract with VW.

Here’s a piece about the concept (warning: free market think tank): Exclusive vs. Focused: Members-only Agreements – Unionization for the 21st Century: Solutions for the Ailing Labor Movement – Mackinac Center

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DSYoungEsq

The issue is that LHOD is an unabashed liberal, and in the last few decades, unions have been very strongly pro-Democrat, providing plenty of cash to that cow. So this decision reduces the ability of public-sector unions to fund Democratic Party activities. QED.

You got me, psychiatrist that you are! :rolleyes: