- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to the way public-sector unions finance their operations. Union officials said a ruling against them would deal a blow to organized labor.
The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915, teachers in California who chose not to join the union and who said being compelled to pay union fees they did not agree with violated their First Amendment rights.
Limiting the power of public unions has been a long sought goal of conservative groups, and they welcomed Tuesday’s development.
“The question of whether teachers and other government employees can be required to subsidize the speech of a union they do not support as a condition of working for their own government is now squarely before the court,” Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said in a statement.
The challengers say that some collective bargaining with a government employer amounts to lobbying and that forcing them to pay for those activities violates their First Amendment rights.
If someone does not wish to be a member of the union then really there isn't a valid rational to make them pay the union dues. I'm sorry you can't get everyone to fall in love with your group, but that doesn't mean you can force them to pay for it.
But you see if they are a public teacher then they still get all the benefits, and are still covered by the contract....If someone does not wish to be a member of the union then really there isn't a valid rational to make them pay the union dues.
What about the "free market"? Dont want to pay dues, go find another job, perhaps a private sector teaching job?I'm sorry you can't get everyone to fall in love with your group, but that doesn't mean you can force them to pay for it.
Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.
But you see if they are a public teacher then they still get all the benefits, and are still covered by the contract....
What about the "free market"? Dont want to pay dues, go find another job, perhaps a private sector teaching job?
Hence: freeloader.So what?
But were they forced into that job?What about the free market? Being forced into a contract with a group of people against your will is something even free market supporters have no problem being against.
Hence: freeloader.
But were they forced into that job?
Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.
"My side"? Sure.Hey, remember how your side says that people made a choice to start a business when talking about anti-discrimination laws?
I know, I believe that is federal law. I was answering your question you asked...Well, you made a choice to start a union and you made a choice to represent everyone.
And your not forced to take the job now are you?Last time I'm checked people are hired on by employers, not fellow workers.
"My side"? Sure.
I know, I believe that is federal law. I was answering your question you asked...
And your not forced to take the job now are you?
But you see if they are a public teacher then they still get all the benefits, and are still covered by the contract....
What about the "free market"? Dont want to pay dues, go find another job, perhaps a private sector teaching job?
Or those teachers can negotiate their own contract- bet they get paid less. Then the form a group, oh yeah, expenses will arise, then dues come in.
Oh wait that is what they are against.
Who cares if they are paid less? If they don't want to join your group you have no right to force them to be a member. If they want to take their chances on their own that is their choice and I see no reason to not give it to them.
Compulsory union membership is an affront to free people.
Just union bashing. Perhaps they should look at the costs of what they negotiated as pay, benefits and pensions. That is the real issue here. Detroit is a classic example.
Address the problem face on, not in a roundabout way, unions have a place.
If unions can't sell themselves to workers they really don't have a place, sorry.
Read more @: Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees
Big case will be heard by the Supreme Court regarding union dues in non-right to work states. Whenever right to work vs non-right to work cases get brought up all I can think of is one cartoon, which I think hits the nail right on the head.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
What? I dont want to repeal that federal law..... There is a clear understanding that when you agree to take the job you are represented by a union, this is a union workplace, you pay dues, and they bargin on your behalf. You have the right to vote up or down the contract as well.Then work to repeal that law instead of working to force people into your group.
And that employer agreed to make his shop a union shopWho cares? I'm doing business with an employer, not fellow workers.
Thus agreeing to a union shop if you agree to work thereI shouldn't be forced to join some group of the workers when I'm agreeing to be paid for my work.
No its not. Additional arrangements are put in all the time in contracts.Adding on different memberships to the employer arrangement is illegitimate nonsense.
There is clear merit; you just accepted a job where the contract was agreed upon by a collective bargaining force.It's like, hey, you want to join my club and when I say hell yeah, you say I have to join another group that fellow club members founded that I may or may not be interested in. There is no real merit to such nonsense.
What? I dont want to repeal that federal law..... There is a clear understanding that when you agree to take the job you are represented by a union, this is a union workplace, you pay dues, and they bargin on your behalf. You have the right to vote up or down the contract as well.
And that employer agreed to make his shop a union shop
Thus agreeing to a union shop if you agree to work there
No its not. Additional arrangements are put in all the time in contracts.
There is clear merit; you just accepted a job where the contract was agreed upon by a collective bargaining force.
I wonder if all the right-wingers worried about the amount of money required of employees for union dues are worried about the amount of money taken out of employee paychecks to pay management?
That doesn't even make sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?