Supreme Court and labor unions

In light of some decisions in the past few years, If the Court decides that this type of thugery is permissible......I will no longer view them as supreme

https://www.investors.com/politics/c...ral-arguments/

So just a question. A serious one at that. If the State / City workers are not required to pay dues, Im guessing that the unions are not going to be required to represent them during wage negotiations, grievances etc.?

agreed, but at least they have a choice

Public employee unions are modern day mobsters. They own politicians at every level. And the government employees I know (friends and family) love to bash their unions simply because they see that dues deduction every paycheck for 30 years, but there isn't a one of them that would give up the pay & benefits that those dues buy through political clout. I like to remind them that their union dues are paid with taxpayer money to promote an agenda that is ultimately detrimental to those very same taxpayers.
Franklin D Roosevelt himself wrote that government employees should not have collective bargaining because the employer (taxpayers) would never be adequately represented at the bargaining table.

Originally Posted by john

Public employee unions are modern day mobsters. They own politicians at every level. And the government employees I know (friends and family) love to bash their unions simply because they see that dues deduction every paycheck for 30 years, but there isn't a one of them that would give up the pay & benefits that those dues buy through political clout. I like to remind them that their union dues are paid with taxpayer money to promote an agenda that is ultimately detrimental to those very same taxpayers.
Franklin D Roosevelt himself wrote that government employees should not have collective bargaining because the employer (taxpayers) would never be adequately represented at the bargaining table.

How are union dues "paid with taxpayer money"? Are you saying that a public employee that does some type of job in which they are paid shouldn't be free to spend their money how they choose?

You already have a choice now . People who apply for jobs know ahead of time they are applying for a union job. You make that conscious decision to accept the job and all that go along with it. Don’t like unions there are non-union jobs in almost every field that has one. There are also currently plenty of right to work area across the nation. Unions are a political piece for sure , but IMO a much needed one. I’ve seen first hand what can happen to workers not represented by unions , and their rights as employees are pretty much thrown out the window when it comes to discipline, firings , promotions , and layoffs .

I see the argument here of the union possibility backing candidates and political positions you may disagree with , their support of candidates and policy change time to time. Don’tike the party and views they represent you have ways already in place make a push to get those changed. Unions have plenty of elected positions . They are supposed represent a “majority” . So at those election times candidates with certain policy agendas run , they are voted in and in essence supported by their voting members , so it could be argued their views represent a majority like it is designed. I see no issue with that , if you feel policy and support doesn’t match your views , step up run for a position , attend a meeting and speak your voice . Simply not paying your fair share when you made the decision to take a good paying job , with decent benefits and certain protections afforded to you as a member is absurd.

Well said xstarrider

Been on both sides of the coin myself. Have worked non union for contractors, union for contractors and for the City under an MOU or agreement. Been in the same line of work as an electrician for 29 years now so I think I can compare apples to apples. Personally I would never go back to not being represented if I had the choice.

My dues working dues working for the City are roughly 10% of what my working dues were working for a private contractor. Money well spent IMO to have someone negotiate a wage and set rules for which we (the workers) and the City have to abide by. Those dues are paid for by the work that I do. Not a fringe benefit by any stretch of the imagination. And the cost pales in comparison to the private sector dues that I had to pay.

Ive seen firsthand how the contractor's counterpart to my union (NECA) can strong-arm during negotiations as well. Work dries up, people start losing their homes and then all of the sudden the union caves, we get a crappy deal and all of the sudden there is so much work that it cannot be manned. It is definitely a 2 way street. The City - Union negotiations seem a little more civil from what Ive seen.

Maybe other government locales are different than here and they pay their workers dues for them. Not in mine though and it would be a bad deal for most of the people that I know to be at the complete mercy of the government agency that they worked for without any sort of representation.

If for any reason that the unions are beneficial for government workers it's for the safety regulations. My employer is required to buy all safety equipment that I use in the course of my work. I can't imagine having to buy and maintain a 40 Cal Arc Flash suit on my own dime so that I could keep a job. I would guess that first responders (Cops, Firemen) have something similar in their MOUs. All of these are negotiated through their unions I assume?

an employer ought to have a choice to hire both union and non union at the same time. The employers non union employess should not be forced to pay dues.

that's the entire point.

If "The Court" says that the non union employees have to pay....that's over stepping in my opinion

If unions can continue to force employers to only hire union people....that's over reach too

"an employer ought to have a choice to hire both union and non union at the same time. The employers non union employess should not be forced to pay dues.

that's the entire point."


This happens all the time in construction. Some general contractors will hire signatory and non signatory subs usually due to the difference in cost. Most of the time, employees of non union subcontractors, in addition to having lower wages, they usually have fewer if any benefits with regard to health insurance and retirement than their union counterparts performing the same job. More often than not, the non union employees jump ship to enjoy better wages, benefits and working conditions. Seldom is it the other way around in my experiences.

Would you agree that if some employees didn't want to pay dues, they also shouldn't be entitled to any sort of representation should a grievance with the employer arise, and their health insurance and retirement benefits be reduced? I would.


"If "The Court" says that the non union employees have to pay....that's over stepping in my opinion"

Is that the argument? It had sounded like an individual who was union (and benefiting from it) working for a government agency didn't want to pay dues anymore?

I didn't see anywhere in the article where he would be willing to forfeit his right to representation or other union negotiated benefits. Cant have your cake and eat it too. The whole premise of a union is the solidarity - a group large enough to not get completely pushed around by an employer. Its sole purpose is to protect some basic rights of its employees. Its not about appeasing every individual in the group, its about the group.

"If unions can continue to force employers to only hire union people....that's over reach too"

Employers always have the option to break the agreement. It is an agreement to be sure that has been negotiated by the Fed's, State's or County's heavy hitters and the union's heavy hitters. Neither organization is some poor defenseless little old lady at the negotiating table.

If the Government wanted to pull the plug on the partnership, and did not want to pay the agreed upon package, then the union should have the right to pull it's labor force from the work place. That is the premise of a strike and is a last resort when negotiations fail. Sure it would be chaos, but but I think everybody wants stable, consistent services from their civil servants. Shouldn't the civil servants have the same stable consistent workplace? Its a two way street.

I agree that sometimes union tactics will come off as thuggish (and sometimes they just are) and for some people unions don't work for them. There are also some that greatly benefit form being union (sometimes too much IMO). For the vast majority of us though, the dues are the cost of doing business with the pros slightly outweighing the cons. Checks and balances.


Its kinda like taxes in that they are something we pay to the govt to represent us and to pay for services. Do I agree with all of the policies and actions of our government? Of course not. Would I just flat out not pay taxes because of my disagreement? Again of course not. To me taxes are just the cost of doing business here and the benefits of paying those taxes IMO outweigh the alternative.

Originally Posted by ord27

an employer ought to have a choice to hire both union and non union at the same time. The employers non union employess should not be forced to pay dues.

that's the entire point.

If "The Court" says that the non union employees have to pay....that's over stepping in my opinion

If unions can continue to force employers to only hire union people....that's over reach too

Cliff

That isn’t the argument or the details of what’s going on in the case before the Supreme Court at the moment. The case in point sitting in front of the court you linked is about a union worker who says he doesn’t want to pay union dues because he doesn’t agree with who the union supports or what they stand for on some political views . In essence the guy in the lawsuit wants to enjoy the pension, wages, benefits, and protections given to him as a union employee , but doesn’t think being mandated to pay” his fair share “ for those is correct.


In your explanation above it seems you are inferring that this case is about non union workers hired by a company being forced to pay union dues. That is not the premise of this case at all.

I agree with what yall are saying. If the guy wants the benefits, he needs to pay

Originally Posted by flatbroke

"an employer ought to have a choice to hire both union and non union at the same time. The employers non union employess should not be forced to pay dues.

that's the entire point."


This happens all the time in construction. Some general contractors will hire signatory and non signatory subs usually due to the difference in cost. Most of the time, employees of non union subcontractors, in addition to having lower wages, they usually have fewer if any benefits with regard to health insurance and retirement than their union counterparts performing the same job. More often than not, the non union employees jump ship to enjoy better wages, benefits and working conditions. Seldom is it the other way around in my experiences.

Would you agree that if some employees didn't want to pay dues, they also shouldn't be entitled to any sort of representation should a grievance with the employer arise, and their health insurance and retirement benefits be reduced? I would.


"If "The Court" says that the non union employees have to pay....that's over stepping in my opinion"

Is that the argument? It had sounded like an individual who was union (and benefiting from it) working for a government agency didn't want to pay dues anymore?

I didn't see anywhere in the article where he would be willing to forfeit his right to representation or other union negotiated benefits. Cant have your cake and eat it too. The whole premise of a union is the solidarity - a group large enough to not get completely pushed around by an employer. Its sole purpose is to protect some basic rights of its employees. Its not about appeasing every individual in the group, its about the group.

"If unions can continue to force employers to only hire union people....that's over reach too"

Employers always have the option to break the agreement. It is an agreement to be sure that has been negotiated by the Fed's, State's or County's heavy hitters and the union's heavy hitters. Neither organization is some poor defenseless little old lady at the negotiating table.

If the Government wanted to pull the plug on the partnership, and did not want to pay the agreed upon package, then the union should have the right to pull it's labor force from the work place. That is the premise of a strike and is a last resort when negotiations fail. Sure it would be chaos, but but I think everybody wants stable, consistent services from their civil servants. Shouldn't the civil servants have the same stable consistent workplace? Its a two way street.

I agree that sometimes union tactics will come off as thuggish (and sometimes they just are) and for some people unions don't work for them. There are also some that greatly benefit form being union (sometimes too much IMO). For the vast majority of us though, the dues are the cost of doing business with the pros slightly outweighing the cons. Checks and balances.


Its kinda like taxes in that they are something we pay to the govt to represent us and to pay for services. Do I agree with all of the policies and actions of our government? Of course not. Would I just flat out not pay taxes because of my disagreement? Again of course not. To me taxes are just the cost of doing business here and the benefits of paying those taxes IMO outweigh the alternative.

Well said