Without Unions it’s a race to the bottom.

Jun 27, 2018 2:27 PM

redmidasfish

Views

150654

Likes

3033

Dislikes

211

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-unions-organized-labor.amp.html

The powers that be have been playing the long game for a while now. Their patience and planning are starting to pay dividends, but not to me

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I am hearing a lot of dogs bark at their masters bidding and like dogs they know not what they say.

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

Only affects public sector unions. Also, employees who don't wanna pay shouldn't get benefits of union contract.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Back when men were men and women were men and children were men as well. Good ol times.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

This is a pretty big message about regulations as well, but apparently those are bad things now.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Don’t pay your dues, & don’t reap the benefits of the CBA. I’ll take my double time & a half on a holiday. You can get your straight time.

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 3

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

I've been in one union and it wasn't great. 10 dollars out of every paycheck and the benefits Weren't great either.

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

Did each employee negotiate their own contract?

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

From my understanding it's very hard to do that in a union.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The union at my work got employees (even non-members that don't pay dues) excellent benefits. I don't get paid enough to join though.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Laws allowing unionization are important. Unions themselves are hit-or-miss.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Big business owners and the government LOVE THIS they want to get rid of unions so the worker has no power, and they convinced you too!

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

I get the feeling most of Imgur does not understand the difference between a public and private union.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Unions are good, but like everything it’s becomes corrupt when money gets involved

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I can't stress how much we do need unions. I worked in an industry without a union and it caused a nervous breakdown. Joined a unionized >

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 3

Company, have me better benefits and protected me from workplace harassment. Then I noticed underhanded tactics by my company against >

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

The union. It illegally cut benefits, lied to the employees about the financial state of the company, and demanded an entire branch of >

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Company employees from no longer entering the union. The company had managers post various flyers over 2 years villuanizing the union >

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Claiming it was causing termination of benefits when the company in fact refused payment to contract for healthcare. The union had>

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Had to fight to get a court ordered return of benefits after two years of legal fees and court delays by the company amidst corprate lies

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

The decline of labor unions is one of he reasons the wealth gap increased from the 70s onward. Today the bottom 40% have about 2% of wealth

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

Wrong, it was going off of the gold standard and unrestrained printing of money by the Federal Reserve that caused this.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The more money you print, the more the people are taxed and the wealth is then transferred the the Banksters and Elites of the World.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

August 15, 1971 Nixon took us off the gold standard and removed real money from our currency and replaced it with debt.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

All Financial crisis since 1913 have been the direct result of the FED manipulating our money. Read ...

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

they still pack 'em in, but at least we get to stand up now!

7 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 6

for shenanigans (and to pass time during the ride) try to secretly zip-tie someone's belt to the cage wall XD

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I taught at a school. A student with an unstable background threatened to kill me and wrote on a paper how they would do it. (1/3)

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Another student found it and handed it to me. I took it to the Assistant Principal who assured me she would handle it. (2/3)

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Student kept coming to my class and kept trying to stay behind. I got intact with my union that evening. The student was gone the next day.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

My union solved that issue for me.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

America was strong when Unions were strong.

7 years ago | Likes 60 Dislikes 26

America was strong when most of your industry wasn't in China.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

America was also strong back when the top marginal tax rate was 90%. You can lead Conservatives to facts, but you can't make them think.

7 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 6

Correlation does not imply causation.

7 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 12

The market collapse has nothing to do with the depression right?

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

Who said that?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Correlation =\= causation right? Needs to work in all circumstances for it to hold logical consistency

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Just because correlation doesn't imply causation doesn't mean there isn't causation. It just isn't implied by the correlation.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

America was strong *because* unions were strong. And yes, we’re talking cause and effect. 1920’s robber barrons, the pinkertons... history

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but - here's another one: past performance is not indicative of future results. Just because unions--

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jun 28, 2018 1:51 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

It's not like I've never been accused of being pedantic before.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

While correlation/past performance don’t equal causation/imply future results, we can mathematically factor our degrees of certainty for 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

future events. Linear regression modeling, analysis of variance/covariance, logistic regressions, and signal processing are all valuable.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

were the right answer then, does not mean unions are the right answer now.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It also does not mean that they’re the wrong answer and we need to kill them immediately

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You could say the same for the crippling of our middle class coinciding with the weakening of unions and the rise of corporate power.

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

It's true of all things, regardless of your political position. Correlation never implies causation.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

Lol at everyone jumping to the wrong conclusions.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Therefore, let's never investigate nor allow the possibility that there may be cause and effect in action.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

"we don't know if it could be realated and it's very convenient for my political beliefs if we leave it at that."

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

The only thing I didn't like about being at a union job was putting up with the guy everyone hated working with but couldn't be fired.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

With Trump's appointee added to SCOTUS, we're daily watching the shredding of the US Constitution.

7 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 7

But this is the opposite, it's a firm defense of freedom of association and speech

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

...and now that Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, he gets to make another appointment....

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Gotta love Socialism!! Remember, Capitalism is all about the bottom dollar. If they could pay you less for more work, they would.

7 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 35

Everything is always about resource, even in socialism.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In a heartbeat. You’re 5 minutes late once. Fired. The list goes on indefinitely. So many don’t understand what unions changed for everyone.

7 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 10

The reason germany has medicare is because there was a time where getting sick would set a family on a downward spiral to starvation>

7 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 3

Bismark realized that the workers were not willing to take the natural course of the market for granted, it was give in or revolution.

7 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 1

It was about co-opting the liberals major selling point to guarantee worker support for his Prussian King and their junkers

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And we all know what happened to their neighbor France when the working class had had enough.

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Unless I'm reading wrong, the ruling just stops them from forcing non-union workers in their sector to pay fees for not being in the union?

7 years ago | Likes 50 Dislikes 6

It forbids unions for collecting costs related to bargaining. Any employee could already opt out of paying for PAC money.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

It's not a fee for not being in the union. It's a fee for the service the union is legally obligated to provide under state laws.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 7

But the worker isn't asking for those services. Sounds like they were being strongarmed into paying "protection money".

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 9

Then take it up with the relevant state law, not the union trying to represent its membership in accordance with the law.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Workers are already using the benefits without even having to ask. Unions collectively bargain for all workers rights.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

and people (being greedy and/or poor) decide not to join. this is ALL about reducing unions' effectiveness, and making the rich richer.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Right but the people that dont pay the dues will still reap the benefits of the unions as they represent all workers members or not. (1

7 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 10

Yep, so why pay anymore?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because if enough people stop paying dues the union goes away and no one gets benefits and you all go back to 30min lunch breaks.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Example: A Union negotiates a 3 hour lunch break. Union member or not, now everyone gets a 3 hour lunch break. Even if (2

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 3

You're a not a member of the union and didnt contribute in any way to it, you're still getting that 3 hour lunch (3

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

Why does the union need to bargain for me? I worked for a state government. They wanted to keep me but couldn’t pay me more because/2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Of the collective barging agreement. I would have to wait for a PCN to open up in a higher bracket. So I left and got paid more

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No taxation without representation.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

The decision was only to say that you can't force non-union members to contribute money to unions. Oh, the horror!!

7 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 14

WRONG. That already existed, this means you cant charge for the costs of bargaining.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Police in my area get a 2% raise every year, guaranteed. Non-union, ya aint get that

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Then make these people have 0 benefits of the union, not union contracts etc etc

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Even when the unions provide services to non-members. So non-members can now take without paying, and unions lose some freedom to contract.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

The unions exist to serve their membership. They're not benevolent entities. They will screw over non-members the moment it benefits members

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

That depends entirely on the circumstances. The Duty of Fair Representation guards non-union members to a significant degree.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I certainly hope so.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Just like the typewriter, unions had a time and a place. Unlike the typewriter, they haven't adapted for the times

7 years ago | Likes 138 Dislikes 95

Also like typewriters, or computers, they still have a purpose, just aren’t doing it well

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Have fun with your lack of employee rights 20 years from now.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Yeah, but we didn't get rid of the typewriters, they just evolved. Same must happen with the unions. Become something better not just vanish

7 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 4

it's not antiquated for people to use a % of their pay to organize benefits, safety, wages health care, child care, weekends, overtime.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

This feels like an anti-union tagline. I've seen it repeated several times in this thread. I'm guessing you're management.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

Look thru my comments if you want. Ive only said it once. Also I'm not management. I am an IC who has worked at companies w/ and w/o unions

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm pretty sure the fact that nearly no one uses typewriters means they didn't adapt.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 20

How did you type that comment?

7 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I'm sure you have done your research before making claim about 100% of all existing unions. So please provide your peer reviewed source.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

How many times are you going to copy/paste the same snobby reply?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Feel free to post peer reviewed source, supporting your position.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ok that made me laugh!

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

the wealthy in this country have captured virtually ALL the new wealth created by the information revolution. Workers wages have stagnated.

7 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 7

seems to me like a robust union presence would have gotten a piece of the pie for working Americans.

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 6

Everyone is wealthier in the USA than we were 50 years ago. That's why they say "inequality" now, because virtually everyone has plenty

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 10

3/ have all americans become wealthier over 50 years? technically yes, but not by anywhere near as much as you'd expect.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Wow, this is why Trump says he loves the uneducated. Have you factored in inflation? No, you haven't.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

1/ the charts on this page should tell you everything you need to know about where the money in America has gone

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

4/ the poor in particular have gained very, very little. Your comment is either ignorant or disingenuous.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

This sounds like someone who has never worked for a company with a union, and repeated something their father said. Unions work.

7 years ago | Likes 87 Dislikes 25

Unions work, sometimes. I hate how they are seen as always benevolent forces when in reality I've seen the bad side. They aren't moral goods

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

True, but they are the only thing left to fight against the oligarchy. For every dollar of union political contributions, companies put 50.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

*Your results may vary.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

im sure unions work. but what would work better is forcing businesses to uphold regular laws of business if they're a business.

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 5

Most people cannot sue their employer for negligence and such, go to the government, you are a complainer who wants hand outs

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

what?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Probably referring to employers use of mandatory arbitration. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-growing-use-of-mandatory-arbitration/

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But Unions DO THAT. They watch for illegal business practices, help with lawsuits or prevent it going to court in the first place.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

right. i know that. im saying it'd be nice if they didnt have to exist because businesses would just conduct themselves responsibly.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

When has a business ever conducted itself for the better of the employees? Obviously if you are part of a union you've gotten fed up with

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

No one drives the speed limit all the time...

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Being treated like garbage and you want a change. You want someone to treat you with the respect you deserve!

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Can someone dumb this down? As someone without a union what does this change? Other than not paying fees and backing political candidates?

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Union dues are used to manage the master contract. Workers are now free to work along side union counter parts but not pay dues.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

PAST:If you didn't want to be in the union, they could only charge you for bargaining costs. NO PAC MONEY would come from your check. 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

NOW: Union still required to represent you for bargaining, you don't have to pay them. Management has lawyers and staff to bargain. 2/2

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Makes a lot more sense. Thanks CPB

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If your work is unionized and you dont wish to be a full union member, you still pay 'fair share' bc you reap the benefits of the union.....

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

...and the difference between full and non member is .5%. Members pay 1% of pay, non members pay .5%. This is to bust unions.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

Public. Sector. Unions. Everyone is really overlooking that little detail.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also, pub sec unions are usually the most overworked and underpaid already, so it might be really bad. PSLF is also under attack by trump

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I understand that...

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

So we'll just have non funded unions now, negotiate with business and don't put their dicks in the political racket

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

Non funded unions lol. Public sec Union strength was already on the decline, this will kill it completely. Race to the bottom is real.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Meh No one's employed me for longer than a month because of my bs, I couldn't care less if you normies have it hard, Try working together

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Why do unions even need money? They should be volunteers by the works themselves. All unions have become is yet another corp bureaucracy

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 11

Management has paid staff + lawyers to bargain contracts. You are saying it is reasonable to expect labor to volunteer now?

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Unions have their own employees and contractors. Unions hire lawyers, consultants, bargainers, etc.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not enough people willing to volunteer their time sparky.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Then they don't deserve a union.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

Union members DO volunteer. Union meetings on off days, pol activism for pro union staff, and we are active in the city...

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The recent decision is dismaying, both for its consequences and its jurisprudence. It's no accident that other common law jurisdictions 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 335 Dislikes 47

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jul 1, 2018 5:10 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Membership hasn't been compelled since 1977. This case is entirely about the nature of agency fees.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Derpy derp derp

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 73

What happened?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Supreme Court ruled that unions can't collect dues from non-members that benefit from collective bargaining. So now you can free ride.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

It's not free. You show up to work and do your job. That's enough to earn bargaining power. Unions don't do enough to warrant payment.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Basically everyone benefits from unions but some folks don't like the dues that come with those benefits and now the system's gonna crash.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

No. Only some people benefit from unions. Specifically, those individuals in a union that actually does what it's supposed to.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

And then, only in unions that have successfully increased wages and benefits for their members. The 3 years I was in ufcw 367, my wages only

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Yup, I hate it when I work harder than everyone else but can't make more than the laziest employee. Then forced to pay for that 'right'.

7 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 12

2/2 have recognized fundamental rights to unionize, receive dues from non-members, strike, collectively bargain, etc., such as in Canada.

7 years ago | Likes 213 Dislikes 17

I think its fine. We didn't get rid of them, but if I'm not part of your union, I don't feel financially obligated to it against my will.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

What if the union provides a service to you, as it's required to do under state law?

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I don't know. I've only been a part of two unions, one of them from the Fed. Gov. and they've never provided a service in that means.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It would be a tough question to answer. It's much like taxes; my taxed money goes to a lot of things I don't use, but others doe.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah I'm a union member and now I'm afraid for it.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Gather fees from non-members?

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm really sorry, I can't understand big words, can you help me understand what happened?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

See my other comments above. I and a few others explain the ruling's consequences in non-technical terms.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Before: Employees could opt out of paying for PAC money, but could be charged for collective bargaining and dispute resolution costs. 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Now: Unions cannot collect from all for these costs. Worth noting: management has paid staff and lawyers to negotiate.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

So would I, if I was non union, still get benefits? Like my pay would increase, my safety would be defended, my hours not changed?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Receive dues from non-members? What? That sounds a lot like robbery.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Only if you think taxes are theft. And if you do, don't tell me that, because I can't deal with that level of stupidity right now.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

The right of the government to collect taxes is in the constitution. Unions are not the government.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

It's the same principal. Freerider problem/tragedy of the commons stuff.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Oops sorry Canada doesn't have the first amendment. Btw you have to pay to my monthly "laugh at stupid imgur comments" dues.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

Canada has an analogue of the first amendment in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

As a Canadian it always makes me laugh to hear that first amendment bull :P How awful it is up here. Just sad stifled people.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Your comment made me feel really stupid. Could you explain to a layman?

7 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 1

So this collective bargaining helps them with pay raises, insurance coverage, retirement plans, etc. However bargaining for these 2/3

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

This person knows more than me probly. But basically Unions collectively bargain on behalf of employees who work for the state 1/3

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

1 This new decision was really out of step with the law before it, as well as the law in other countries. Although the law does change

7 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 2

4 This right is super important however in that it will likely weaken unions across the board, so it's a pretty fatal loss for many unions.

7 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 4

2 it's uncommon to see a decision that takes the country so far from the earlier law and law in similar places.

7 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 2

3 Canada, for instance, recognizes many labour rights that the United States does not, including the one that the SCOTUS just removed.

7 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 2

For public unions, people who don’t want to be apart of that union no longer have to pay the dues.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But they'll still get the benefits?

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yep. Not sure how it’s going to work.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Unions could stop giving member $ to politicians and it would make this ruling not apply them.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

5 So it's dismaying because it'll do so much damage, and because it's so radical compared to the old law and law elsewhere.

7 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 2

Ah, that makes perfect sense. Thank you. And what you said makes a lot of sense. I do not like how this administration is running things

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

It feels like everything is meant to only be better for the rich instead of everybody

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Costs time and money. So all members are required to pay a union fee. Supreme Court just said members aren’t required to pay fee anymore 3/3

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Non-members other guys is right my bad.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Supreme Court said NON-members are no longer required to pay.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Which is amazing. I was union just because I was employed by a specific company. Our union collected dues and then did nothing else.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Basically having the option to pay weakens how much money unions can operate under making it more difficult to collectively bargain.

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

The other side? Makes it difficult for unions to organize and collect dues and then just sit on their hands instead of doing what a union do

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And the sad part is most unions are like this. With exception of teamsters and a couple others, unions are mostly worthless.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It feels like they took away the power from people who are able to fight back against the rich...

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That’s exactly what the problem is. Granted not all unions are perfect but it was a way to fight nonetheless.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Unions salty that they can't take the money of people who fundamentally disagree with them anymore

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 10

Never worked a union job in my life and never will. I like earning more than the idiot next to me who can't do half of what I do.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

But won't that also mean the people who don't pay will still get what they fight for?

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

What do unions fight for? Minimum wage has stagnated for decades while inflation has done its thing.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

These are public sector unions. This ruling does not affect your local crafts & trades ( iron workers, painters, plumbers)

7 years ago | Likes 83 Dislikes 9

It doesn’t affect them directly, but I’ll argue that the indirect effect is already in play. It just won’t be as noticeable for a bit

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not for long. There are already 28 right-to-work-for-less states, and I can say that living in one sucks.

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

There will be lawsuits on file in a week that will fix that.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

*Yet.

7 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 5

What Charie said. Precedent plays a huge role in lawmaking it’s super easy for them to apply the same thing to another scenario.

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 2

In lawMAKING? Nah. In law interpretation, yes.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It’s called “chipping away”. Chip, chip, chip away at unions a bit at a time, in small enough bits to get away with it.

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

What are your feelings on the 2nd Amend.?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

Shhh everyone knows they'd never chip away the 2nd. They were fine with the 1934 NFA. They definitely haven't chipped more away.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Does that red herring taste good? May I try some?

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I'll take that as "I don't like the 2nd Amend. But see how you're about to implicate my views on that" for 500, Alec.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

And I’ll take “Fox News told me that anyone who’s pro-union is also anti-gun and I don’t have a mind of my own” for 1000

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Only 7% of workers in the US are union. 12% if you include government workers. Germany is 65%

7 years ago | Likes 666 Dislikes 9

And that is the reason the got peed on their faces while they are told is raining

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 9

yeah, most American workers aren't in a union. They're also badly underpaid, for the most part. Not a coincidence.

7 years ago | Likes 52 Dislikes 1

And most jobs shove anti union propaganda down your throat in orientation

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

I think you're missing the point. Sick days, paid holidays, workers comp, insurance, overtime, weekends off... union collective bargaining.

7 years ago | Likes 74 Dislikes 3

In other words, if you're job (in the U.S. anyway) offers those things, you can thank a union CBA somewhere down the line.

7 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 5

*your (sonofabitch)

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

German unions are different in philosophy. They know that the company sometimes has to let people go and safe money to survive.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Yes, absolutely this. U.S. Union worker... my union is the bane of my existence, takes my money and forces me to work with shitheads

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Amazon distribution Warehouse 2020

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If I have to join a union to work somewhere, then I don't bother with them. Unions like teamsters are basically the mafia.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

As a union member in the US I feel pretty lucky.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

U.S. unions have a bad habit of being fucking garbage. Operators union shit on my family royally when I was a kid.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

But significantly more are covered by and benefit from the collective bargaining and grievance processes.

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

I agree with the other comment. That high amount suggests that the laws are not sufficient?

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Not really, more powerful unions enables more relaxed labour laws, as the collective bargaining agreements films in what us missing from law

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also, the collective bargaining agreements gives the opportunity to make different rules for different types of work

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

At least in Sweden the laws are written so that unions and employers negotiate pay and other issues without gov interference. 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Laws can be rewritten and changed without your input. Collective bargaining means you're always involved.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Germany

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Witzig.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But why ? In France, it is because law protects workers enough for them not needing that much union protection, for example.

7 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 6

Is that why you're always on strike?

7 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

It's mosty "union are great only when we need them"

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

and why do we in france have this laws, if not because of union riots and strikes in the 1930's ?

7 years ago | Likes 51 Dislikes 1

Sure. In fact, that union participation is low may very well be an indicator of the good job they did in the past.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The partial reason it’s 7% here is they view themselves as gloried staffing agencies. Ask me how I was messing up their “revenue stream”

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's Propaganda. Why would unions use their assets to do what HR department is meant to do? Answer....they don't. Because that's stupid.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I’m pro-union but the union president didn’t know it and it isn’t propaganda. I was told I wasn’t turning over enough staff. I asked why >

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That was a problem? He then began explaining that members only paid $55 per month but new hires had to pay initiation fees. I had 86 >

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

direct reports and a turn over of “just 5% every month” for my departments was “affecting my revenue stream” by removing $2600 from >

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Just imagine if at least 50% of the workers in the US would be organized in correct & transparent unions...

7 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 3

Correct & Transparent is the key there for the U.S. Lot of the unions are dominated by seniority and favorites/internal politics.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Even if the union was corrupt, workers were *still* better off. Back in the 1950s households didn't need two incomes to survive.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Unions - by definition a not-for-profit.Regulated by the government (under labour law). By law they are transparent to their users.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I know. But if they want to get a better rep in the US, they need to be straight forward transparent.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

But... he just said... they are... so what might you change to make them *more* transparent and straight-forward?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Considering that most people in the US think that they're corrupt those unions need to proof otherwise.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And some of the Unions in the US aren't even that good. They basically just do what the company wants anyway.

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

A union doesn't have magic negotiating power. Workers either can negotiate or they can't. Zero sum games or non zero sum games.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

That's because of the union busting. It used to be a lot higher

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Remember the time Elon Musk tried to get rid of his worker's union in Germany by offering them frozen yogurt?

7 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 15

He did actually put in a yogurt bar at the gigafactory though. its free. And before anyone says it, those guys dont want the union, the 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

union abandoned them and they all lost their jobs, they hate the union, there is a nice video of the meeting where they found out too. 2/3

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

plus the union wont allot stock as payment despite some being vary rich from it. They want the stock.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Seriously ?!

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

Notice how he didn't produce a source? Don't believe someone unless they provide proof to support their claim.

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

DENTAL PLAN

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

LISA NEEDS BRACES

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Lisa needs braces

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He did clash with the IG Metall (biggest Union in Germany) after acquiring the industrial machine manufacturer Grohman because the wages1/4

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

were 20-30% lower than union rates. He offered 150€/month, 10.000€ in Tesla Shares and a 1000€ bonus for every employee, but there was 2/4

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

no mention of yogurt (German: https://t3n.de/news/elon-musk-tesla-ig-metal-grohmann-815717/ ) . He did apparently promise free frozen 3/4

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

yogurt stands to employees in Fremont CA https://electrek.co/2017/02/24/tesla-union-elon-musk-addresses-employees/ 4/4

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It was really good frozen yogurt.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

FWIW: everything you ever use is invented in America. Unions kill profitability and thus risk taking. Prove me wrong with multiple examples.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 6

Prove you wrong? You prove your own claim! NFL. NHL, MIT, NASA, elite agents, profit high.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Unions help profitability. Higher wages for workers go right back into the economy. You can't sell anything if your customers are broke.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

1. No. 2. Depends on so many factors 3. Yes you can

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

When I say "Unions help profitability", I mean for everyone. Not just the wealthy 10% who own most corporate shares.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

What is my incentive to work harder if we are all unionized? I have too many examples of poor work.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Companies are not as profitable. Less money for R&D, marketing etc. This is a global world now. Unions had their day and use.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Then explain why workers were better off when there were more unions? https://imgur.com/gaoiEZt

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Sure. Globalization.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The BLS states that in 2017 union membership in the public sector was at 34%.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

After further research, I believe i misinterpreted the data and the actual unionization rate is a little over 10%. I however am still unsure

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm Souce for those interested in learning more

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Unions are awesome if you actually stay with the company, I worked at a grocery store and hated paying dues but that was because I was 18...

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

..and was leaving for school in like 6 months. They promised the workers guaranteed raises and good hours

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

As a german industrial mechanic: Unions are awesome: they care for safety, healthcare, loans and holidays. I'm glad im in one.

7 years ago | Likes 366 Dislikes 13

Never understood, why that was forgotten in thr first place.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

UK unions don't have the power of those in Germany, but they help stand between the worker and the government. We need them.

7 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 0

all of you are discussing unions, I just want to know what's up in that picture

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As an American I have no idea what a holiday is.

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

You do know what it's ike to live in a nation with about the same pop. but twice the GDP of the EU, tho.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yep.....

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

6 weeks of doing what ever. Payed of course......

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

But....but....MUH PROFITS

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Maybe you should try a Union. Oops, illegal now. Probably because they raise wages and general quality of life for workers. Mgmt no like

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

They're not fucking illegal. Public sector unions just can't force you to pay them if you're not in them. Kinda makes sense.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

But by law if a public sector union exists then all employees benefit, regardless if they pay dues. This was intended to kill unions

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

As a german in social fields: fuck yeah! Unions! I bet our other european homies will agree on how sweet unions are. Xoxo

7 years ago | Likes 82 Dislikes 2

Aren't you Canadian?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hell yeah, Belgian unions are also sweet! They also make sure that if bosses fuck over their employees and you strike, that you get paid!

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Nothing better than knowing your future is secured through country wide agreements on vacation, work hours and base salary

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Dutch unions are sweet! Although the bus driver strikes these days are annoying lol. I agree with them though.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

As italian, I respectfully disagree but only because our unions suck ass.

7 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 2

Unions protect the common good but many undeserving people take advantage of this in unbecoming ways.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well almost your whole economic & political system is corrupted :-(

7 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 2

You are correct. Not only corrupted but full of bigots, racists and generally old cucks. I hate our politicians :(

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

word lol

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Meh, they have their upsides, but forcing people who are non-member to pay for collective bargaining... Not even done in Sweden).

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I think that's the problem with US- unions. It should be voluntary to be member and therefore pay.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Where are you? In my UK union non-members get benefits of collective bargaining, and don't have to pay a penny. It's called 'coat-tailing'

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Same in Germany. Though I like that more people would join the union, so we have a bigger lever.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In Sweden. It is the same here.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pay 16 bucks a month - get 10 back via taxes and your employer cant fck things up. /feelsgoodman

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

PSA Germany has been eliminated from the world cup. Ends up dead last in their group. Good day!

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 19

Oh damn, that must be embarrassing for the boys.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Quick, distract the US from the idea that unions are good!

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

To be fair, unions have done both good and bad for the country. One only needs to look at how difficult it is to get rid of bad...(1/?)

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 8

A propaganda line. Same as fallacious claim Corporation have also done good, bad. It's ridiculous to link behavior to legal codification.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

employees. Especially with teacher unions, in that you have to go thru hoops just to fire them. I understand protecting workers, but...(2/?)

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

we need to find a proper balance that protects the consumer and the employer. (3/3)

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Tenure exists because young teachers do the same exact job as older teachers for much less salary. It gives protections to veteran teachers

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

I'm not sure about it, but I believe you don't HAVE to pay any union fees in Germany, too, and that's all the SC ruled on in the US, right?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Union fees here are decided by the unions, nearly all have them but they actually do good and show where it goes. GO UNIONS!

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

but is paying the fee mandatory for everyone or is it just the union members?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Union members only!

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And that's how it's going to be in the US from now on, apparently. Before that it was mandatory for non-members, too.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Like unions or not, you all, who do not belong to ruling classe(s) will need your unions as balancing power against them.

7 years ago | Likes 190 Dislikes 48

Then the people that believe that can pay union fees. What's the issue?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Unfortunately that ship sailed a long time ago. Unions are all but dead now. I guess we should enjoy what little labor rights we have

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Or fight. I’m a fan of fighting instead of laying down and dying.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But I don’t support my union. Why should I have to pay money to them so they can support something/someone I disagree with?

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 8

That's why you can participate actively in the union.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

My union does allow you to opt out of your fees being used for political purposes. They will use it for other things.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

So in the majority decision they said that those “negotiation” fees still help the union get money for political use.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I guess that makes sense, but the non union members would benefit from negotiations made for the members, which isn't fair

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You disagree with the ability to force your employer to treat you like a human?

7 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 6

There's labor laws and OSHA and probably other stuff that already protect workers.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Isn't OSHA a union in it's self? I'm asking because I dont know

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

My employer treats me like a human because I provide a valuable service and they don't want me to quit and work for their competitor.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

You’re in a cushy and uncommon position. Others don’t have what you do. They need someone to fight for their human dignity & best interests.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Hahahaha! You're a line item on a spreadsheet under "expenses". Reducing that line item means more money in their pockets.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

The union in my shop is pointless. I opted out as soon as I could.

7 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 20

You guys don't have collective bargaining?

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Nope

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

might as well destroy them all, then?

7 years ago | Likes 53 Dislikes 7

Yep, that would be a great idea for the fossil organizations

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 27

Rephrase? Not sure I get your intent. Good for organizations & bad for workers? Or /s, and good for the workers? B/c I agree w/ the former.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Your brain is a fossil if you voluntarily throw away collective negotiating power.

7 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 6

A union is only as strong as its weakest members. Its only pointless when no one cares.

7 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 7

Within a global company we're the only USA facility that has a union and the other shops have the same benefits and more pay.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Couldn't be further from the truth. Unions will always have weak members, but strong leadership can more than make up for it.

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

I've seen strong, outspoken union leaders turn weak districts around and get shit done.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

And they would get more shit done if members were strong.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Unions should be allowed to exist. Membership in unions should be voluntary. Why is it so hard to understand?

7 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 13

Because then you lose collective bargaining and it will be a race to the bottom.

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 5

So what make your union more appealing. Some unions are great some are predatory and others are criminal safe havens. The long shore man 1/

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Those who don't choose to be members should then not be given the union-negotiated benefits, yes?

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

non-members agree 100/100.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

If the employer can hire lower-paid non-union workers those are the only people it will hire.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Yes, and that's a situation where unions aren't needed. Unions shouldn't exist just to force employers to overpay their employees.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

It is not being overpaid. Pay is a negotiation. But any one worker needs a salary a lot more than the company needs *one* more employee. 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Having a union simply levels the negotiation field. The company does need employees, plural. 2/2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The question at issue here is about agency fees. It's more complicated than just the ideas you mention.

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

Not really if you don't support the actions of the union you shouldn't be forced to pay them

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 5

Then you also shouldn’t be allowed to reap the benefits. They get 2 wks paid vacation, u get whatever your employer wants to give you

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Then do not get the benefits, negotiate your own? Do not use union benefits... but these people still do

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Mainly because its forced upon them, their isn't another option besides leave the profession

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

It's not forced upon the workers, it's forced upon the unions, with the explicit goal to bankrupt them.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The law requires a duty of fair representation. If the law changed so that the duty weren't there, this decision wouldn't be controversial.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Besides money, negatives of union?

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

So when a union doesn't support the actions you take, they won't have to support you right????

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That's whilst my hubby thinks. He never asks anyone else to defend him. He takes his own responsibility for his well being, he hates unions.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

They don't. Plenty of so called problematic union members get thrown under the bus in the name of negotiation.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

In some places sure, but what about the unions who actually take care of their people?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah? If anyone doesn't agree with something they shouldn't be forced to support or participate in it.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Except that isn't how it works. If unions get something good done all workers get the benefit. Not just union members.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Does that include taxes? Divided we fall.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It's like having to pay for fuel every week even 8f we didn't drive the car.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

That was his argument why Obama care was bad, we didn't use it but we still had to pay for it through our penalty fee.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Because the insured pay indirectly for the uninsured's medical costs.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And refused to ever becoart of one. He should not have to pay for something he doesn't use

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

The decision wasn’t anti-union, per se, it was to stop unions from having non-union members pay dues to unions they weren’t members of.

7 years ago | Likes 358 Dislikes 68

No?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But you still get the benefits if the negotiated contract, so if enough people don't pay dues the union goes awh and the millionaires win

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

or more of not having non-union people forced to pay union dues that are used for political funding!

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

3 but the state is completely broke cause once again their politicians are trash. The only people holding politicians to pay these pensions

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

4 are unions. Any money these unions don’t collect is less power, and resources. Any scenario in which Unions are weaker is better for IL

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Ding ding ding! Exactly.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

So we should be forced to pay mandatory dues to a union that is a large contributor to the democrat party?

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

But which they benefitted from the collective bargaining of. It'd really be nice if I could do that with my taxes.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

In particular it was to stop the unions from extracting dues from non-members that oppose the politics those dues were used for.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

No, that's been the law since Abood (1977). This decision was about agency fees.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Which was, according to Janus himself on MSNBC earlier today at about 345, another term for union dues under IL law

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Janus is wrong. Agencies fees and union dues are different.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ah, I was not aware.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ill-effects or not, an organization has no right to demand money from people without their consent.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

It's not without their consent. It's a condition of employment.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Not when it’s been codified. That’s a law forcing participation/association without free choice

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Tell that to the Constitution, which already permits the codified duty of fair representation in every state and common law jurisdiction.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The same is true of common law jurisdictions around the world.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

6 it’s not as simple as getting rid of something anymore. You have to look at the big picture.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

1 Ok but none of you who agree with this understand the implications behind that. Do you know why Illinois is leading the charge here?

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

5 and shit that’s just IL. 5 million people no longer paying dues can you imagine how weak and ineffective unions could become?

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

They weren’t given the *choice* to participate.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

The thing about participation is that it isn’t mandatory. If you work a Union job you know full well of the consequences related to that.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sure, but the way the law in Illinois was written, Janus had a percentage of his pay taken out to fund the union. He was not given the opt

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Christ dude....you realize Janus works for Governor Rauner. The dude is a pawn. Rauner couldn’t directly sue himself so he had Janus step in

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If you don’t want to participate go non member if you do go member simple as that.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it sounds like paying tax in a country that you never lived in

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Or being an American abroad and still paying taxes.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is the little detail everyone else is missing. Nobody actually read the link. It makes PAYING for a union optional if you arent in it.

7 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 16

And your not adding, still recieve the benefit union get.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Yeah, but the union benefits all the teachers, and now most of them won't pay fees, so the union may die. So who negotiates salaries?

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

No one's missing that detail. The fees are specifically for collective bargaining that you get regardless of of membership. They're 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

separate from any political efforts. Basically, they're now expecting people to volunteer dues when they don't need to pay them. I'm 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

pretty positive about human beings, but I don't have a strong sense that many people are going to do so.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I was literally in the Supreme Court today and there are so many other negative ramifications. It really is a nail in the coffin for unions

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

No, it means you can reap the benefits of collective bargaining without paying for it. Management has staff and lawyers to bargain.

7 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 2

Why is this downvoted, it is true.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

There is a valid argument that this could lead to union deaths, but a number were already heading that way for a variety of reasons

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

It lets you get some of the benefits for free as well. Sounds like theft, to me.

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 3

If not enough people feel like the benefits outweigh the cost, then fuck it.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 9

The point is that they don't have to. They get the benefits for free if they're not members, until the union dies.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Ohhhh, look whos fighting pro choice now. This is epic.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah, so they can get the benefits of being union members without the cost? Think with your head.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

2 it’s because trash politicians operated without a budget for years and put off paying pensions plans for years. Now people are retiring

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Except that these jobs require a union membership to begin with. So this purposely weakens the union when it comes down to negotiate. >

7 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 4

Since these are fed related jobs, the expense of representing it's members is now much harder. The reps call this a victory for tax payers.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Which starved out new workers from entering the field.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

If the job requires union membership, how could you possibly have workers in the position at aren't members of the union?

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Work of right laws exist in some states, these allow those who get such positions to opt out of the union via union resignation. You keep >

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

the job but no longer have to pay all union dues. However some are still required to pay up to 80% of the dues.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I forgot that the resignation is allowed if its a religious or ideological reason.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes. Just let people not in the union benefit from the union and not have to support them. That isn't a way to destroy rhe union.

7 years ago | Likes 64 Dislikes 13

The decision formalized the free rider problem and said that public unions can't do anything about it.

7 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 1

My view of the matter is that some, far from all, but some unions had stopped doing anything for workers and just became PACs

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

So we punish the many for the crimes of the few?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I disagree that it punishes unions (on the face of the law)

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Very few. Most if not all unions function simply to get the workers benefits.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

This comes from the fact that unions in the US are specific. Theyre not just general unions, but unions related to an industry or firm.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Unions are tools workers have. If that tool isn't providing enough benefits to its workers, why should they be forced to pay for it? I hope

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 12

Because even if they're providing benefits it's still economical for individuals to not be a member of it and receive its benefits.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

So basically unnecessary bureaucracy

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 9

No. INCREDIBLY necessary worker organizing. Its just more profitable to get something from nothing. This destroys public unions.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Too often these days unions exist only to self-perpetuate. Federal law should cap a union boss’s pay to the median of who he represents.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

All hierarchical structures should have a cap on whoever is a "boss".

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Because of _freeloaders_. You don't get to decide not to pay taxes to support the fire department until your house starts burning.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This provides unions a reason to prove their value to their members instead of being taken for granted. This has the potential to be good

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 6

For everyone, especially the workers.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

I'm hoping you are right. Otherwise if this goes down the way we expected, the unions will be left as a underfunded an ineffective function.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Yes. Just destroy the union, then they'll see how much the union is needed. Organizing wont be THAT much harder.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

The free rider problem is fatal to many union organizations if the unions can't receive at least agency dues.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Yeah, how do workers expect a union to collecticely bargain if it has no funding?

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

That's exactly what the GOP members of the Supreme Court are banking on.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0