SCOTUS And Union Dues

[JoeMoma]

The unions should not have the power to tax nonmembers.

Then the Union should not be required to represent those individuals either....

No Representation Without Taxation. Pure and simple.

And they are not required to represent those individuals.

 

[Darkwind]

I do not believe the gov't should force anyone to pay dues to a union. It's enough we gotta pay taxes for stuff we don't like.

the govt does that?....i worked in the Post Office and Union membership was voluntary....

My understanding is that at least in some places you don't have to be a member but you do have to pay union dues whether you are a member or not. Some places they automatically deduct the dues from your paycheck before you even see the money.

yes, not much better than extortion as 'protection' money. Little difference between the unions doing this and a mobster sending out hired muscle to shake down the neighborhood businesses.

Still, I think that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the unions.

Can't see why they'd rule in favor of public unions, what justification could they have to do that?

Unfortunately, public and private unions all get lumped into one category. I tend to think that public unions should be outlawed because there is no one sitting at the table representing the people. I know that the argument is that the government employee represents the people, but in truth, the government employee is often an elected representative who is in the unions back pocket. So, the people have no representation at these negotiations.

 

[Anathema]

And they are not required to represent those people.

Actually, under some of the laws out there, they ARE required to, if the job the individual holds is in a Unionized department. The employee who is not paying dues gets the same benefits package, pay, working conditions, etc... as his Unionized co-workers but doesn't have to pay the dues.

 

[task0778]

yes, not much better than extortion as 'protection' money. Little difference between the unions doing this and a mobster sending out hired muscle to shake down the neighborhood businesses.

I'm a Union member and I definitely do not see it that way. The Union provides me with a definitive job description, rates of pay and working conditions by negotiating those things with my employer as a group. We have far more as part of the Union than we ever did when we were non-represented employees.

I hear you, but you better realize that many unionized companies are considering moving their businesses to a RTW state or even off-shore. And/or they're thinking of automating and modernizing their operations to cut labor costs. Maybe your situation is different, but a lot of jobs have been lost in recent decades; I hope yours is not the next one.

 

[Darkwind]

yes, not much better than extortion as 'protection' money. Little difference between the unions doing this and a mobster sending out hired muscle to shake down the neighborhood businesses.

I'm a Union member and I definitely do not see it that way. The Union provides me with a definitive job description, rates of pay and working conditions by negotiating those things with my employer as a group. We have far more as part of the Union than we ever did when we were non-represented employees.

I don't see it as that clear-cut. They [the unions] is really an organization of friends who protect each other through the use of seniority to keep the rank and file in place and the rest simply benefit from the blowby of their negotiations. While the lower rank and file get screwed out of choice jobs, better hours, a better shift, and silenced in a majority vote for equal shares.

The unions do have some benefits, but the bad outweighs the good, even if it is just slightly.

 

[JoeMoma]

And they are not required to represent those people.

Actually, under some of the laws out there, they ARE required to, if the job the individual holds is in a Unionized department. The employee who is not paying dues gets the same benefits package, pay, working conditions, etc... as his Unionized co-workers but doesn't have to pay the dues.

Getting the same benefits does not equal the union representing the non-union employee.

 

[there4eyeM]

Workers working together to set their wages doesn't seem much different from companies setting their profit on a product. Both are the price of the product/service. That doesn't fit "extortion" as a definition.

 

[task0778]

And they are not required to represent those people.

Actually, under some of the laws out there, they ARE required to, if the job the individual holds is in a Unionized department. The employee who is not paying dues gets the same benefits package, pay, working conditions, etc... as his Unionized co-workers but doesn't have to pay the dues.

You sure? My understanding of the current labor laws is that they do not require the union to represent non-dues paying members. I thought that was federal law.

 

[Anathema]

I hear you, but you better realize that many unionized companies are considering moving their businesses to a RTW state or even off-shore. And/or they're thinking of automating and modernizing their operations to cut labor costs. Maybe your situation is different, but a lot of jobs have been lost in recent decades; I hope yours is not the next one.

I work in the Utility industry. This company isn't going anywhere. It may break back up into the smaller companies that were all bought and brought together to form it, but we're not going anywhere.

 

[task0778]

I do not believe the gov't should force anyone to pay dues to a union. It's enough we gotta pay taxes for stuff we don't like.

the govt does that?....i worked in the Post Office and Union membership was voluntary....

My understanding is that at least in some places you don't have to be a member but you do have to pay union dues whether you are a member or not. Some places they automatically deduct the dues from your paycheck before you even see the money.

yes, not much better than extortion as 'protection' money. Little difference between the unions doing this and a mobster sending out hired muscle to shake down the neighborhood businesses.

Still, I think that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the unions.

Can't see why they'd rule in favor of public unions, what justification could they have to do that?

Unfortunately, public and private unions all get lumped into one category. I tend to think that public unions should be outlawed because there is no one sitting at the table representing the people. I know that the argument is that the government employee represents the people, but in truth, the government employee is often an elected representative who is in the unions back pocket. So, the people have no representation at these negotiations.

Sad, but true. In some states, the pensions of public union members are guaranteed under the state Constitution. Which in some states the pension funds are under water so much that they cannot be paid when the time comes.

 

[Anathema]

I don't see it as that clear-cut. They [the unions] is really an organization of friends who protect each other through the use of seniority to keep the rank and file in place and the rest simply benefit from the blowby of their negotiations. While the lower rank and file get screwed out of choice jobs, better hours, a better shift, and silenced in a majority vote for equal shares.

That's the total opposite of my experience in the Union. Yes, Seniority has its privileges, AS IT SHOULD, but the protections and assurance provided by the Union far outweigh the inconvenience of not getting my preferred Storm Assignment location.

 

[Darkwind]

the govt does that?....i worked in the Post Office and Union membership was voluntary....

My understanding is that at least in some places you don't have to be a member but you do have to pay union dues whether you are a member or not. Some places they automatically deduct the dues from your paycheck before you even see the money.

yes, not much better than extortion as 'protection' money. Little difference between the unions doing this and a mobster sending out hired muscle to shake down the neighborhood businesses.

Still, I think that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the unions.

Can't see why they'd rule in favor of public unions, what justification could they have to do that?

Unfortunately, public and private unions all get lumped into one category. I tend to think that public unions should be outlawed because there is no one sitting at the table representing the people. I know that the argument is that the government employee represents the people, but in truth, the government employee is often an elected representative who is in the unions back pocket. So, the people have no representation at these negotiations.

Sad, but true. In some states, the pensions of public union members are guaranteed under the state Constitution. Which in some states the pension funds are under water so much that they cannot be paid when the time comes.

In some cases, it is even worse than that.

The New York public union -- I forget which one -- has actually managed to put into their contract that should the eventuality of a shortage or crash of the stock market occur, the state is obligated to replace the lost funds at taxpayer expense.

Which is exactly what happened in 2009 when the stock market crashed.

 

[Anathema]

You sure? My understanding of the current labor laws is that they do not require the union to represent non-dues paying members. I thought that was federal law.

It depends on what State you're in and how the RTW laws are written. Most of them that I've seen indicate that the Company cannot offer the non-Union member any less pay, benefits or working conditions than their Union co-workers. They may lose out on certain issues if the agreement is to use Union Seniority to determine rank for those things, but otherwise in many cases these folks are getting to have their cake and eat it too.If it was no-dues, no representation, I'd be happy to let these folks go on their own way.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't see it as that clear-cut. They [the unions] is really an organization of friends who protect each other through the use of seniority to keep the rank and file in place and the rest simply benefit from the blowby of their negotiations. While the lower rank and file get screwed out of choice jobs, better hours, a better shift, and silenced in a majority vote for equal shares.

That's the total opposite of my experience in the Union. Yes, Seniority has its privileges, AS IT SHOULD, but the protections and assurance provided by the Union far outweigh the inconvenience of not getting my preferred Storm Assignment location.

I don't know what a 'storm assignment location' is. I presume it's in the oil industry and has to do with working on oil rigs?

It may be that you're union does provide more benefits than downside, but not the two that I've ever been in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the Court is deferring to the legislative powers of the states, as it did today on gerrymandering, it will rule in favor of the unions.

 

[Darkwind]

You sure? My understanding of the current labor laws is that they do not require the union to represent non-dues paying members. I thought that was federal law.

It depends on what State you're in and how the RTW laws are written. Most of them that I've seen indicate that the Company cannot offer the non-Union member any less pay, benefits or working conditions than their Union co-workers. They may lose out on certain issues if the agreement is to use Union Seniority to determine rank for those things, but otherwise in many cases these folks are getting to have their cake and eat it too.If it was no-dues, no representation, I'd be happy to let these folks go on their own way.

I think that is more 'prevailing wage' laws than anything.

 

[task0778]

You sure? My understanding of the current labor laws is that they do not require the union to represent non-dues paying members. I thought that was federal law.

It depends on what State you're in and how the RTW laws are written. Most of them that I've seen indicate that the Company cannot offer the non-Union member any less pay, benefits or working conditions than their Union co-workers. They may lose out on certain issues if the agreement is to use Union Seniority to determine rank for those things, but otherwise in many cases these folks are getting to have their cake and eat it too.If it was no-dues, no representation, I'd be happy to let these folks go on their own way.

Do unions have to represent “free riders” who do not pay union dues?

No. Federal law does not require unions to represent non-members. Under federal law, unions are allowed to bargain solely on behalf of their own dues-paying members, and no one else, under a “members-only” contract. The benefits secured under these contracts apply only to dues-paying union members. Unions are only required to represent every worker, even non-dues-paying members, if union executives choose to invoke federal law giving them the privilege of “exclusive bargaining representation.” This monopoly bargaining position allows unions to represent and negotiate on behalf of all employees in a company, regardless whether every employee wants that representation. If unions insist on securing exclusive representation for themselves, the law then requires them to negotiate fairly on behalf of all workers.

If a union decides against exclusive monopoly bargaining and chooses instead to negotiate only on behalf of its own members, it is not required to represent non-members. In practice unions almost always seek exclusive bargaining status, since it gives them a monopoly position in the workplace. Unions then use that choice as justification for forcing employees to pay for representation they may not want.

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/library/docLib/FAQ_RTW.pdf

So, if a union decides to represent me without my permission or acceptance, they want to force me to pay their dues? Fuck that, the choice should be mine, not theirs.

 

[Harry Dresden]

And they are not required to represent those people.

Actually, under some of the laws out there, they ARE required to, if the job the individual holds is in a Unionized department. The employee who is not paying dues gets the same benefits package, pay, working conditions, etc... as his Unionized co-workers but doesn't have to pay the dues.

You sure? My understanding of the current labor laws is that they do not require the union to represent non-dues paying members. I thought that was federal law.

in the PO they are required too represent them....and i noticed that there were no non paying members turning down the pay and benefits....they also had no problems filing grievances ....

 

[task0778]

And they are not required to represent those people.

Actually, under some of the laws out there, they ARE required to, if the job the individual holds is in a Unionized department. The employee who is not paying dues gets the same benefits package, pay, working conditions, etc... as his Unionized co-workers but doesn't have to pay the dues.

You sure? My understanding of the current labor laws is that they do not require the union to represent non-dues paying members. I thought that was federal law.

in the PO they are required too represent them....and i noticed that there were no non paying members turning down the pay and benefits....they also had no problems filing grievances ....

Which evidently the union gave them the opportunity to do so. See post #37.

 

[Anathema]

I don't know what a 'storm assignment location' is. I presume it's in the oil industry and has to do with working on oil rigs?

It may be that you're union does provide more benefits than downside, but not the two that I've ever been in.

Distribution Electric Utility industry. Living in the Northeast we have storm assignments during restoration after storms.

I’m sorry to hear about your experience. I will say that Unions tend To reflect the level of interest their members put into them.