Should People Be Forced To Join A Union And Pay Dues?

Should PPL Be Forced To Join A Union And Pay Dues As Condition Of Their Right To Work


  • Total voters
    42
So the union attached union memebership as a condition of work? And then theres those who refuse to join the union but receive the job and are still forced to pay dues. Yes at a lower rate but it makes no since nevertheless.

In my line of work that second part is not an option. You MUST be a member of the local Union to hold certain jobs in the company. That means you will pay dues and be required to work under all Union guidelines and agreements. There is no other alternative in those departments.
 
As opposed to what? Unsustainable CEO wages?

We got two people in the US right now that control some 108 billion dollars.

That's a little off kilter.

Those are the contracts they signed with the company. And unless you're on the board, it doesn't matter if you like it or not.


You mean like union contracts signed with the company? :eusa_whistle:

Exactly. But leftists only have a problem with one of them, don't they?
 
To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

The fact they took a risk, organized, and stood up for their right to negotiate working conditions.

As to the OP, you have no right to work. An employer has the right to hire and fire as he wishes inside the boundaries of the law. If the condition of employment as set by the employer is union membership, then if you what the job you join, or look for a new job.

The folks that tend to argue for a right to work are the Communists. Free market supporters understand there is no inherent right to work, only aright to employ others as you see fit.

Allow to me to play Devil's advocate and argue that in many cases an employer with a unionized workforce isn't exactly free to employ as he/she "sees fit".
 
The collective identifies him as a member of the in-group and he has a card identifying him as such...

So that gives him a greater right to work than the non-union member?

Are you saying I should need to present identification showing I've been permission from the collective to work before you can hire me?

No. Nothing anywhere near that. Different time zone.

Might want to re-read the exchange.
 
Being forced to join a Union is the same as being forced to fund the Democratic Party. They're the same entity. And i know i don't want to fund the Democratic Party. So of course no one should be forced to join a Union. I know the Democrats & Unions want that to become reality but it is wrong.
 

^^^^This post isn't normal. But on meth it is.
 
Religion is also a union. I think they do not like competition.
complete with faith care healing and an eternal retirement plan. Only 10% of your wages.
Some dispute over gross vs net though.

They let anyone go to Church for free where I live. And when the collection plate is passed around any money given is strictly voluntary.
 
That is called coercion, which is force by another name.

Your employer decides whether or not you have to pay union dues, or some portion thereof. If that's 'coercion' it's your employer doing it as a condition of your employment...

...kind of like telling you when you have to show up, when you can take your lunch, when you can go home, and what you actually have to DO while you're working there.

I guess that's all 'coercion'. I guess, though, that's also why they PAY you.

bullshit. The employer withholds my dues and gives it to the union. The employer does not take my dues for their own use and give it to a political candidate. That's idiotic.

The employer CHOSE to negotiate work conditions, rules, wages, benefits, etc., with a particular agency, i.e., your union. The employer CHOSE to deduct money from your wages as compensation to that agency. The employer CHOSE to require you to agree to that arrangement as a condition of your employment.

It's no different than an employer setting up a healthcare plan where your employer pays for part of it and part of the cost comes out of your wages.
 
So that gives him a greater right to work than the non-union member?

That depends. On the grand scale of the Universe, nothing. On the scale of an individual job, the fact that the majority of the people doing that job in that company have agreed to be represented by the Union and that the company has agreed to a contract with them is what gives the Union member the right to work.
Y'all are reading way too much into this. All I'm asking is, given a union worker and a non-union worker, which one should be employed? There are only three possible answers:

1. The union worker.
2. The non-union worker.
3. Neither should have an advantage.
 
You know what? I'm okay with that.

Now, about those unsustainable union wages...

As opposed to what? Unsustainable CEO wages?

We got two people in the US right now that control some 108 billion dollars.

That's a little off kilter.

One problem. The CEO is elected by those who OWN the business if he doesent have a majority steak allready. So how he descides to run the business in accordance with his or the other majoruty owners will is certainly none of your consern.

That's not always how it works and basically yeah..it is my concern given this new doctrine of "To big to fail". Tax payer money has, is and will be going to "save" industries that are to big. In any case..it's dangerous. And bodes badly for an economy that wants to keep Capitalism.
 
Last edited:
To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

The fact they took a risk, organized, and stood up for their right to negotiate working conditions.
So you're saying a union member has more right to work than a non-union member.
As to the OP, you have no right to work. An employer has the right to hire and fire as he wishes inside the boundaries of the law. If the condition of employment as set by the employer is union membership, then if you what the job you join, or look for a new job.

The folks that tend to argue for a right to work are the Communists.
The bolded is a profoundly stupid statement, utterly ignorant of Communism and Communism's goal to empower the working class.
Free market supporters understand there is no inherent right to work, only a right to employ others as you see fit.
You got something right, but it doesn't mesh well with your answer to my question, does it?
 
No, it was not a rhetorical question. But thanks for the mind-reading act.

Can you answer your own question? Do you have what you believe is the correct answer?

Of course. Neither worker has a greater right to work than the other.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

So, you asked a question that you had already decided what the answer was. So you weren't asking the question trying to find out an answer,

you were asking the question whose answer was meant to be your point.

That is a rhetorical question. Which I pointed out to you a few zillion posts ago,

and you, wrongly, disputed.
 
Can you answer your own question? Do you have what you believe is the correct answer?

Of course. Neither worker has a greater right to work than the other.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

So, you asked a question that you had already decided what the answer was. So you weren't asking the question trying to find out an answer,

you were asking the question whose answer was meant to be your point.

That is a rhetorical question. Which I pointed out to you a few zillion posts ago,

and you, wrongly, disputed.
Your continuing mission to prove yourself an intelligent human being has failed once again.

Yes, I know what the right answer is. I want to know what other people think the right answer is.

It's called "discussion". Your problem is you'd rather lecture.
 
That's not a right to work issue. You can opt out of political contributions anywhere, as far as I know. You can in New York, and we're not a right to work state.

That may be true in theory, but in practical terms it's virtually impossible in many states. You often have to sue the union to get them to quit deducting that portion of your dues from your paycheck, and that can take years and cost many thousands of dollars.

Can you name those states please?
 
I know this is an exercise in futility regarding the ineducable rightwingers around here, but anyhow,

can we clear something up right now?

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The lawsuit was a protest against the use of the plaintiff dues for political purposes, and he won.

Now that you are not 'misinformed' please stop lying about this.
 
Being forced to join a Union is the same as being forced to fund the Democratic Party. They're the same entity. And i know i don't want to fund the Democratic Party. So of course no one should be forced to join a Union. I know the Democrats & Unions want that to become reality but it is wrong.

Nobody is FORCED to join a Union. If you don't want to join the Union don't accept a job in a Unionized department or company. If you do accept the job don't complain about the requirements of that job. I'm sure you were told beforehand that it was a Union job. You accepted it with that knowledge.
 
Y'all are reading way too much into this. All I'm asking is, given a union worker and a non-union worker, which one should be employed? There are only three possible answers:

1. The union worker.
2. The non-union worker.
3. Neither should have an advantage.

Except that the question is rarely that simple. On those rare occasions the answer is going to be the Union worker, because the only way it can be that simple is for there to already be a CBA in place that REQUIRES the hiring of Union workers for the job.
 
That's not a right to work issue. You can opt out of political contributions anywhere, as far as I know. You can in New York, and we're not a right to work state.

That may be true in theory, but in practical terms it's virtually impossible in many states. You often have to sue the union to get them to quit deducting that portion of your dues from your paycheck, and that can take years and cost many thousands of dollars.

Bullshit. Now you're lying to try and make an invalid point.

I know this is an exercise in futility regarding the ineducable rightwingers around here, but anyhow,

can we clear something up right now?

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The lawsuit was a protest against the use of the plaintiff dues for political purposes, and he won.

Now that you are not 'misinformed' please stop lying about this.

I hope you typed that r-e-a-l s-l-o-w so Bripat understands it.

.
 
Being forced to join a Union is the same as being forced to fund the Democratic Party. They're the same entity. And i know i don't want to fund the Democratic Party. So of course no one should be forced to join a Union. I know the Democrats & Unions want that to become reality but it is wrong.

See post 115 dipshit. NOBODY is forced to donate to the Democrat party. As a matter of fact they also contribute to GOP candidates.

.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top