SC Just Stuck It To The Labor Unions

[Indeependent]

Breaking on FOX news right now. The US Supreme Court just ruled that non-union members can't be extorted by the unions. That's really going to hurt the Democrat's piggy bank.

Another day of WINNING!

Another bad day for workers. Soon expect slave labor, no healthcare, everything for the business and corps.

If Trump is so patriotic why does he not have factories , he and Ivanka in the US, because he is not.

Since you’ve been supplied with the answer multiple times I can only assume you’re suffering from dementia.

No tell me again??

Easy, he's a business man, he's changing the environment, before it was cheaper to make stuff overseas......what makes him patriotic, is he's trying to make America more competitive with lower taxes and regulation......and then he will hammer you if you mfg outside the US.....so there is no reason not to make them in the US. We still have a ways to go to achieve this, but he's working on it.

Is this so called business man going to bring these 29 companies back? Don't think so.

29 famous American companies that aren't American anymore

Almost all “American” corporations are not American.

 

[Polishprince]

Democrats made a huge mistake in this decision. They would have been in a lot better position if they made Ginzberg and Tacomayor vote with the majority of this case.

By letting the case win by 5-4, they emphasize to Republicans voters how fragile the Pro-Sanity Majority is at the SCOTUS.

A 7-2 decision would have led to less urgency on the part of GOP voters.

 

[TheOldSchool]

In some states, a private sector union can still require an employee to pay what is called "agency fees", meaning just the costs to represent them. You don't have to join the union, but you have to pay that fee. Not so anymore for public unions.

My question with this has been whether or not this will affect private Unions down the road or not. As I understand it this case only relates to PUBLIC SECTOR Unions. I wonder if people paying those agency fees in some Right to Work state will now try to get those cancelled as well.

Today's ruling IS only for public unions, but I can see this coming down the road for private unions. Hard to see why you could require agency fees for a private union but not a public one. It is possible however that the Court will leave that distinction up to the states.

As they should.

I'd be okay with that. A private contract between an employer and an employee, or in this case an agent (union) should be left up to them to work out. If a state wants to require agency fees for any individual that doesn't want to join a private sector union, IMHO they should be allowed to do that. BUT - the winds of change are a blowin', and that might be political and economic costs for that state to follow that policy.

I figured they would side with the workers and it was the right thing to do.

Well, they sided with some of the workers

Actually, they sided with all public sector workers. It's their choice to pay union dues or not.

They sided with some. Plenty did not want their union weakened, and to pay for nonmembers benefits as a result of collective bargaining.

 

[Polishprince]

They sided with some. Plenty did not want their union weakened, and to pay for nonmembers benefits as a result of collective bargaining.

Some did have that view, I'm sure.

But looking at the experience of Gov. Walker's labor reforms in the Cheesehead State.

Many of the union lost more than 1/2 their members over night when they were no longer required to pony up.

 

[NightFox]

Good deal! If I read that right, this applies to government unions, correct? If so, they made the right decision.

Why should a non-union worker have to pay anything to a Union they aren't part of?

Because those non-union workers are enjoying the benefits union workers fought for.

When I was a college kid the steel mills around here were foing great guns. They offered college students summer jobs in the mills. The pay was fantastic, far more than a kid could earn at a Dairy Queen or a hardware store. That money helped out a lot. And I was grateful to kick in a portion of my pay to the USW so I could earn enough to pay for school.

I'm not sure if you can see this or not, but that argument is really weak.

Unions helped bring about a 40 hour work week decades ago. By your logic, everyone in America should pay the unions for that. The same for anything that helps other people.

We all should be paying dues to the phone switching company, the auto manufacturer; hell, the inventor of velcro or a thousand other things that help everyone.

Sorry, but it is un-American to require people to pay protection money. That's why it is against the law.

The 40 hour week is federal law. The wages and benefits in a union shop that are greater than those protected by federal law are in place due to union/company negotiations. So, at least in my situation, the unions negotiated the wage rate, the benefits package and the workplace conditions. You need to consider that.

I have. The bottom line is we do not charge people who benefit from the actions that were not taken in their behalf. You may say that the unions are working in their behalf, but the truth is, the unions are working for their own purposes.

To Me, the dues being forced on nonmembers was nothing more than figuratively sending hired muscle into the neighborhood businesses and demanding extortion money so they wouldn't break the store owners legs.

I did, however; think that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the Unions. Looks like I didn't call that one right.

Just because you have a cynical idea of what organized labor is and does on behalf of the workers, it does not bear truth.

You make unions sound as if they are the mafia extorting and robbing innocent companies.

In some cases that's exactly what they are, in others not, depends on the particular union you're talking about.

If you want the lowest possible pay rates, the poorest workplace conditions and no benefits to the workers, fine. It's been tried before. But to what end?

Yeah it's been tried before and it works just fine, ask all the non-union workers at Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, etc..,etc..., if you need more details.

 

[TheOldSchool]

They sided with some. Plenty did not want their union weakened, and to pay for nonmembers benefits as a result of collective bargaining.

Some did have that view, I'm sure.

But looking at the experience of Gov. Walker's labor reforms in the Cheesehead State.

Many of the union lost more than 1/2 their members over night when they were no longer required to pony up.

Yes a nice contribution to the income gap

 

[Polishprince]

Yes a nice contribution to the income gap

Maybe I missed something, what does this have to do with the "income gap"?

Do liberal public employers pay unionized staff more?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yes a nice contribution to the income gap

Maybe I missed something, what does this have to do with the "income gap"?

Do liberal public employers pay unionized staff more?

What do you think the point of collective bargaining is?

 

[Wyatt earp]

And here I thought republicans were all for unions these days, what with bragging about the tariffs and Trump parading them around.

See, that is the problem. You don't think, you regurgitate the party line.

Conservatives and some GOP members are not opposed to unions. They are opposed to "Public Sector Unions" because the representation is not equal.

Private sector unions are protected under the right of free associations implicit in the Constitution.

However, the right to free association cuts both ways and unions, private or public, are not permitted to extort money.

Of course, how could I forget all the love for the UAW and other unions the right has shown over the years

Speaking of UAW, blast from the past.










Chrysler UAW workers caught drinking, smoking pot during lunch – for the third time | Torque News


Chrysler UAW workers caught drinking, smoking pot during lunch – for the third time

Wow, I watched it all

 

[miketx]

I figured they would side with the workers and it was the right thing to do.

Well, they sided with some of the workers

Sure they did cry baby.

 

[task0778]

They sided with some. Plenty did not want their union weakened, and to pay for nonmembers benefits as a result of collective bargaining.

Some did have that view, I'm sure.

But looking at the experience of Gov. Walker's labor reforms in the Cheesehead State.

Many of the union lost more than 1/2 their members over night when they were no longer required to pony up.

Yes a nice contribution to the income gap

Nothing like forcing workers to pay dues whether they like it or not, is there? It's gotta be irritating as hell, knowing as you do what is so obviously the best thing for all of us but people wanting to make their own choices anyway. Often against your wishes. Must really scorch your shorts. Ah yes, the good old days when we could use gov't as a hammer to force people to do what we want them to do. Say, isn't that sort of the definition of fascism?

 

[Nosmo King]

Because those non-union workers are enjoying the benefits union workers fought for.

When I was a college kid the steel mills around here were foing great guns. They offered college students summer jobs in the mills. The pay was fantastic, far more than a kid could earn at a Dairy Queen or a hardware store. That money helped out a lot. And I was grateful to kick in a portion of my pay to the USW so I could earn enough to pay for school.

I'm not sure if you can see this or not, but that argument is really weak.

Unions helped bring about a 40 hour work week decades ago. By your logic, everyone in America should pay the unions for that. The same for anything that helps other people.

We all should be paying dues to the phone switching company, the auto manufacturer; hell, the inventor of velcro or a thousand other things that help everyone.

Sorry, but it is un-American to require people to pay protection money. That's why it is against the law.

The 40 hour week is federal law. The wages and benefits in a union shop that are greater than those protected by federal law are in place due to union/company negotiations. So, at least in my situation, the unions negotiated the wage rate, the benefits package and the workplace conditions. You need to consider that.

I have. The bottom line is we do not charge people who benefit from the actions that were not taken in their behalf. You may say that the unions are working in their behalf, but the truth is, the unions are working for their own purposes.

To Me, the dues being forced on nonmembers was nothing more than figuratively sending hired muscle into the neighborhood businesses and demanding extortion money so they wouldn't break the store owners legs.

I did, however; think that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the Unions. Looks like I didn't call that one right.

Just because you have a cynical idea of what organized labor is and does on behalf of the workers, it does not bear truth.

You make unions sound as if they are the mafia extorting and robbing innocent companies.

In some cases that's exactly what they are, in others not, depends on the particular union you're talking about.

If you want the lowest possible pay rates, the poorest workplace conditions and no benefits to the workers, fine. It's been tried before. But to what end?

Yeah it's been tried before and it works just fine, ask all the non-union workers at Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, etc..,etc..., if you need more details.

Do those companies provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and generous benefits? Perhaps, in those cases, organized labor is not necessary.

What about the companies that do not provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and benefit packages? Do the workers there have a right to organize?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm not sure if you can see this or not, but that argument is really weak.

Unions helped bring about a 40 hour work week decades ago. By your logic, everyone in America should pay the unions for that. The same for anything that helps other people.

We all should be paying dues to the phone switching company, the auto manufacturer; hell, the inventor of velcro or a thousand other things that help everyone.

Sorry, but it is un-American to require people to pay protection money. That's why it is against the law.

The 40 hour week is federal law. The wages and benefits in a union shop that are greater than those protected by federal law are in place due to union/company negotiations. So, at least in my situation, the unions negotiated the wage rate, the benefits package and the workplace conditions. You need to consider that.

I have. The bottom line is we do not charge people who benefit from the actions that were not taken in their behalf. You may say that the unions are working in their behalf, but the truth is, the unions are working for their own purposes.

To Me, the dues being forced on nonmembers was nothing more than figuratively sending hired muscle into the neighborhood businesses and demanding extortion money so they wouldn't break the store owners legs.

I did, however; think that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the Unions. Looks like I didn't call that one right.

Just because you have a cynical idea of what organized labor is and does on behalf of the workers, it does not bear truth.

You make unions sound as if they are the mafia extorting and robbing innocent companies.

In some cases that's exactly what they are, in others not, depends on the particular union you're talking about.

If you want the lowest possible pay rates, the poorest workplace conditions and no benefits to the workers, fine. It's been tried before. But to what end?

Yeah it's been tried before and it works just fine, ask all the non-union workers at Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, etc..,etc..., if you need more details.

Do those companies provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and generous benefits? Perhaps, in those cases, organized labor is not necessary.

What about the companies that do not provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and benefit packages? Do the workers there have a right to organize?

No jobs?

 

[TheOldSchool]

They sided with some. Plenty did not want their union weakened, and to pay for nonmembers benefits as a result of collective bargaining.

Some did have that view, I'm sure.

But looking at the experience of Gov. Walker's labor reforms in the Cheesehead State.

Many of the union lost more than 1/2 their members over night when they were no longer required to pony up.

Yes a nice contribution to the income gap

Nothing like forcing workers to pay dues whether they like it or not, is there? It's gotta be irritating as hell, knowing as you do what is so obviously the best thing for all of us but people wanting to make their own choices anyway. Often against your wishes. Must really scorch your shorts. Ah yes, the good old days when we could use gov't as a hammer to force people to do what we want them to do. Say, isn't that sort of the definition of fascism?

I don’t really care. It’s a lot eeasier to fire people and lower wages now. Oh well.

 

[Nosmo King]

The 40 hour week is federal law. The wages and benefits in a union shop that are greater than those protected by federal law are in place due to union/company negotiations. So, at least in my situation, the unions negotiated the wage rate, the benefits package and the workplace conditions. You need to consider that.

I have. The bottom line is we do not charge people who benefit from the actions that were not taken in their behalf. You may say that the unions are working in their behalf, but the truth is, the unions are working for their own purposes.

To Me, the dues being forced on nonmembers was nothing more than figuratively sending hired muscle into the neighborhood businesses and demanding extortion money so they wouldn't break the store owners legs.

I did, however; think that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the Unions. Looks like I didn't call that one right.

Just because you have a cynical idea of what organized labor is and does on behalf of the workers, it does not bear truth.

You make unions sound as if they are the mafia extorting and robbing innocent companies.

In some cases that's exactly what they are, in others not, depends on the particular union you're talking about.

If you want the lowest possible pay rates, the poorest workplace conditions and no benefits to the workers, fine. It's been tried before. But to what end?

Yeah it's been tried before and it works just fine, ask all the non-union workers at Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, etc..,etc..., if you need more details.

Do those companies provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and generous benefits? Perhaps, in those cases, organized labor is not necessary.

What about the companies that do not provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and benefit packages? Do the workers there have a right to organize?

No jobs?

Why take it or leave it? The company needs labor. Labor is not a commodity like raw materials or spare parts. Labor is families, customers and tax payers.

 

[kwc57]

SCOTUS giving the right victory after victory

Are they still activist judges?

You're confused. Activist judges create new laws out of whole cloth with disregard to the US Constitution. These judges make rulings based on the original intent of the Constitution. It's ok if you're confused, liberals work off of emotions instead of logic.

The conservative justices that gifted premium rights to corporations were activist judges. Conservatives are not inherently constitutionalists.

Liberals are inherently non-constitutional. It's all about feeeeelings.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I have. The bottom line is we do not charge people who benefit from the actions that were not taken in their behalf. You may say that the unions are working in their behalf, but the truth is, the unions are working for their own purposes.

To Me, the dues being forced on nonmembers was nothing more than figuratively sending hired muscle into the neighborhood businesses and demanding extortion money so they wouldn't break the store owners legs.

I did, however; think that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the Unions. Looks like I didn't call that one right.

Just because you have a cynical idea of what organized labor is and does on behalf of the workers, it does not bear truth.

You make unions sound as if they are the mafia extorting and robbing innocent companies.

In some cases that's exactly what they are, in others not, depends on the particular union you're talking about.

If you want the lowest possible pay rates, the poorest workplace conditions and no benefits to the workers, fine. It's been tried before. But to what end?

Yeah it's been tried before and it works just fine, ask all the non-union workers at Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, etc..,etc..., if you need more details.

Do those companies provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and generous benefits? Perhaps, in those cases, organized labor is not necessary.

What about the companies that do not provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and benefit packages? Do the workers there have a right to organize?

No jobs?

Why take it or leave it? The company needs labor. Labor is not a commodity like raw materials or spare parts. Labor is families, customers and tax payers.

We seen what happens in the blue states , they run off jobs.. this illionois guy faught all the way to the supreme court and they ruled in his favor you can't force people to join unions ..

 

[task0778]

SCOTUS giving the right victory after victory

Are they still activist judges?

You're confused. Activist judges create new laws out of whole cloth with disregard to the US Constitution. These judges make rulings based on the original intent of the Constitution. It's ok if you're confused, liberals work off of emotions instead of logic.

The conservative justices that gifted premium rights to corporations were activist judges. Conservatives are not inherently constitutionalists.

Liberals are inherently non-constitutional. It's all about feeeeelings.

It's also about power, i.e., money. They don't care about the Constitution and our laws, they just ignore the ones they don't like.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Just because you have a cynical idea of what organized labor is and does on behalf of the workers, it does not bear truth.

You make unions sound as if they are the mafia extorting and robbing innocent companies.

In some cases that's exactly what they are, in others not, depends on the particular union you're talking about.

If you want the lowest possible pay rates, the poorest workplace conditions and no benefits to the workers, fine. It's been tried before. But to what end?

Yeah it's been tried before and it works just fine, ask all the non-union workers at Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, etc..,etc..., if you need more details.

Do those companies provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and generous benefits? Perhaps, in those cases, organized labor is not necessary.

What about the companies that do not provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and benefit packages? Do the workers there have a right to organize?

No jobs?

Why take it or leave it? The company needs labor. Labor is not a commodity like raw materials or spare parts. Labor is families, customers and tax payers.

We seen what happens in the blue states , they run off jobs.. this illionois guy faught all the way to the supreme court and they ruled in his favor you can't force people to join unions ..

That is not what the ruling was, the ruling was you cannot make non-union people pay a small base fee to cover collective bargaining efforts.

 

[Wyatt earp]

In some cases that's exactly what they are, in others not, depends on the particular union you're talking about.

Yeah it's been tried before and it works just fine, ask all the non-union workers at Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, etc..,etc..., if you need more details.

Do those companies provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and generous benefits? Perhaps, in those cases, organized labor is not necessary.

What about the companies that do not provide fair wage rates, safe and clean workplace conditions and benefit packages? Do the workers there have a right to organize?

No jobs?

Why take it or leave it? The company needs labor. Labor is not a commodity like raw materials or spare parts. Labor is families, customers and tax payers.

We seen what happens in the blue states , they run off jobs.. this illionois guy faught all the way to the supreme court and they ruled in his favor you can't force people to join unions ..

That is not what the ruling was, the ruling was you cannot make non-union people pay a small base fee to cover collective bargaining efforts.

$$ add up

No?

People are sick of that , unions are finnaly dead.