Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Under the radar...
Topic Started: Feb 11 2018, 07:46 PM (169 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
The Truth is out there.
With all the TDS in the media today, they don't give enough importance to the likely repeal of Abood...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-unions-20180208-story.html
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Unions have been useless for decades.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Very important.

I don't think unions are useless, but I also don't like the idea of public employees unions being able to force dues on workers.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
The Truth is out there.
Down here, the AFSCME was still active and still had members. The union was not much use in collective bargaining, but they were very good at making sure the state crossed every T and dotted every I when an employee was disciplined, layed-off or terminated.

It's not like a repeal means the death of public sector unions.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
taiwan_girl
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I have to say that I have not been following the court case, but if someone is under the contract of the union, and receive the benefits of the union, should not they pay the payments necessary to the union? Seems only fair to me.

Otherwise, maybe they should be required to have their own agreement with the company.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
The Truth is out there.
taiwan_girl
Feb 12 2018, 07:38 AM
I have to say that I have not been following the court case, but if someone is under the contract of the union, and receive the benefits of the union, should not they pay the payments necessary to the union? Seems only fair to me.

Otherwise, maybe they should be required to have their own agreement with the company.
Closed shop vs. open shop argument.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
taiwan_girl
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Feb 12 2018, 09:45 AM
taiwan_girl
Feb 12 2018, 07:38 AM
I have to say that I have not been following the court case, but if someone is under the contract of the union, and receive the benefits of the union, should not they pay the payments necessary to the union? Seems only fair to me.

Otherwise, maybe they should be required to have their own agreement with the company.
Closed shop vs. open shop argument.
Not sure what this means? Does this mean that some places have both union and not union working together? Do they get the same salary and benefits?

I understand that in many/most cases, a union worker will make more money and have better benefits.

To me, if someone wants the same salary and benefits from the union that were agreed to by the union and the company, then they probably should be in the union. Seems kind of unfair otherwise. I do agree that if someone does not like the politics that the union does, they should not be forced to pay for that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
The bigger issue is the whole "money is free speech" argumenr.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
The Truth is out there.
taiwan_girl
Feb 13 2018, 08:04 AM
Jolly
Feb 12 2018, 09:45 AM
taiwan_girl
Feb 12 2018, 07:38 AM
I have to say that I have not been following the court case, but if someone is under the contract of the union, and receive the benefits of the union, should not they pay the payments necessary to the union? Seems only fair to me.

Otherwise, maybe they should be required to have their own agreement with the company.
Closed shop vs. open shop argument.
Not sure what this means? Does this mean that some places have both union and not union working together? Do they get the same salary and benefits?

I understand that in many/most cases, a union worker will make more money and have better benefits.

To me, if someone wants the same salary and benefits from the union that were agreed to by the union and the company, then they probably should be in the union. Seems kind of unfair otherwise. I do agree that if someone does not like the politics that the union does, they should not be forced to pay for that.
Google "Right to Work".
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Riley
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
taiwan_girl
Feb 13 2018, 08:04 AM
Jolly
Feb 12 2018, 09:45 AM
taiwan_girl
Feb 12 2018, 07:38 AM
I have to say that I have not been following the court case, but if someone is under the contract of the union, and receive the benefits of the union, should not they pay the payments necessary to the union? Seems only fair to me.

Otherwise, maybe they should be required to have their own agreement with the company.
Closed shop vs. open shop argument.
Not sure what this means? Does this mean that some places have both union and not union working together? Do they get the same salary and benefits?

I understand that in many/most cases, a union worker will make more money and have better benefits.

To me, if someone wants the same salary and benefits from the union that were agreed to by the union and the company, then they probably should be in the union. Seems kind of unfair otherwise. I do agree that if someone does not like the politics that the union does, they should not be forced to pay for that.
In the US, many states have a backwards “right to work” law, that means if you work at a workplace represented by a union, you can choose whether to become a member and pay dues, but get all benefits whether you pay or not.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
The Truth is out there.
Riley
Feb 14 2018, 03:14 AM
taiwan_girl
Feb 13 2018, 08:04 AM
Jolly
Feb 12 2018, 09:45 AM
taiwan_girl
Feb 12 2018, 07:38 AM
I have to say that I have not been following the court case, but if someone is under the contract of the union, and receive the benefits of the union, should not they pay the payments necessary to the union? Seems only fair to me.

Otherwise, maybe they should be required to have their own agreement with the company.
Closed shop vs. open shop argument.
Not sure what this means? Does this mean that some places have both union and not union working together? Do they get the same salary and benefits?

I understand that in many/most cases, a union worker will make more money and have better benefits.

To me, if someone wants the same salary and benefits from the union that were agreed to by the union and the company, then they probably should be in the union. Seems kind of unfair otherwise. I do agree that if someone does not like the politics that the union does, they should not be forced to pay for that.
In the US, many states have a backwards “right to work” law, that means if you work at a workplace represented by a union, you can choose whether to become a member and pay dues, but get all benefits whether you pay or not.
Almost.

In case of dismissal or punishment, the union generally represents their member free of charge, and will hold the employer to the Union contract. If you're not in the union, you're on your on.

Right to work is the law in about half the states, if not the majority. Given time, it definitely will be the law in most states.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
taiwan_girl
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
Google "Right to Work".


I did look this up, and still am not sure I agree with it.

My understanding is that mostly union contracts have better salary and benefit. If someone comes to work in that place, they would get the union salary and benefit, but they do not have to pay the union fee. Is this correct?

Or, is there a two stage salary and benefit scale?

I am not saying unions are all good - I do believe that in the US, they have not done a good job of changing with the changing times, but allowing someone to get the benefits of the unions without contributing to how those benefits were gotten does not make sense (to me).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply