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 (265 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
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
Geaux Tigers!
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
Geaux Tigers!
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
Geaux Tigers!
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
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
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Very interesting. Eugene Volokh filed an amicus brief for the respondents.

I found it surprising, but I should know by now that he follows his legal principles wherever they go, and doesn’t reverse engineer his reasoning from his politics.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-1466/28495/20180119145640767_16-1466_Janus%20v.%20American%20Federation%20of%20State%20et.%20al..pdf
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Mar 2 2018, 10:27 AM
Very interesting. Eugene Volokh filed an amicus brief for the respondents.

I found it surprising, ..
Very much apprecite reading Volokh's amicus brief.

Just curious ... what is it that you found "surprising" in it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Admittedly it's from a position of relative ignorance, I would have thought the free speech argument would go against the unions.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
taiwan_girl
Feb 14 2018, 08:00 AM
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).
Do you know why the automakers left Detroit?
Do you know why automakers have built dozens of factories in the South, and are employing thousands of people there?
Right to Work laws.

Let's dig just a little deeper than the surface view of "hey, don't union workers get better pay and benefits?" :

Just in my little town... many years ago Union Carbide built a huge factory in the town, and put a good third of the people in the town to work. The little town grew, the peoples' lives improved. New houses began popping up all over the place, businesses thrived, more opened up. Then, after almost 20 years of stability and good paying jobs, the union made a push to come into the factory. Most of the people working there did not want a union. They were making more money than they'd ever made, had good benefits, etc. But the (mostly) men who wanted a union went on strike. Most of the people working there just wanted to go to work. But the strikers wouldn't let them get in. They stood lined up just outside the entrance to the factory with pickups full of big rocks, with hand guns, bottles of acid, and anyone who tried to get in was attacked. One man was vocal about his opinion about not wanting a union. As he slept one night, a gang of men surrounded his house and shot through the windows, killing his wife and daughter in the process. Another man had to stand outside in nothing but his undershorts and watch his house burn to the ground, thankful that he had gotten his family out in time. Dozens of men were brutally beaten, several to the point of ending up in the ICU, their family unsure if he would live.

They got their union. Everyone got an extra week's vacation, and a fifty cent an hour raise. But they had lost so much by the time it happened (the union was voted down 3 times in a row during all this, finally on the 4th vote they managed to squeak through a win because people were on the verge of losing everything they owned and needed to work) that it would take years for them to recover. But before they could recoup their losses, Union Carbide sold the factory to another concern, and then agreed to buy the raw product from the new owners, who then shipped the raw product to a factory in Mexico for processing. 90% of the people who had had a job there were left without a job.

Years later, another factory in town opened up, and for around 15 years employed a large number of people. They made good wages, had good benefits, etc. Then came the union organizers. Another strike, more people's homes shot into, more houses burned to the ground, more people beaten to a pulp, then a year or so later, another factory sold, 90% of its employees out of work, and today, no one even wants to work there because the pay stinks, the benefits stink, and the company has changed owners about 6 times over the last ten years.

I have no use for unions. They do not do one damn thing for the people who are in them. Right to Work laws says that you do not have to join a union to work in a unionized company. You have a choice - the unions cannot force you to join and then turn over part of your paycheck to them. Without Right to Work laws, unions can do to employees the very things that the dumbasses who voted for a union claims the union will protect them from the company about.

Detroit is a sh!thole now. Most of it you can thank unions for.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Louisiana has always been a funny state. We weren't Right-to-Work for many years. As we started to fall behind in the competition for all the factories moving into the South, things started to heat up to pass RTW legislation.

What put it over the top was two non-union guys getting killed in Lake Charles during a gun battle on the job site. The killers were union thugs with advanced degrees from Angola.

After that, the public had had enough.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Larry
Mar 2 2018, 12:09 PM

Do you know why the automakers left Detroit?


I lived in Ann Arbor back in the 70's and the local paper was the Detroit Free Press.

Every day there was at least one story in the Free Press about unions on the front page. This is like the Washington Post and the president or congress in DC, at least one front page headline every day.

I remember at that time the unions claimed that they had finally achieved the 4-day work week. Between holidays, vacation, sick and personal leave they had 52 days off during the year, so on average that was 4 days per week.

It was also about that time that there was the oil embargo and increasing competition from Japan. Detroit hasn't been the same since. The unions went too far, competition moved in and the market changed.

The manufacturing world isn't that simple but I think the unions are part of the team that really hurt the industry.


The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply