Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:15 AM Jun 2014

Supreme Court strikes blow to public sector unions

Source: MSNBC

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court limited the ability of unions to automatically collect dues from its members. The ruling will not apply to full-fledged public employees, but is still a blow to the power of unions. The four liberal justices dissented from the majority opinion.

Public sector workers are a bulwark of organized labor’s fading power, and a top target for the conservative movement.

In 2003, Illinois passed a law that substantially strengthened the unions by recognizing home health care workers providing rehabilitation services as public employees and allowing them to be represented by the Service Employees International Union. The workers are paid through the federally funded Medicaid program.

The workers weren’t compelled to join the union, but even if they didn’t money was deducted out of their paycheck to pay union dues, because the union ultimately represents them in negotiations with management over pay and working conditions – the money cannot be used for the union’s political activities.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-public-sector-unions

72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court strikes blow to public sector unions (Original Post) NYC Liberal Jun 2014 OP
If you stupid fucking americans dont god damn wake up soon some of us will stop trying randys1 Jun 2014 #1
Are you American?...If so, you need to speak for (and insult) yourself whathehell Jun 2014 #6
Yes I am American and include myself, I thought that was obvious, if not that is what randys1 Jun 2014 #7
It's not obvious when your form of address is "you Americans" whathehell Jun 2014 #11
Yeah, that is a better way to say it...by the way, didnt Gore have options even after the SC randys1 Jun 2014 #17
He did, chose not to. n/t jtuck004 Jun 2014 #45
Okay, well thanks whathehell Jun 2014 #60
You need to take some yoga joeglow3 Jun 2014 #19
already had two heart attacks, my world includes a rightwing business partner randys1 Jun 2014 #21
I love your passion though! joeglow3 Jun 2014 #58
I'm not insulted by your use of ballyhoo Jun 2014 #24
I totally understand your feelings, I wish California could become an independent country, myself randys1 Jun 2014 #28
I think it will be one day, along with several other ballyhoo Jun 2014 #30
If we break up, the rightwing states will suffer tremendously and ultimately lash out with war randys1 Jun 2014 #32
They are ideologues. They ballyhoo Jun 2014 #37
You know what I have noticed about recent SC rulings randys1 Jun 2014 #39
Even though I am the opposite of you ballyhoo Jun 2014 #42
MG? randys1 Jun 2014 #44
Myasthenia gravis. No. Physicians ballyhoo Jun 2014 #49
I disagree. They possess more land and resources. We have people, they have what we need. freshwest Jun 2014 #68
A comment 90-percent Jun 2014 #33
Sorry. My first obligation is to ballyhoo Jun 2014 #40
Can you relate to me the Bible story of how one-fourth of the World's population will be destroyed DhhD Jun 2014 #50
I think Oligarchs are the modern equivalent of ballyhoo Jun 2014 #51
Agreed. The ultimate goal of the Oligarchs is to reduce the world population, and to DhhD Jun 2014 #43
Does this mean that Unions can reject representing those who don't pay? woodsprite Jun 2014 #2
Not in this case FBaggins Jun 2014 #3
they dont get much over minimum, anyway, but mopinko Jun 2014 #23
AFAIK, no. When I was a steward and my union went on strike, those who scabbed cheerfully walked by freshwest Jun 2014 #27
The union never represented the plaintiff, so that's not really an issue here. hugo_from_TN Jul 2014 #71
How about if you don't pay dues to a union, you don't benefit when they negotiate? alarimer Jun 2014 #4
Because right to work has nothing to do with "giving workers a choice" it's all about MillennialDem Jun 2014 #9
I wonder what it would take to get through to the free-riders? alarimer Jun 2014 #63
My Union secondvariety Jun 2014 #65
+1 exactly! lunasun Jun 2014 #67
The plaintiff in the case does not benefit from any union negotiations or contracts. hugo_from_TN Jul 2014 #70
What is Ralph Nader thinking today? Democat Jun 2014 #5
As long as it doesn't have consequences for him, why the hell should he care davidpdx Jun 2014 #13
He's too busy counting his money to think about his legacy. nt onehandle Jun 2014 #15
Nader? ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2014 #26
But it's so much more fulfilling to run around pointing fingers at everyone instead of doing jtuck004 Jun 2014 #47
Haha, true. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2014 #59
I worked in an organization packman Jun 2014 #8
A guy at my job in WI had a good idea would be to change the union to a corporation then we'd have MillennialDem Jun 2014 #10
By any other name deancr Jun 2014 #22
My union is called California Teachers roody Jun 2014 #69
Yeah, no surprise there. malthaussen Jun 2014 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author sakabatou Jun 2014 #14
Fortunately, this doesn't have any effect on our Dept. IronGate Jun 2014 #16
do you understand why scotus is more important than any issue you might have leftyohiolib Jun 2014 #18
Duty of Fair Representation deancr Jun 2014 #20
One thing deancr Jun 2014 #25
It could be worse deancr Jun 2014 #29
Applicable to adjunct professors? Downwinder Jun 2014 #31
The way I read it, yes. AngryAmish Jun 2014 #66
Corporations are persons, unions are not persons, humans are not persons. valerief Jun 2014 #34
"humans are not persons" NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #36
Except that men are union members, too, which excludes them from personage. nt valerief Jun 2014 #38
I said it the other day and I'm saying it again. Chan790 Jun 2014 #35
This is why the next presidential election is so important. Ash_F Jun 2014 #41
If they don't want to pay an agency fee. RoccoR5955 Jun 2014 #46
never fully agreed with the I'm not a member but forced to pay rule PatrynXX Jun 2014 #48
I was part-time and paid dues CountAllVotes Jun 2014 #52
But you would still benefit from the the higher pay that the unions negotiate Ash_F Jun 2014 #53
+1,000 CountAllVotes Jun 2014 #54
So you are ok with a worker....... Capt.Rocky300 Jun 2014 #55
I won't lie, when I read the actual facts of the case, I felt for the plaintiff who sued the state. BlueEye Jun 2014 #56
Yeah, it looks like the court took this edge case and went wild. Ash_F Jun 2014 #57
Actually the opinion only applies to these home health care workers AngryAmish Jun 2014 #61
I'll hold off on declaring victory Ash_F Jun 2014 #62
You are right. AngryAmish Jun 2014 #64
Now we just need christx30 Jul 2014 #72

randys1

(16,286 posts)
1. If you stupid fucking americans dont god damn wake up soon some of us will stop trying
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:21 AM
Jun 2014

to save your stupid asses

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
6. Are you American?...If so, you need to speak for (and insult) yourself
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:35 AM
Jun 2014

If not, it might be wise to STFU and mind your own country.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
7. Yes I am American and include myself, I thought that was obvious, if not that is what
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:37 AM
Jun 2014

I meant

Surely we have to be fucking stupid to elect or almost elect people who would appoint justices like this

but i dont want to lose my posting privileges here so please excuse me, i wont say it again


i am so god damn sick of worrying about every god damn post I make that someone might take god damn offense and report me like this is god damn kindergarten

you want people like me who will help to make a difference to shut up, my god...my fucking GOD

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
11. It's not obvious when your form of address is "you Americans"
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:47 AM
Jun 2014

To make it clear that you are include yourself, you need to say "We Americans",

but even that is offensive when you consider that we DEMOCRATS did not

vote for the Republicans who appointed these pricks.

A better idea might be "You stupid conservatives" or "right wingers".

randys1

(16,286 posts)
17. Yeah, that is a better way to say it...by the way, didnt Gore have options even after the SC
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:01 AM
Jun 2014

violated their oaths and demanded Florida STOP counting votes?

I thought I read an article about how he had other options to fight the steal

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
60. Okay, well thanks
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:34 PM
Jun 2014

for not being defensive (a rare quality around here at times )

As for Gore, that's an interesting question, but I really don't know the answer.

You might try someone else, although I can't really give you any suggestions,
unfortunately.

 

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)
19. You need to take some yoga
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:04 AM
Jun 2014

or something (anything) to relax. You won't do any of us any good when you die 30 years too early of a heart attack.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
21. already had two heart attacks, my world includes a rightwing business partner
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:06 AM
Jun 2014

you wouldnt believe what he is doing to me...

i have my reasons for always being so fucking angry, but you are right

 

ballyhoo

(2,060 posts)
24. I'm not insulted by your use of
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:17 AM
Jun 2014

"you Americans"; I understand exactly what you mean and why you used the phraseology. My comment is this with respect to your "some of us will stop trying" comment. Not all of us in this country are the same. Some of us have deep held beliefs that have carried us through hard times. Certain laws were passed this year with the attendant comments that made some of "us" stop trying. I no longer participate in the political process, nor donate money, nor do other things as a result of the laws that were passed. I know huge numbers of people from work I do in hospitals who have done the same. As I said, we are all different. That which I saw only in part, I now see very clearly. Good luck to you in whatever your efforts still are. America is dead to many of us now, but for you it apparently is not--yet. Again, good luck to you.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
28. I totally understand your feelings, I wish California could become an independent country, myself
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:20 AM
Jun 2014
 

ballyhoo

(2,060 posts)
30. I think it will be one day, along with several other
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:31 AM
Jun 2014

adjacent states. I believe what the Russian professor said about the United States five, six years ago will come to pass. It will eventually divide into four or five regions each with sovereignty. There are too many areas with hard-core beliefs that will never be congruent with other areas. Maybe a regional separation would make things better. I watch things daily, as you probably do. A sea change is near. Take it easy. Everyone is straining right now as that which we knew that gave us peace disappears. I'm sure you're doing the best that you can.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
32. If we break up, the rightwing states will suffer tremendously and ultimately lash out with war
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:37 AM
Jun 2014

i fear

think about it, without Blue, they are all dead broke, poor and starving

randys1

(16,286 posts)
39. You know what I have noticed about recent SC rulings
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:08 PM
Jun 2014

None of them directly effect me in a negative way, you see I am a str8t white male, i would include protestant but i am atheist (actually i just dont believe in invisible men), so none of this hurts me, directly.

Weird, eh?

Now, of course these things do effect others around me and since I am not an asshole rightwing dumbshit, i care that all this purposely done harm to others is being carried out.

We are growing backwards, immature children in adult bodies

 

ballyhoo

(2,060 posts)
42. Even though I am the opposite of you
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:20 PM
Jun 2014

religiously, your last statement says it all: we are growing backwards, immature children in adult bodies. We can discuss it one day on PM if you want. Right now I have to call someone who has questions on their MG they were just told they have. Also, I do believe in invisible men. I saw one in Tennessee many years ago as clear as a bell. Prior to that I didn't believe in them either. Later.

 

ballyhoo

(2,060 posts)
49. Myasthenia gravis. No. Physicians
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:39 PM
Jun 2014

of today rarely give much information about anything. I've had to learn about diseases from doing other things with sick people. Plus, my wife is DON for a an Alzheimer's Hospital. Her skill-set has been helpful to me. I'm a retired Regional Controller for a Fortune 100 company. My background is Finance and Computers. I went into what I do now because I had an interest in it and had grown tired of telling everyone what to do continuously. Talk to you later.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
68. I disagree. They possess more land and resources. We have people, they have what we need.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:33 PM
Jun 2014

They do not need or want us in their new feudalist fiefdoms. We must consider this, many already have. Why did the Union fight to keep the South and cater to their demands for generations afterwards?

It was the millions of acres of biologically diverse ecosystems with a milder climate. And the Constitution itself was set up to balance agrarian interests with parts of the country with more education and industry. But red states have industry, too and sacrifice zones and populations just as urban zones have.

The red states, in addition to having repressed social orders, are self-sufficient in the most basic of things. Urban milieaus are not truly self-sufficient. It is a pipe dream to think that, the ratio of arable land to people is all wrong for that.

There's been a steady increase in population in those states, and a good deal of it from traditionally blue regions who migrate there. They are not starving, they're growing. We just don't like the way they are managing that growth.

Just because the concentrated population centers of blue states have many people, does not mean they have productive capacity other than ideas and organization. The other system of doing things is better situated to handle ecological damage than the cities are. It's also part of their anti-pathy to helping anything in the cities. They feel that they have paid the price for it and we have not.

We can't be fooling ourselves into thinking there is no power in those regions. Inequality is the rule, but it's seen by them as the natural order of things. And more people are moving there than to blue states. This should tell us something about economies not built on cash.

Urban populations are more dependent on social order and money than rural ones. Not that the rural areas are without a social order. It's just an ugly one to us.

But they will lash out, either in the physical sense or the economic one, when they see the cities gutted of resources and unable to keep social order and ripe for the picking. There is a reason they demonize so many blue areas, it's getting ready for that.

You and I are speaking from our narrow view of how things SHOULD be and can be. They are looking at some realities that they are easily able to succeed at and feel pride in. Instead of our unity and how we can reciprocate each other socially and economically, we have grown apart.

Not saying I approve. That's just my take on it having lived in both red and blue states. And I am certainly not speaking for Democrats and liberals who are living in red states.



90-percent

(6,828 posts)
33. A comment
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:41 AM
Jun 2014

This is meant to be unjudgemental.

What the POWERS THAT BE want from us proles is to be so utterly alienated from participating in the political process that we retreat, in ostrich fashion, into out our daily lives and pursuits.

Part of my obligations of citizenship in the U.S., as I understand it, is to be well informed and participate in any political process I can. Which, I've amped up in recent years because the UN-AMERICAN overreach of our Oligarchs has amped up in recent years.

They want us to be alienated, and those that chose to drop out are serving those aims quite well. Even if for the most noble and constructive of reasons. Not the least of which is the utter hopelessness of watching the World drive off a cliff and being utterly powerless to do anything about it.

-90% Jimmy

 

ballyhoo

(2,060 posts)
40. Sorry. My first obligation is to
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:13 PM
Jun 2014

God. My second is to my family. Anything after that is miles apart now. Thanks for being nonjudgmental. We cannot discuss the essence of our respective beliefs here. That's just the way it is.

DhhD

(4,695 posts)
50. Can you relate to me the Bible story of how one-fourth of the World's population will be destroyed
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:42 PM
Jun 2014

by fire? And do you believe that the Bible gives the Oligarchs permission to make it happen? The government owns no war machines, only Oligarchic Contractors have the ability to wage global war.

 

ballyhoo

(2,060 posts)
51. I think Oligarchs are the modern equivalent of
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:51 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)

the devil, worshipers of money. I believe Oligarchs are outside the realm of God and will self-destruct taking many of us with them, regardless of how righteous and holy we are. If you are speaking of the Tribulation, I don't know how that will happen or if the Tribulation itself is a construct of man rather than God. I think there are people who do know, but I am not one of them.

DhhD

(4,695 posts)
43. Agreed. The ultimate goal of the Oligarchs is to reduce the world population, and to
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:27 PM
Jun 2014

make pay for labor the same in every country (TPP). It is the One World Government and Currency thing, just like Teddy Tea Cruz wants to do and talks about all the time. Bitcons are being used in California.

woodsprite

(11,853 posts)
2. Does this mean that Unions can reject representing those who don't pay?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:24 AM
Jun 2014

My gut reaction is that I hope they would be able to do that, but I'm thinking there's some loophole someplace where non-paying people would be able to fight that if it happened. In my interactions, a lot of the people I know that fuss about paying Union dues are the first ones to run to the union when they need help, and most critical of that help when it is received.

FBaggins

(26,693 posts)
3. Not in this case
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:28 AM
Jun 2014

State law requiers that everyone in this position receive the same compensation.

So non-members necessarily benefit from any negotiation success on the part of the union.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
27. AFAIK, no. When I was a steward and my union went on strike, those who scabbed cheerfully walked by
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:20 AM
Jun 2014

Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

the picket line (we didn't raise hell with them, but we knew who they were) and when we all came back to work, saving their benefits and pay, they ran to us when management began to treat them the same as union members.

They'd enjoyed being treated like managers and given perks while we were on strike, but when we came back, the honeymoon was over.

They didn't pay dues (this was a RTW state, so being in the union was optional) but we had to represent them anyway. We just weren't enthused about it, but it really was about maintaining good working conditions for all of us, not them. So we had to do so, and they were more than aware they were getting free ride off the dues paying union members but still resented us.

I'm not sure what the ruling really said. I've seen the home health care issue in the state I live in now, which is not a RTW state. SEIU sought to organize the caregivers in private homes, but not necessarily the kind of case this was, into a union to get wages and benefits that many do not get, resulting in poor care in some cases.

It was fought tooth and nail by some families. They felt it was an intrusion on their family, and that they didn't want to have to accept who the union sent out, follow discrimination laws, etc. They had good and bad points, and only a few places were unionized, AFAIK.

There is a difference with Medicaid laws that may apply to this, but I didn't read the case, have only seen it through the union lens, but there is another view that may have applied here. I think it is about a mother caring for her child at homea and being paid. Feel free to correct me on this.

Being paid to take care of a family member is a thing I envied friends in the UK for getting under the Thatcher changes to care, so a child could stay at home with a parent and not have to be put into state care in order to access care. Those I knew were able to keep from being in poverty, worn out, worried about keeping their home and paying for health care.

One person I knew well said his position was that of a 'Carer' and the UK paid him to take care of his own son, his son's health needs and supplies, prescriptions, ambulance rides and care when his son had seizures and all of that. He was given control over where his son was cared for so he could take 2 weeks off a year as a vacation, and had respite care every month of his choosing. Because it is a 24 hour a day job.

In the USA, the parents of disabled children have been essentially been on their own, and caretakers break down from the hours and financial strain. If one loses one's job and or insurance that cares for the child and parent, or other social and economic factors come into play, the only way for the child to get health care for a long time in some states was to put the child in state care. The help of a paid home health care assistant or a parent being able to qualify for rigid Medicaid standards was dependent on what rules by the state lived in.

Which meant children with great needs had to be put in state care, breaking up the family, and often leading to the deterioration of the child and the loss of all the other things that one has from family and their community.

When a person becomes by contract a Medicaid service provider, all the money must be for direct care of the disabled person. It is a big deal for some parents to get this payment, but it is still dependent on the whims of state legislatures.

The way I read this case, an impoverished parent was being paid for direct care. It was at a minimum level and she felt she could not afford to pay union dues out of the meager wages or stipend paid as if she was a worker in the regular labor market. But the child could not live without her care.

I am unfamiliar with that kind of arrangement. It may have been one where she was paying for help out of the Medicaid money, and felt she was unable to pay the union wages, benefits and dues out of the amount she was given by her state's Medicaid program.

The rigid eligibility rules create a lot of distress on those already hurting. I can't tell exactly what went on here and am ready to be informed. I support union workers doing this because good working conditions and wages lead to keeping better workers which gives stability in taking care of vulnerable people, in theory.

That's all I can offer here.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
4. How about if you don't pay dues to a union, you don't benefit when they negotiate?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:28 AM
Jun 2014

In other words, if you don't belong to a union at your workplace, but other people do, you don't get the raise that the union members get (or whatever else).

I don't think it's fair that a person who doesn't pay union dues gets to benefit from the protections offered by said union.

Some of us cannot join unions. We live in states where public employees are not allowed to unionize. Yet we have all benefited from the work that unions have done generally (40 hour week, weekends off, vacation, pensions, etc.).

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
9. Because right to work has nothing to do with "giving workers a choice" it's all about
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:43 AM
Jun 2014

busting unions. It's funny to say this to a libertarian as they just stare at you and repeat "I support giving workers a choice whether to join a union or not". Then why should those who don't join benefit? "I support giving workers a choice whether to join a union or not"

The idiots have been suckered into this unions = a choice nonsense while the republicans and oligarchs laugh their butts off.

If you think it's bad enough non-union workers benefit from things unions accomplished that's nothing. In right to work states or states with laws like Wisconsin's Act 10... where there are still unions but no requirement to pay dues, if a worker is a non-member and does not pay dues but then gets into a dispute with management and comes crying to the union, the union MUST legally ($$$) represent said worker.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
63. I wonder what it would take to get through to the free-riders?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:28 PM
Jun 2014

Because that's what they are.

I don't really get why unions have gotten such a bad rap over the years. I get that there have been corruption issues with some and certainly some of them have had terrible leadership.

secondvariety

(1,245 posts)
65. My Union
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:41 PM
Jun 2014

(I'm in Florida) can tell non-members to take a hike in disputes with management. But non-members are allowed to vote on Union contracts which has always stuck in my craw.

hugo_from_TN

(1,069 posts)
70. The plaintiff in the case does not benefit from any union negotiations or contracts.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:25 AM
Jul 2014

God forbid anyone in DU actually read up about the case.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
13. As long as it doesn't have consequences for him, why the hell should he care
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:50 AM
Jun 2014

The guy is wealthy as are most politicians. No skin of his back.

ForgoTheConsequence

(4,846 posts)
26. Nader?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:18 AM
Jun 2014

The Supreme Court gave the election to Bush and you allowed it because you were too busy crying about Nader. Now they're putting the death nail in unions and you're still blaming Nader. Good job liberals, you fell for it.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
47. But it's so much more fulfilling to run around pointing fingers at everyone instead of doing
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:38 PM
Jun 2014

the hard work.

It's hard, ya know?

ForgoTheConsequence

(4,846 posts)
59. Haha, true.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:32 PM
Jun 2014

The fact that it's 2014 and they're still repeating this same nonsense instead of blaming the Supreme Court, Bush Co., and the Florida electoral system says a lot. It's a lot safer for timid liberals to blame Nader then it is to actually call out Republican corruption.


Gore won the popular vote, if Nader didn't run Gore still would have won the popular vote.

 

packman

(16,296 posts)
8. I worked in an organization
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:42 AM
Jun 2014

where the "union" called themselves an "Professional Association" to avoid the stigma of being stained by the working-class rif-raf label. They bargained with the county and got the right to have every member (teachers) pay dues . The members did not have to join the Association, but did have to pay dues - which were quite high at the time.

Wonder how this is going to affect them? How is a "union" a union, an "Association" or any other pseudo-union collective bargaining group going to handle this?

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
10. A guy at my job in WI had a good idea would be to change the union to a corporation then we'd have
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:45 AM
Jun 2014

actual rights.

deancr

(150 posts)
22. By any other name
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:13 AM
Jun 2014

It doesn't matter what they call themselves, they are still engaged in collective bargaining and subject to US labor law like any other union. Maybe they should just join the Elks and get together for drinks if they don't believe in the laws that unions fought for and they benefit from. Thirty some years of anti-union propaganda has sure made its mark.

roody

(10,849 posts)
69. My union is called California Teachers
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:05 PM
Jun 2014

Association and has been for 150 years. It's a great union.

Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
16. Fortunately, this doesn't have any effect on our Dept.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:00 AM
Jun 2014

we are a 100% Union Dept., but I feel sorry for those mixed Union shops that will now have a loss of income but still have to represent those non Union workers who will benefit from Union negotiations.

deancr

(150 posts)
20. Duty of Fair Representation
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:04 AM
Jun 2014

Under the duty of fair representation, that is, US labor law, unions are required to represent members and non-members equally. So non-members in "right to work" states get not only wages and benefits negotiated by the unions for free, but must be represented without distinction from members in disciplinary matters. So, they get free money and the union has to fight for their jobs when they act foolishly as per their natures.

The supremes have now extended that concept nationally to some degree. Sucks to live in a corporatocracy.

deancr

(150 posts)
25. One thing
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:18 AM
Jun 2014

This concept of right to work, the right to avoid paying for union services by freeloading, already applied to federal workers such as those in postal unions. Most folks are still smart enough to see which side their bread is buttered on and join anyway. In a democracy it may take a long time, but truth will out.

deancr

(150 posts)
29. It could be worse
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:25 AM
Jun 2014

This from Talking Points Memo:



Here's a helpful summary from Elena Kagan's dissent in today's anxiously awaited Supreme Court case on union agency fees:

For many decades, Americans have debated the pros and cons of right-to-work laws and fair-share requirements. All across the country and continuing to the present day, citizens have engaged in passionate argument about the issue and have made disparate policy choices. The petitioners in this case asked this Court to end that discussion for the entire public sector, by overruling Abood and thus imposing a right-to-work regime for all government employees. The good news out of this case is clear: The majority declined that radical request. The Court did not, as the petitioners wanted, deprive every state and local government, in the management of their employeesand programs, of the tool that many have thought necessary and appropriate to make collective bargaining work.

The bad news is just as simple: The majority robbed Illinois of that choice in administering its in-home care program.

valerief

(53,235 posts)
34. Corporations are persons, unions are not persons, humans are not persons.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:57 AM
Jun 2014

Are members of SCOTUS persons? Why aren't persons making these decisions? Oh, right, they ARE. SCOTUS are person-proxies.

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
36. "humans are not persons"
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:59 AM
Jun 2014

Actually, men are persons; women are not.

That is the gist of the ruling in Hobby Lobby.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
35. I said it the other day and I'm saying it again.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:58 AM
Jun 2014

It's time for Senate Democrats to bring Taft-Hartley repeal to the floor, even if they have no desire to pass it, just to remind conservatives that they "can" bring Taft-Hartley repeal to the floor.

Let the GOP stew in what outlawing "right-to-work" nationally would mean for them, what unshackling labor's hands in negotiation means for them, what giving labor back real power to wage war on corporations means for them.

Let them spend 5 minutes pondering the demise of their puppet masters.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
46. If they don't want to pay an agency fee.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:36 PM
Jun 2014

Then they should not get ANY of the benefits, pay raises, or ANYTHING that negotiations got the union workers. When they see that they are getting no days off, crappy healthcare, and no raises, then they will come runnin' back.

PatrynXX

(5,668 posts)
48. never fully agreed with the I'm not a member but forced to pay rule
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:38 PM
Jun 2014

so on this area I'd side with scotus I've never been forced. Although the Teamsters Union that the full time workers had didn't force us to pay. The one at UPS that my brother worked for part time did and is one of the main reasons he changed to being a Republican

This isn't Wisconsin and bargaining rights.

CountAllVotes

(20,854 posts)
52. I was part-time and paid dues
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:52 PM
Jun 2014

and today, I am retired and I still GLADLY pay dues.

I was not a highly paid worker btw ... $8.00/hr. was the deal.

I figure letting the union officials fight the insurance companies was a darn good investment for me -- better the union fighting the insurance companies than lowly me.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
53. But you would still benefit from the the higher pay that the unions negotiate
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:56 PM
Jun 2014

Without the unions, I promise you the wages and benefits at those jobs would be crap.

To me it is like wanting to benefit from living on American soil, being part of a strong economy(compared to third world countries), access to comprehensive infrastructure, having the protection of police forces and the military, but not wanting to pay taxes.

Capt.Rocky300

(1,005 posts)
55. So you are ok with a worker.......
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:06 PM
Jun 2014

being represented by a union in contract negotiations and disciplinary actions and letting the others worker pay for it?

BlueEye

(449 posts)
56. I won't lie, when I read the actual facts of the case, I felt for the plaintiff who sued the state.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:16 PM
Jun 2014

She is a mother who takes care of her son at home who has a severe disability. She did not want to pay dues because she argues that receiving state aid to compensate her for the care she provides her son does not make her a state employee. When framed that way, the decision sort of makes sense. Unfortunately, her case is rather unusual. The vast majority of recipients of this type of aid are caring for individuals who are not family members (they do it as work), therefore compulsory union fees are perfectly justifiable to any reasonable person.

If only there were a program in Illinois where parents of disabled persons could receive state aid in a way that does not make them employed. This whole thing could have been avoided.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
57. Yeah, it looks like the court took this edge case and went wild.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:20 PM
Jun 2014

They could have ruled in a manner that would have benefited the mother but not broken unions.

The groups that ended up taking on her case are exactly the sort that want to turn this country into a hellhole for struggling people like herself.

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
61. Actually the opinion only applies to these home health care workers
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:26 PM
Jun 2014

In effect the Court ruled that they were not real employees. All the other government employees are not affected.


As I stated in another few threads, the idea of unionizing these family members comes from a corrupt deal between Blago and SEIU.

THe good guys won today. No matter what the overheated and ignorant rhetoric you hear today.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
62. I'll hold off on declaring victory
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:28 PM
Jun 2014

Considering which judges ruled which way.

Home health care workers are badly treated in this country and deserve better.

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
64. You are right.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:35 PM
Jun 2014

I was going off the more in depth articles. This was a corrupt deal and all that. But Alito is using this case to leverage every other anti-public sector union case.

I was wrong. Public sector unions are dead unless we change the composition of the Court.

Again, fuck you Blago for opening this door.

So maybe not today, but in ten years agency fees will be a thing of the past.

We are so screwed.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
72. Now we just need
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:09 PM
Jul 2014

for the court to force SEIU to refund every dime this woman, and hundreds like her, were forced to pay.
I hope it's a big hit on the SEIU, so they won't try something like this in the future.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court strikes blo...