It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Delivers a Sharp Blow to Labor Unions

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Boom!!!! Although I do see the benefit in unions one thing I can't stand is public sector unions. I know you guys will defend them until your blue in the face but guess what, you get what the tax payers can afford that's it. You do not have the right to force tax payers to pay higher taxes through collective bargaining.

I've been watching this case closely all year and have been waiting for this.

Criminal News Network



The justices struck down an Illinois law that required non-union workers to pay fees that go to collective bargaining.


First off this makes absolutely no sense. Totally ridiculous to have to pay for something you are not a part of.



The case was brought by Mark Janus, an Illinois public sector employee, who challenged the fees. He said that because he is a government employee, issues germane to collective bargaining are inherently political. He argued that the First Amendment protected him from having to support such political expression.


I totally agree. Seeing as how the unions tend to back parties and use the money for political reasons I don't think this issue can be argued.

Open Secrets

If you're not sure about how much money these unions spend and to what party here is a little preview...



American Federation of Teachers $7,901,097 $7,869,555 $6,500 99.9% 0.1%


$7 million to Dem's.



American Federation of State/Cnty/Munic Employees $5,213,406 $5,194,687 $6,000 99.9% 0.1%
American Federation of Government Employees $3,072,408 $2,924,868 $136,040 95.6% 4.4%


Anyway, another blow to the corruption paradigm massively impacting our daily lives here in America and another win for the tax payer.




posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Serious questions for the communist/liberal members of ATS...

Why should a worker be forced to pay union dues if they are not in said union?
If I start a company, own it and run it, am I allowed to decide who works at MY company based upon work related merit and production?
Do I not have a right to fire those whom I pay?

-Chris


+2 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
This has been a thorn in my side since I was 16. I got a job as a bagger at the supermarket down the street, and I had to pay union dues to the Teamsters out of my minimum-wage, part time paycheck. Would they have ever lifted a finger to help me if I had needed it? I strongly doubt it. But apparently freedom of association had to go sit at the back of the bus when labor unions were involved. I'm glad the Supreme Court finally put the kibosh on that crap.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

I've worked with/ for 3-4 unions. Currently I'm a flooring technician and I work for a union company that has been a business partner with my family for 3 decades when they really need help or they are in over their head (we're good and run a solid crew). Not to bash the trade unions but they don't produce as much as we do as fast at the same quality. They hate it when we get in jobs but the only reason they call us is when a job is about to go south quick and they need it either because they are short handed or someone made a big booboo.

I've also worked in a manufacturing facility or 2 during serious periods of downtime. One union was a total nightmare. The politics were insane, totally unorganized the older guys were miserable, only 2 days vacation benefits weren't covered and the top rate was only $21 an hour.

The other one almost the same deal. Barely any vacation mandatory 60 hours a week 12 hour days no balance no benefits and you payed out the ass for the union.
edit on 27-6-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Public sector unions are a scourge because the taxpayer is not in the negotiating room. Politicians are not held accountable for agreeing to absurd union deals. Taxpayers should also not be held hostage financially.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Its good to see that the Supreme Court got this one right. Non-union workers shouldn't be forced to pay if they don't want, especially when much of the money ends up going to Democrat political campaigns that the workers may not agree with.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

You could also find a new job and apply for the benefits that you are complaining about. Just a thought.

:edit: while I do have a issue with union jobs they do have benefits also. My biggest issue is seeing them literally put everything down when lunch hits.

edit on 2/19/2013 by Allaroundyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

I don't work for any of those conpanies why would I pay a union to have garbage benefits and I can make more money on my own than I can working for hourly wages for a trade union.

Let me clarify the trade unions are a good thing I choose not to work for them for other financially related reasons

edit on 27-6-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

The union to me is both a blessing and a curse.

Sure it can help to protect employees. But if it gets to big. It can kill a company.

There has to be a happy medium between the two.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

This makes me happy.

Like, super happy.


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

YES!
YES!
YES!

This was the one I was waiting for! Finally, America is one step closer to ending one of the biggest scams and conflicts of interest harmful to the taxpayers that we've got going: public sector unions.
This is the right ruling by the SCOTUS and a real reason to celebrate. Hopefully this leads to the Union teat being cut off from the DNC and ends the one hand washes the other nonsense that party has slapped both the voters and the tax payers with over the past 40 years.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone
Serious questions for the communist/liberal members of ATS...

Why should a worker be forced to pay union dues if they are not in said union?
If I start a company, own it and run it, am I allowed to decide who works at MY company based upon work related merit and production?
Do I not have a right to fire those whom I pay?

-Chris



Because, at least where public employee unions are concerned (and it is the public employee unions that are being harmed by this decision), non-union employees are given (or, at least, have been) granted the same wages and benefits negotiated for by their dues-paying union-member co-workers.

Typically, public-sector employees earn less in wages than private sector employees doing similar jobs (in most cases, the trade-off for the public employee is in the form of better benefits: job security, health insurance, a guaranteed pension, etc.). However, every dollar they earn, and every benefit they receive is the result of lengthy negotiations.

The government employers, in most cases, are required, by law, to pay every employee, doing the same job, the same structured wage.

Why is it, in your view, fair for someone who has not “paid his dues” to be paid the same wage as someone who has invested at least a part of his wages to negotiate the best possible wage/benefits deal for himself and his family?

Isn’t that why so many decry the “unfairness” of welfare?
edit on 27-6-2018 by Bhadhidar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I have seen this coming for quite some time.

I have no issue with unions, in the sense that they were originally formed. Workers for a company unite to use collective bargaining to better their working conditions, acting as a check and balance against a potentially corrupt employer. In that sense, it is a very good thing.

I can even understand paying dues to a union... that covers (supposedly) a subsistence pay should the workers have to strike.

However, what happens when the unions themselves become larger and more powerful than the company? We get what we have now: The unions work to get whatever the workers want, and use the workers as a paycheck to pad their own pockets. Power moves away form the worker themselves and into the hands of union leaders, who collude with the companies, use their revenue stream for their own agendas, or simply become the very thing they were put in place to prevent: another source of corruption.

The worker/employer relationship is a delicate balance. I'm sorry, but everyone cannot have everything they want in reality. We have seen several companies actually close their doors and lay off all their workers because the labor costs became too much because their choice was to acquiesce to the outrageous demands of the union or have no available labor to operate on. That is somehow seen as a win for the unions... but I fail to see how losing one's job due to a company shutdown is a win for anyone. Sure, the mean ol' CEO lost his job, so did the workers... not much of a paycheck in being unemployed. The companies went under, so everyone in the company lost everything they had worked for. The investors in the companies, you know, Granny Smith who lives on that pension Grandpa worked his whole life for and left her, now has to make do with less income. That's a win?

For who? The union? I thought the union was the workers?

Money, especially "other people's money," is like the smell of a fresh T-bone to a starving wolf... there will be people coming out of the woodwork to get "their share." At the head of the pack are the politicians and lobbyists, the ones who do absolutely nothing in order to take as much as possible from whoever they can take it from. So we wind up with a union that is dangerously close to being detrimental to the well-being of its members and uses the money donated by those members for political agendas that the members may not agree with.

That is about as wrong as one can get.

That is best summed up by the following extortion:

"If you want to eat, you'll pay pay for the agendas we want. If you don't pay, you can go starve."

Unions are good things, but modern unions are not really unions... they are businesses themselves and should not be allowed to extort money from non-members, any more than Walmart should be able to charge you for things you didn't want to buy,

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Public sector unions are a scourge because the taxpayer is not in the negotiating room. Politicians are not held accountable for agreeing to absurd union deals. Taxpayers should also not be held hostage financially.



Wrong!

“The taxpayers” are represented by the government negotiators.

If those negotiators are inadequate to the job, then it is the politicians who put them there that are to blame.

And if the politicians are not being held accountable for their decisions, then it is the tax paying voters who continue to elect and re-elect them that are ultimately to blame, not member of the public service unions.

If your team keeps losing, it’s not the other team’s fault. Maybe you need a better team.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
Its good to see that the Supreme Court got this one right. Non-union workers shouldn't be forced to pay if they don't want, especially when much of the money ends up going to Democrat political campaigns that the workers may not agree with.


Then maybe non-union workers should have to negotiate their own wages and not be granted the benefits that union workers earned and paid for through their dues-supported contract negotiations?



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Yes, we just got the better team with this ruling. The Unions can now sit and enjoy the feeling of having the worst team on the field.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

If, the next time you walk into Walmart, the greeter hands you a wall clock with pictures of purty birds on it, because the government said everyone gets one, is that a bad thing? Now imagine you pick up a few items, say $10 worth of stuff you actually wanted, and your bill comes out to $30 because you have to pay for the wall clock with pictures of purty birds on it. Is that fair? Then you put the wall clock with pictures of purty birds down and say you don't want it. "Fine," says the clerk, "but you still have to pay for it."

That sounds silly, doesn't it?

So what's the difference? I want a job with company X. When I get hired on, someone comes up to me and says. "You have to pay union wages." I reply that I don't want to pay the union dues because I don't think the union will help me and won't be using it. "That's fine," says the guy, "but you still have to pay for it."

The only real difference I see is that it is easy to never go into a Walmart if there's a Target down the street. But I need that job to support myself!

It gets worse when the Target starts doing the same thing, and unions are no longer limited to a particular company. Many are industry wide, meaning there really is nowhere else to go to get a job in your chosen profession.

It's extortion, plain and simple. Fair or not in one sense, it is still fairness forced by extortion, and that is not fair.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You do understand that this ruling applies to Public Employee Unions, right?

Not all unions.

In the private sector there are already open and closed shops. In an open shop both union and non-union employees work, the union employees negotiate through their union; the non-union employees are on their own, and the employer is free to compensate each as the employer sees fit.

It is different in the public sector.

In most cases, there are laws that require the employer (the government) to compensate ALL employees doing the same/similar job at the same rate.

So your “Wal-mart” example is backwards.

More accurately would be if you were to purchase $10 worth of goods and be charged $15 (the $10 purchase price + a $5 “Member” fee), while a non-member is only charged the $10.

edit on 27-6-2018 by Bhadhidar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Pelosi IS NOT HAPPY



twitter.com...




top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join