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: 2
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I have worked in both capacities; I am familiar with the way public unions operate. In my experience, they do even less than private unions, and expect more in return.

I suggest, since the issue seems to be that people can ignore paying union dues while still reaping the rewards that those who did pay reap, the law requiring identical pay regardless of union participation is the issue. Perhaps stop legally requiring some concept of fairness that we then have to enforce via extortion is the answer? You yourself actually seemed to suggest something similar in an above post.


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.

The amount is irrelevant. The fact that one has to pay in order to work, in support of causes they may oppose, is relevant.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   


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


So, are you going to negotiate a separate contract through the state? Or are you going to reap the benefits of the unions negotiator a union that your not paying for.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


Personal Freedom wins again. Taking our country back from a-holes.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123


Pelosi IS NOT HAPPY

Of course not. She is one of those being lobbied using union crumbs... I mean dues.

I'm sure her heart is in the right place, though. She needs a new lawn mower to enforce the border.

TheRedneck

edit on 6/27/2018 by TheRedneck because: fix quote tags



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

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


Yay now you guys can save more money to be stolen by the DOD for more wars. LOL
If you are angry about this problem but ok with the amount of money spent by the DOD every year then it must only be alright if they steal from you in extremely large amounts. You can have my trust fund and retirement and even my house, but never take my coffee money. Oh Merica you so silly.

that being said I'm not totally sure how to end the corruption or if it even possible.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The Texas Teachers' Association has been one of the primary forces driving public education in Texas right through the floor. And it's difficult to work as a substitute teacher in much of Texas, because the administration might be using you to try and do some "union busting".

And every scheme which tries to implement even the most watered-down version of merit-based bonuses gets shot down by the TEA's lobbying arm... which seems to be composed entirely of lawyers, rather than teachers, for some odd reason.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

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.


That is only partially true. In theory, tax payers should be represented by the politicians but that isn't how union negotiations work in the real world.

Essentially, the politician will not have to answer to voters because any malfeasance on their part is delayed by years, if not decades. In other words, they can "kick the can down the road" and not have to answer to the voters. Some other simp elected after they are long gone will have to clean up the mess. This is why so many cities are in such bad fiscal shape now. Each politician just tries to push the tough decisions down the road instead of dealing with the issues immediately.

On the other hand, if they go against the union, they will immediately face challengers for their seat. The union will get their goons out going door to door to sway the election. They will run negative campaign ads, etc.

In other words, in the short term, the union actually has more power over the politician than the tax payers. As such, the politician has more incentive to please the union than they do tax payers.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




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?

That makes no sense... seroiusly.

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."




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."


If it's a union shop and you don't want to pay dues, find a non union shop that does the same thing. Or do you mean you want to make the $30 an hour the union guys make but the non union shop only pays 18? So you want the benefits of the union without contributing?

Do you think you should be able to play golf at the country club with out paying their dues? Hell maybe we should all crash Mar-A-Lago and refuse to pay dues.

I think you are mixing public sector and private sector unions into the same group. I mean, if you want to be a Union sheet metal worker come to the hall, If you want to be a non union sheet metal worker don't apply at the hall, go to any number of non union sheet metal companies. How hard is that?

I think most of you know not much or nothing of the skilled trades/building trades unions...



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

That's how we got the pension crisis we're dealing with now. Everyone involved in setting up the system knew the promises they were making were unsustainable, and would eventually drive the system into insolvency. But they also knew they'd be long gone by the time the SHTF, and some other chumps would need to deal with the consequences.

Which is how we ended up with cities, school districts, and even entire states that are drowning under pension and healthcare obligations.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: Edumakated

That's how we got the pension crisis we're dealing with now. Everyone involved in setting up the system knew the promises they were making were unsustainable, and would eventually drive the system into insolvency. But they also knew they'd be long gone by the time the SHTF, and some other chumps would need to deal with the consequences.

Which is how we ended up with cities, school districts, and even entire states that are drowning under pension and healthcare obligations.


Exactly. The union pension ponzi schemes are bankrupting states and municipalities. The problem has been decades in the making and the politicians who agreed to this nonsense are long gone and will never be held accountable.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
Pelosi IS NOT HAPPY



twitter.com...


HUH? This is beyond salvation from Pelosi. Of all the arguments she could have made in attempt to criticize this ruling (not that I'd have supported her piss and moan, but at least they'd have been debatable points) she goes down the "this ruling tramples over the freedom and basic rights of over 17 million public workers." WHAT!?!?! How in the hell does a court ruling which upholds the freedom of the individual to opt out and the basic right of being able to decide whether or not part of your earnings should go to a specific political arm you may disagree with in any way impact the freedoms and rights of those who continue to choose to stay with the union?

This is the type of BS that cost the Dems the House, Senate, and White House. "Freedom" and "individual rights" which depend on the restriction of freedom and rights of others, and which require the forced taking of others' funds are neither freedoms nor rights, They're forced entitlements in exchange for pandering to selected politicians and are part of what this administration was elected to cast out of America.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I'm sure her heart is in the right place, though.


A jar in the crypt?



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

You really should work on your formatting...


That makes no sense... seroiusly.

Of course not! That's the whole point!

I should be able to decide whether I want to buy a wall clock with pictures of purty birds. It's wrong to force someone to purchase a product or service. But that's what is being done.


If it's a union shop and you don't want to pay dues, find a non union shop that does the same thing. Or do you mean you want to make the $30 an hour the union guys make but the non union shop only pays 18? So you want the benefits of the union without contributing?

If you'll look up above at my previous posts, you'll see where I made those funny looking symbols called "letters." If you will read what those letters say, you'll notice that isn't my position at all.


Do you think you should be able to play golf at the country club with out paying their dues? Hell maybe we should all crash Mar-A-Lago and refuse to pay dues.

Ummm... what poster are you replying to? Your accusations make absolutely no sense whatsoever in light of my position. How about I have a choice whether to join a country club or a choice whether I want to stay at Mar-A-Lago? It sounds like you want me to pay country club dues or pay a hotel whether I want them or not, and that is the whole idea behind the ridiculous but similar situation I posted above about Walmart.

Do you really think people should be forced into buying something they do not want?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


A jar in the crypt?

Too big. Maybe a buckyball?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
If a company doesn't want unions then they take care of their people so unions are not desired with the cost they charge. The company I work for does not have unions even though they come by now and then , and for good reason.

When we are talking government jobs unions are basically stupid and get in the way what is typically set pay anyways, and this sector is most likely the worst sector that can see any changes in.

They are a pure money making machine for the political left.


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



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
Pelosi IS NOT HAPPY



twitter.com...


I bet not... we just got rid of the DNC's money laundering operation.

Good news!!!



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

You do recognize the glaring error in your logic, right?

If the union’s “goons” going door to door get people to vote for politicians who then go on to please the union’s demands; how are the voters’ desires NOT being met by the politicians they, the voters themselves, elected?

Or do you believe that we, the voters, are idiots who will vote for whoever we are told to vote for, without question? Last candidate to knock on my door automatically must get my vote?

If that’s the case, the maybe this whole representative democracy thing is just too intellectually difficult for us. Maybe we should just leave it to...?
edit on 27-6-2018 by Bhadhidar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: Edumakated

That's how we got the pension crisis we're dealing with now. Everyone involved in setting up the system knew the promises they were making were unsustainable, and would eventually drive the system into insolvency. But they also knew they'd be long gone by the time the SHTF, and some other chumps would need to deal with the consequences.

Which is how we ended up with cities, school districts, and even entire states that are drowning under pension and healthcare obligations.




Sorry, but the public pension crisis, by and large, stems from cities and municipalities failing to set aside the funding they contractually agreed to for their employees’ pensions, in favor of short-term funding for other civic projects.

They agreed to certain pension funding terms, then, instead of putting those funds in savings, they used the funds for roads, parks, stadiums, and tax incentives for businesses.

Unfortunately, those investments have failed to pay the dividends officials expected. In some cases, the projects ended up costing the cities and municipalities even more than originally budgeted.

Now their poor fiscal management policies are coming home to roost as public employees are retiring in waves (baby boomers, mostly) and politicians are trying to blame the employees and their unions for the shortfall.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   
From the replies I have read earlier from those supporting this, You don't know squat about unions.... Lets go to the local country club and discuss it over a round of golf on a nice course we have not payed dues to enjoy shall we?

And you do realize trump does not give a Flyin F about you right? Look at his tweet.

Did he say it was a win for the American people? nope... He was happy it was a loss to Democrats.

proves he does not give a rats ass about you people that worship him. Just setting himself and his cronies to make more money at the expense of working Americans.

You do remember us right? Those of us you all call retarded and crazy... dimocrats. Those of us that build your buildings. Up at 4 am and home at 7 pm. We are Americans too.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 10:35 PM
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?


Because they benefit from the collective bargaining that the union does. The paid time off, the pay raises, the healthcare benefits...all negotiated by the union leadership and counsel.

Tell you what, if non-union members don't benefit from union benefits because of this, then I'm ok with it. Let them negotiate individually.




top topics



 
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join