The death knell for unions? Supreme Court gets to decide

[driftdiver]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/09/death-knell-for-unions-supreme-court-gets-to-decide.html

A $45 monthly fee could end up costing big labor billions. Public unions are getting nervous, while those who don’t like how they operate are claiming the free lunch may be over soon.

An explosive case regarding government employees and the First Amendment that the Supreme Court will hear on Feb. 26 could redefine the relationship between public unions and workers.

Petitioner Mark Janus works at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and didn’t like that a certain amount was deducted from his paycheck — he didn’t believe he should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to be allowed to work for the state. He didn’t agree with the 1.3 million-member AFSCME union’s politics, and so believed, under the First Amendment, he couldn’t be forced to contribute.


In his court filing, Janus quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said to “compel a man to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

[WingNot]

The only entity with more corruption than a Union HQ... is congress.

[Bigun]

There should not be any such ting as a public sector union in the first place!

[jpsb]

There should not be any such ting as a public sector union in the first place!

Absolutely 100% true. Public sector union are a cruse, and should be illegal. Let's get rid of them
starting with the teachers union(s).

[Suppressed]

Absolutely 100% true. Public sector union are a cruse, and should be illegal. Let's get rid of them
starting with the teachers union(s).

@jpsb @BigU

So private employers are forced to deal with them, but government isn't?  Would you please explain your reasoning as to why employees shouldn't have the right to join or not join a union (freely associate) regardless of employer?

[Bigun]

@jpsb @BigU

So private employers are forced to deal with them, but government isn't?  Would you please explain your reasoning as to why employees shouldn't have the right to join or not join a union (freely associate) regardless of employer?

Sure! Public sector unions end up negotiating contracts with the very same people their PAC's help get elected!  It is patent conflict of interest!

[jmyrlefuller]

@jpsb @BigU

So private employers are forced to deal with them, but government isn't?  Would you please explain your reasoning as to why employees shouldn't have the right to join or not join a union (freely associate) regardless of employer?

It's not free association. It's special privileges against the consequences of that action.

When you work for the government, your employer is the people. Your paycheck is their taxes. In a representative republic, organizing against the people is a coup.

That's why.

[Jazzhead]

@jpsb @BigU

So private employers are forced to deal with them, but government isn't?  Would you please explain your reasoning as to why employees shouldn't have the right to join or not join a union (freely associate) regardless of employer?

The usual reason that's put forward is that a private employer will naturally look out for the interests of its constituents (its shareholders) and bargain effectively with a union.  However, a government has no real incentive to look out for its constituents (the taxpayers).  It will give the unions what they want and pass the buck on to future elected officials. 

[240B]

Illinois is a Union island in a sea of right to work States.


Wikipedia:
According to the Legal Defense Foundation, right-to-work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers, or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

There should not be any such ting as a public sector union in the first place!

Agreed. No need for a public union when you can vote for you own boss.

[guitar4jesus]

There should not be any such ting as a public sector union in the first place!

Correct.

[Hoodat]

In his court filing, Janus quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said to “compel a man to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

It is pretty much a given that Democrats believe in tyranny.

[WingNot]

The day we ride the workplace of unions, will be a great day for America. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The day we ride the workplace of unions, will be a great day for America.

They have their uses, just not in the public arena.

[driftdiver]

If unions voted Conservative they'd be outlawed tomorrow.

[guitar4jesus]

They have their uses, just not in the public arena.

Right.

[Free Vulcan]

There should not be any such ting as a public sector union in the first place!

Boy if this one broke our way it might well be an irrecoverable wound for them.

[Fishrrman]

240b wrote:
"According to the Legal Defense Foundation, right-to-work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."

I don't believe this applies to railroad workers due to the Railway Labor Act (1926).
If you're an "agreement employee" (that is, non-management), you're required to join the respective union that represents your working craft, even in the right-to-work states. Perhaps things have changed, and I could be wrong (only having worked in the Northeast).

In my case, it was the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (now with "and Trainmen" added at the end). Dues were $92.49 per month when I left. Pretty steep, probably even higher now.

The BLE wasn't what I'd call a "militant" union. We went 6+ years without a real raise once.
But it -could- be useful, particularly in resolving matters of disciplinary action. Never had much to do with that, guess I was lucky...

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

There was a time when robber barons ran sweatshops with no regard for their workers or their safety. Union served a good purpose then, but this is now. This isn't 1915 anymore.

[jmyrlefuller]

The usual reason that's put forward is that a private employer will naturally look out for the interests of its constituents (its shareholders) and bargain effectively with a union.  However, a government has no real incentive to look out for its constituents (the taxpayers).  It will give the unions what they want and pass the buck on to future elected officials.

Not to mention the one-sidedness of the whole concept.

If a union comes to a contract with its employer, the rank and file of the union must approve it in a vote. The general public doesn't get to vote on it. In fact, they may never see the terms of the contract depending on executive session laws.

[guitar4jesus]

There was a time when robber barons ran sweatshops with no regard for their workers or their safety. Union served a good purpose then, but this is now. This isn't 1915 anymore.

It's closer than you think.  I used to think that the time of usefulness for unions was over until I read up on some of the practices of companies like Amazon.  They are running literal sweatshops for older "workampers**" right now.  All with no chance of union representation.  As they look to further streamline their business model, they are collecting bio-metric data from these very workers to force more labor out of them for less pay.

I'm sure you could say too bad for them, they should have planned better, etc., but many of them did plan very well and circumstances just changed.  It shows that no matter how well we plan we are still at the mercy of market forces and there are no guarantees.




**Workampers are primarily retired people who were left short after the crash of the housing market, 401Ks and pension plans who now find them selves living in cars, vans and RVs travelling around the country to find temporary jobs to help pay for their needs.  Companies like Amazon take full advantage of the situation with very little regard for the workers.  Many of the warehouses are truly sweatshops with temperatures over 100ºF where the workers log over 15 miles per day fulfilling orders with few breaks.  Amazon is not the only one.