I'm about as anti-union as you can get so I'll just leave this here without comment.


With the U.S. Supreme Court less than a month away from considering oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, it’s time to brace for the landslide of union misinformation certain to begin cascading down the mountains of truth any day now.

The plaintiffs in Janus argue mandatory union participation is unconstitutional because it abridges their First Amendment rights of free speech and free association to have any money at all– including dues, agency fees, representation fees, etc. — deducted from their paychecks to support the activities of a private, nakedly political machine whose ideals they may loathe.

The unions, however, recognize the difference between mandatory and voluntary tribute amounts to billions of dollars nationwide, and a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor could wreak havoc for labor giants like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the National Education Association (NEA) and the Teamsters — to say nothing of the exclusively liberal candidates and causes they underwrite with someone else’s money.

Consequently, it’s safe to assume they won’t go down without a fight and, as the old saying goes, the first casualty in any conflict is the truth. Let’s consider, then, some of the well-worn canards unions and the beneficiaries of their generosity are certain to break out of mothballs in hopes of averting the impending crisis.

1. Unions do good things for workers and deserve everyone’s support. This isn’t so much a lie as it is a matter of opinion. Certainly there are many rank-and-file union members who happily embrace the current model. To them, the union seems to provide a service whose value exceeds that of his or her monthly dues.

The catch is, what works for one person’s situation doesn’t necessarily work for all.

What labor’s spinmeisters never get around to explaining, of course, is that nothing in Janus or right-to-work would compel workers to leave their union or prevent new recruits from joining up. It would simply give every worker a say in the matter rather than forcing them to accept a one-size-fits-all solution tailored first and foremost to fit the union.

2. It’s unfair for workers who don’t financially support the union to benefit from the contract it negotiates. Commonly referred to as the “free rider” argument, this line of reasoning rests on the false assumption that non-union workers are the ones demanding the union assume responsibility for all the employees in a given workplace – even those who decline membership.

This so-called “union security clause,” however, was neither sought nor agreed to by the non-represented workers. In fact, unions happily accept the “burden” of representing all the workers in return for the monopoly power that comes with being designated the group’s exclusive bargaining agent.

3. Workers can already opt out of union membership. Numerous court cases, dating back to Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977, have recognized it violates the constitutional rights of workers to have their wages confiscated to pay for political candidates and causes they don’t support. But until now, disgruntled employees could only opt out of paying that portion of their dues the union spends directly on politics – an amount determined, paradoxically, by the union.

But they could still be ordered to pay an “agency fee” to compensate the union for its expenses associated with collective bargaining.

What Janus recognizes is that, for a union representing government employees, there is no distinction between political expenditures and the “non-political” costs of collective bargaining.

Every dollar gained or lost in contract negotiations impacts either a community’s tax rate or the level of service it provides. Hence, every action a public-sector union takes, by definition, has political ramifications, and workers should be entitled to opt out of all of them.

4. The real purpose of Janus and right-to-work is to deprive the left of a major funding source and hand conservatives a huge advantage. In fact, the truth is just the opposite. Under the current arrangement, it’s the liberal candidates and causes that have a huge and unfair advantage.

Conservatives are forced to fund their campaigns using money donated by only those who willingly give it. Meanwhile, public-sector unions have become the single largest donor to the liberal agenda, and they do so using the almost-bottomless well of someone else’s money.

Janus wouldn’t confer an advantage on either side; it would simply force both to play by the same rules.

5. Janus and the right-to-work movement are being funded by conservative billionaires who want to destroy the middle class and allow employers to suppress corporate wages. Actually, Janus and right-to-work movement are concerned with government jobs, not corporations, and the evil employers in question are overtaxed Americans being told they have an obligation to pay even more to further inflate the salaries of public servants who already earn more than they do.

Right-to-work, which Janus would ensure for the entire country, boils down to nothing more than freedom of choice. If enough workers, once given a real choice, value what the union provides, Janus won’t change anything.

And if not, why was it worth subsidizing in the first place?

In either case, no one will have killed government employee unions. At worst, they’ll simply be unhooked from the government-sanctioned machinery that’s kept them alive long past the point of decency.

At worst, the death of government employee unions and their corrupting influence over the American political landscape will be self-inflicted.

And long overdue.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01...union-participation/

Good!!! I'm glad the unions are freaking out.

I'm not anti-union but it's like this for me. You're a worker and sometimes assholes become your employer and often it's not easy to change jobs.

So the unions came into being to help you out. Unfortunately, assholes take over the union also. So it's assholes everywhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
So it's assholes everywhere.

Like turtles: all the way down.

couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch

So why must joining be mandatory?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
So why must joining be mandatory?

Good question. Then there'll be two classes of workers: union and non-union. I think by practice the agreement is that the union negotiates on all the worker class. In effect, the non-union workers are benefitting from the union without paying union dues. If the union allows this, who would join?

I don't know if there's also some companies who deal differently with workers doing the same work but some are union and the rest non-union. I think there's going to be a lot of effort expended to get the non-union people out of their jobs and replaced by union people.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
So why must joining be mandatory?

Good question. Then there'll be two classes of workers: union and non-union. I think by practice the agreement is that the union negotiates on all the worker class. In effect, the non-union workers are benefitting from the union without paying union dues. If the union allows this, who would join?

I don't know if there's also some companies who deal differently with workers doing the same work but some are union and the rest non-union. I think there's going to be a lot of effort expended to get the non-union people out of their jobs and replaced by union people.

That would have to be an effort by the unions. Non-union workers might be willing to work for a little less than what the union demands for its members. And the employers might also like not having to do the work required to dock the union members and send the money to the unions.

I can see where an employer could handle having both union and non-union workers--those hired through the union would receive agreed-upon wages; those not represented would simply bargain directly with the employer for their pay.

flashguy

There should be NO government unions. Federal goverment unions were authorized and created as a result of an executive order by President Eisenhower. Many of the problems in the federal government could easily be resolved with an executive order by President Trump de-certifying all such unions previously created.

Over the last 5 years, I've seen the union labor requirement diminish in the hotel renovation/construction business in areas like NY and NJ. I have to think if thats a sign of things to come in those areas, the unions are in trouble.

Mandatory membership is a shakedown, plain and simple, and the obvious drive is revenue. That said, all unions are not the evil entity they are made out to be. The one I belong to (NTEU) is the only entity forcing my employer not to violate federal labor laws, which they do at every opportunity.

Apparently being in the Federal employee union isn't mandatory. My friend is a federal employee at the Department of Energy, is not in the Union and doesn't contribute to them. This is the way it should be for anyone.

If the unions are so great then everyone will join voluntarily.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGSense:
There should be NO government unions. Federal goverment unions were authorized and created as a result of an executive order by President Eisenhower. Many of the problems in the federal government could easily be resolved with an executive order by President Trump de-certifying all such unions previously created.

Yes!!

Just in time for some potential big infrastructure $$$$ to be spent (and not gained by Unions).

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
Over the last 5 years, I've seen the union labor requirement diminish in the hotel renovation/construction business in areas like NY and NJ. I have to think if thats a sign of things to come in those areas, the unions are in trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
So why must joining be mandatory?

Good question. Then there'll be two classes of workers: union and non-union. I think by practice the agreement is that the union negotiates on all the worker class. In effect, the non-union workers are benefitting from the union without paying union dues. If the union allows this, who would join?

I don't know if there's also some companies who deal differently with workers doing the same work but some are union and the rest non-union. I think there's going to be a lot of effort expended to get the non-union people out of their jobs and replaced by union people.

Yes the union has to represent the entire "class and craft" of workers. Plenty of places have union and non union workers, its called open shop.

When I started at FedEx we were open shop and had 97% membership (pilots are the only unionized group here). I'd say that peer pressure and genuine belief in the need for a union to negotiate work rules and benefits were the too biggest factors in my joining the union. At that time non members paid no dues or maintenance fees to the union. The union still had to represent those non members as they were part of the "class and craft" of pilots.

In 2006 (if I remember correctly) we went to agency shop and now you have to be in the union or pay maintenance fees which are essentially equal to the dues. The company and the union had to agree to this change and I was surprised that the company went along with it. So now we have "100%" membership but it is forced.

I have always felt that 97% voluntary membership was a much stronger statement of unity than a forced 100%. I am against agency shop and feel that the union should be held to task by the membership and the only way to ensure that is open shop. Its still America and all workers should be free to choose if they want to join and support a union.

That said, public sector unions, in my opinion, should not be allowed because they don't bargain with the people who actually pay their salaries (the citizens and tax payers). They negotiate with other public employees who have no incentive really to hold the line on what those union members are paid, as they are simply bargaining with seemingly unlimited tax dollars provided by the tax payers. But if you are going to have public employee unions you damn sure shouldn't make it mandatory for the workers to join.

Unions were a good thing when they were implemented, that however changed in the late 50's/early 60's. They are much too powerful now and as has already been said spend union bucks to support too many liberal views.

It should be by personal choice whether one joins any union regardless of which one it is and the unions by law should be forbidden to support any and all political views.
That's my 2 cents worth.

One solution would be to offload responsibility of collecting union dues from the company to the union like Wisconsin has done under Walker.

Freedom of association includes freedom from association. Just like freedom of religion includes freedom from forced participation in religion and freedom of speech includes freedom to not speak.

The fact that the left does not understand this is further evidence that they are authoritarian assholes.