The salaries that are being made have been fought for by members of the unions. Those that have not joined the unions are now being offered a free ride as far as having the same as those that fought. Sort of like welfare freeloading in many ways.
If a person does not want to be part of the union, then any gains the union gets should not be applicable to the non-union member. But as I understand the laws for unions, they are FORCED to represent everyone at the company. If this ruling changes that, then I’m OK with it. It will be interesting is when a non-union person feels they are discriminated against in some way by their employer (age, gender, race) and they are forced to go to arbitration (another crummy SCOTUS decision this week).
All you union hating folks make me sick. You cry about the government being too strong, but you cry when people join together and stand up against the government, corporations and other big business entities. Your stupidity and ignorance astound me. Do you really think that they care about the individual? No. They only respect strength in numbers, and you fools want to wander off and separate yourself from the pack, by all means. Listen, when an employer makes an agreement, a contract, with its employees, and everyone working there signs the contract, the employer is BOUND by law to honor that contract. If the contract says WE WON’T HIRE SCABS the government has no place to say, oh yes you will.
This may end up being the most important decision made this year. The Court completely gutted Abood. Across the board. The decision goes so far as to state that Abood is not worthy of stare decisis consideration.
I predict that public sector unions will experience a very substantial loss of membership. Until now, unwilling union members had little incentive to quit the union. The dues/fees would be reduced but not stopped. Depending on the cost, many employees decided that it wasn’t worth the trouble, the harassment, and other negative impacts that come from dropping out.
With the opportunity to be completely free of all dues, I suggest to you that a large number of public sector employees are going to withdraw. In states like WI where the government ceased the practice of forcing employers to withhold union dues, membership dropped by about 40%. From 2010 to 2017.
Further, I predict that this decision is going to be used to essentially force all states to become “Right to Work”, regardless of state law. It is only a short step to the private side. All of the conditions that exist in the public sector exist on the private side.
It is a 1st Amendment violation to force a public sector worker to finance a public sector union. It logically follows that forcing a private sector worker to support a union causes an identical financial outlay to support political speech the worker may not agree with. In other words, even though the worker is in the private sector, it is the state government that is forcing him to pay fees to the union he disagrees with.
We will see suits based on this logic within a year.
DaBoogadie almost 6 years ago
Less government is when it DOESN’T interfere with the private sector…Remember?
Zev almost 6 years ago
Yeah, well it’s easy for the Supreme Court – they are lifetime appointments and don’t need unions.
lopaka almost 6 years ago
The salaries that are being made have been fought for by members of the unions. Those that have not joined the unions are now being offered a free ride as far as having the same as those that fought. Sort of like welfare freeloading in many ways.
Geezer almost 6 years ago
The Supreme Court’s opinions, for those who wish to read them, can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Alberta Oil Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Unions.. have provided a base for even non union workers. Even Lisa’s pay.. or her husbands started with a union base.
Nantucket Premium Member almost 6 years ago
If a person does not want to be part of the union, then any gains the union gets should not be applicable to the non-union member. But as I understand the laws for unions, they are FORCED to represent everyone at the company. If this ruling changes that, then I’m OK with it. It will be interesting is when a non-union person feels they are discriminated against in some way by their employer (age, gender, race) and they are forced to go to arbitration (another crummy SCOTUS decision this week).
Durak Premium Member almost 6 years ago
All you union hating folks make me sick. You cry about the government being too strong, but you cry when people join together and stand up against the government, corporations and other big business entities. Your stupidity and ignorance astound me. Do you really think that they care about the individual? No. They only respect strength in numbers, and you fools want to wander off and separate yourself from the pack, by all means. Listen, when an employer makes an agreement, a contract, with its employees, and everyone working there signs the contract, the employer is BOUND by law to honor that contract. If the contract says WE WON’T HIRE SCABS the government has no place to say, oh yes you will.
DrPawl almost 6 years ago
Which side are you on boys?Which side are you on?Which side are you on boys?Which side are you on?
They say in Harlan CountyThere are no neutrals there.You’ll either be a union manOr a thug for J. H. Blair.
Which side are you on boys?Which side are you on?Which side are you on boys?Which side are you on?
My daddy was a miner,And I’m a miner’s son,He’ll be with you fellow workersUntil this battle’s won.
Which side are you on?Which side are you on?Which side are you on?Which side are you on?
Oh workers can you stand it?Oh tell me how you can?Will you be a lousy scabOr will you be a man?
Which side are you on?Which side are you on?Which side are you on?Which side are you on?
Come all you good workers,Good news to you I’ll tellOf how the good old unionHas come in here to dwell.
Which side are you on?Which side are you on?Which side are you on?Which side are you on?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XEnTxlBuGo
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
This may end up being the most important decision made this year. The Court completely gutted Abood. Across the board. The decision goes so far as to state that Abood is not worthy of stare decisis consideration.
I predict that public sector unions will experience a very substantial loss of membership. Until now, unwilling union members had little incentive to quit the union. The dues/fees would be reduced but not stopped. Depending on the cost, many employees decided that it wasn’t worth the trouble, the harassment, and other negative impacts that come from dropping out.
With the opportunity to be completely free of all dues, I suggest to you that a large number of public sector employees are going to withdraw. In states like WI where the government ceased the practice of forcing employers to withhold union dues, membership dropped by about 40%. From 2010 to 2017.
Further, I predict that this decision is going to be used to essentially force all states to become “Right to Work”, regardless of state law. It is only a short step to the private side. All of the conditions that exist in the public sector exist on the private side.
It is a 1st Amendment violation to force a public sector worker to finance a public sector union. It logically follows that forcing a private sector worker to support a union causes an identical financial outlay to support political speech the worker may not agree with. In other words, even though the worker is in the private sector, it is the state government that is forcing him to pay fees to the union he disagrees with.
We will see suits based on this logic within a year.