Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I worked for two public agencies both of which were union, I was a shop steward in both of them I'm not saying unions are perfect but they usually do a lot of good. I think people will realize how bad this SCOTUS decision is when Unions are forced out because there are so many free-riders that it becomes financially unsustainable for the Unions to continue representing employees
Once when we were short staffed we were told that we would have to work mandatory overtime with only 4 hours off between shifts. We worked 10 hour shifts so we were working 20 out of 24 hours sometimes for several days in a row. The agency didn't want to hear about it they just ignored the complaints. Eventually some folks filed a grievance and got them to change their policy to require 8 hours off between callbacks. If not for the union they never would have changed it, it worked out very nicely for management and they didn't give a crap what it was doing to their employees or their employees families
Have heart. What the Koch brothers are attempting to do here short term is cut the funding for the Democratic party. New York and New Jersey have already passed laws to counter the Supreme Court ruling.
Mark Janus has made a lot of enemies. If he gets fired next week, he will never work again.
Have heart. What the Koch brothers are attempting to do here short term is cut the funding for the Democratic party. New York and New Jersey have already passed laws to counter the Supreme Court ruling.
Mark Janus has made a lot of enemies. If he gets fired next week, he will never work again.
You're right this is definitely about cutting off the source of much of the funding for democratic campaigns. What did New York and New Jersey do, I hadn't heard anything about that. I read a short statement from the California AG saying he was going to do something about it but no details were provided.
You're right this is definitely about cutting off the source of much of the funding for democratic campaigns. What did New York and New Jersey do, I hadn't heard anything about that. I read a short statement from the California AG saying he was going to do something about it but no details were provided.
A union has a legal, legally enforceable obligation to provide representation to all members of the bargaining unit. It's called the duty of fair representation.
Anyone who works for a unionized employer and claims that the union has never done anything for him or her is delusional. The amount you get paid? The union negotiated for that. Your health insurance? The union negotiated for that. Your right not to be fired because the boss doesn't like you? The union negotiated for that. Your right to take a paid vacation every year? The union negotiated for that. Your right to file a grievance when the employer treats you unfairly? The union negotiated for that.
Freedom of speech had nothing to do with this case. It was the conservatives on the Court seeing a chance to undermine unions and give more power to the bosses. That's all it was: pure politics by a set of right-wingers, overturning decades of established precedent to do it.
When Gorsuch was seeking confirmation he claimed that he wasn't on the big guy's side or the little guy's side: if the Constitution was on the big guy's side he would be on that side, if the Constitution was on the little guy's side he would be on that side.
Yesterday, as much as anything else, as much as the case where he came down in favor of letting a truck driver freeze to death when his truck broke down, he proved that that was a lie: he is on the big guy's side, period.
A union has a legal, legally enforceable obligation to provide representation to all members of the bargaining unit. It's called the duty of fair representation.
Anyone who works for a unionized employer and claims that the union has never done anything for him or her is delusional. The amount you get paid? The union negotiated for that. Your health insurance? The union negotiated for that. Your right not to be fired because the boss doesn't like you? The union negotiated for that. Your right to take a paid vacation every year? The union negotiated for that. Your right to file a grievance when the employer treats you unfairly? The union negotiated for that.
Freedom of speech had nothing to do with this case. It was the conservatives on the Court seeing a chance to undermine unions and give more power to the bosses. That's all it was: pure politics by a set of right-wingers, overturning decades of established precedent to do it.
When Gorsuch was seeking confirmation he claimed that he wasn't on the big guy's side or the little guy's side: if the Constitution was on the big guy's side he would be on that side, if the Constitution was on the little guy's side he would be on that side.
Yesterday, as much as anything else, as much as the case where he came down in favor of letting a truck driver freeze to death when his truck broke down, he proved that that was a lie: he is on the big guy's side, period.
I agree completely. This President was elected by people who were hoping to bring things back to the way they were in the nineties. Little did they know that the President and his very wealthy buddies would be trying to bring us back to the eighteen nineties.
The problem with not paying the union dues or joining the union is that the nonpaying worker basically receives some ancillary benefits that were, in a sense, there because of the union.
The logic here is people protecting people. Not some abstract comparison so that you can have the last word. I was a shop steward for several years in a government job. I provided information to the membership, I protected a couple of people from managers who were bullies and one person from a contract violation.
Mod cut.
Back to the subject of this thread; Do you honestly think that some **** ant social worker from Illinois had the hundreds of thousands of dollars to carry a case all the way to the Supreme Court? The answer to that of course is no. The Koch brothers and other billionaires funded this attack all the way to the highest court. What Janus doesn't know is that he has a lot of people angry at him and he no linger has union protection. The Koch brothers are done with Janus. He may get fired and we all know what happens to people who sue their employers.
I didn't give an abstract comparison. I gave a real one, where real people are helping others.
I think many people don't have the money to forcibly give a union every month when they don't see a benefit. If that social worker feels they need a union, they can still join one and pay for it. If that person feels they don't need a union, they should not be forced to join one or pay for it, and if they feel union lobbying is supporting people they don't support, they should not be forced to give money to that union.
Do you honestly think Janus doesn't realize people are upset over this? The vast majority of Americans don't have union 'protection' and do just fine.
Anyone who works for a unionized employer and claims that the union has never done anything for him or her is delusional. The amount you get paid? The union negotiated for that. Your health insurance? The union negotiated for that. Your right not to be fired because the boss doesn't like you? The union negotiated for that. Your right to take a paid vacation every year? The union negotiated for that. Your right to file a grievance when the employer treats you unfairly? The union negotiated for that.
When I was in a union I never claimed the union did nothing for me. They got me a raise to $3.85 an hour when the minimum wage was $3.10. I thought that was pretty cool.
But if my union dues were being used to support candidates who worked against my interests then I'd have a problem with that. I have a right to decide which candidate my money supports. So thank you, Supreme Court for making Janus the law of the land.
I don't have an issue with people not being in the union, as long as they don't call the union when they need help at work.
I have no problem with unions saying our benefits, grievance assistance, our representation before management in a work issue is for members only. The raises we negotiate, the job security and severance we negotiate is for members only.
I had a coworker who didn't want to join the union. But he sure wanted to know what the contract said about various issues when he thought management was on his arse about something.
I agree with this- let non union members negotiate their issues with management on their own and see how they get.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
