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.
But what is the rational for allowing anyone to be denied a job based on whether or not they want a union to represent them? Is that fair to force people to join and pay dues to a group with whom they don't agree? On top of that, you also have the political connection between the unions and the Democratic Party. So in order to work in public schools, one is forced to give money to the Democratic Party. That part sits ok with you?
well, to that point, i'd say the typical argument used on many other topics - no one is forcing them to get a job at a union-shop. find a job somewhere else.
what person is being forced to get a job at an employer where they will be forced to join and pay dues? do you have an example?
additionally, no employee is forced to pay more than is required to cover union representation they receive as part of working at a union shop. any individual can opt out of the portion that goes to support activities such as political contributions.
The NLRA allows employers and unions to enter into union-security agreements, which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired.
Even under a security agreement, employees who object to full union membership may continue as 'core' members and pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer full members but are still protected by the union contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right. [National Labor Relations Board, accessed 12/11/12]
But what is the rational for allowing anyone to be denied a job based on whether or not they want a union to represent them? Is that fair to force people to join and pay dues to a group with whom they don't agree? On top of that, you also have the political connection between the unions and the Democratic Party. So in order to work in public schools, one is forced to give money to the Democratic Party. That part sits ok with you?
I guess that's one way to get on the winning team.
BTW I know quite a few Republican Union members and contrary to popular belief not all Democrats are pro union.
Why do some Republicans assume that everybody in a particular party thinks alike?
I guess that's one way to get on the winning team.
BTW I know quite a few Republican Union members and contrary to popular belief not all Democrats are pro union.
Why do some Republicans assume that everybody in a particular party thinks alike?
Ditto. I know several Republican teachers in the Union who are furious with Christie. Conversely, my Demo brother is in a union and if he had his druthers, he wouldn't. It's not enough for him to leave his job though.
well, to that point, i'd say the typical argument used on many other topics - no one is forcing them to get a job at a union-shop. find a job somewhere else.
what person is being forced to get a job at an employer where they will be forced to join and pay dues? do you have an example?
Again, jobs aren't easy to come by. So you are saying if you want to feed your family, you have to pay the unions and the Democratic Party? Also, public schools are the LAST place where this type of coercion should be allowed. A public sector job should at least have the appearance of being apolitical, no?
I don't. That wasnt my point. The fact is that Democratic Party is supported by union money. So part of the dues one pays goes to the democrats.
Personally I would not give a fat rats azz as long as I was being paid well and had decent benefits.
Just about every dollar you spend today a portion of it goes to lobbying and what the particular business may be lobbying for you may not agree with but if you want the product bad enough you overlook it and buy..no different with union dues...
I can see the argument on public sector union dues because that is taxpayer money but hey we created this monster, decades ago we enticed people to become teachers, cops, firemen, public servants with the promise of good benefits and a nice pension because the dam wages were so low in those fields
CWA v. Beck: Unions Cannot Force Non-Members To Pay Dues For Political Action. In the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case Communications Workers v. Beck, the majority found that the Communications Workers of America (CWA) could not charge non-members in work places they organize fees that paid for political action by the union. [U.S. Supreme Court, CWA v. Beck, 6/29/88]
Locke v. Karass: Non-Union Workers At Organized Work Places Cannot Be Forced To Pay For "Political, Public Relations, Or Lobbying" Activities By Unions. In a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the majority, echoing past precedent, reaffirmed that non-union members in work places are only to pay a service fee that equaled to the amount collective bargaining services and contract maintenance services cost. [U.S. Supreme Court, Locke v. Karass, 1/21/09]
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.
