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.
Does this make the right to work debate a mute point - if a person can not be forced to pay union dues?
You would think... but I suspect the liberal politicians wouldn't be happy and let you not pay union dues... after all, the union dues goes to their re-election campaign... sad to think that Republican workers are paying for Democrat election funds... that's how liberals operate...
No because the decision was not so broad. It wont apply to most public workers.
Correct. They specifically mentioned that. It doesn't really do anything about the unions current members but rather its saying they can't force certain workers that aren't paying now to pay up.
Why would you pay for something that is not even disclosed properly how much you are charged for and if you want it you can pay for it.
That is what happened in Europe decades ago and was the last straw for Unions to be in charge too much.
Freedom to choose to be a member or not and with people having to pay more and salaries not able to increase often people choose to save on this kind of stuff and btw Union leaders making way too much money!
Maybe because non-members also get to enjoy the benefits, therefore they should be paying their "fair share"?
I'd agree, if you're not part of the union you should not automatically get those benefits. You should have to bargain yourself with the employer whether it's more or less. Bottom line is the union should not be able to inject themselves into an agreement between a private individual and a private company.
Correct. They specifically mentioned that. It doesn't really do anything about the unions current members but rather its saying they can't force certain workers that aren't paying now to pay up.
Yes, the people who are like "haha, suck it unions" dont seem to get what a small minority of workers this will actually affect.
Maybe because non-members also get to enjoy the benefits, therefore they should be paying their "fair share"?
If any individual Union truly offers a valuable service their workers will pay the dues.
If the Union does offer a valuable service and people don't pay for whatever reason...the Union will die off, the workers will lose the Union benefits and if they are so valuable will bring the Union back.
The onus should be on the Union to earn the workers' $.
Exactly. Unions should just as any other business ear it and not try to play like a dictator.
When I was young there were so many Union strikes and when it got out of hand the government allowed companies to cut wages for people on strike and that way it was free to go on strike without payment...
Guess what...that was the end of almost all union strikes since people loved to go on strike during working hours and get paid the same.
When unions have to proof what they can do people will still pay...all others will drop them!
Great day for liberty
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.
