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.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it would hear a major challenge to California's public unions and decide whether they may charge fees to non-members to support collective bargaining.
At issue is a 1970s-era court precedent that allows these unions in California and 20 other states to collect "fair share" fees from all employees.
The court's conservatives, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., have signaled they see these forced fees as unconstitutional because they require some employees to support a cause they oppose.
Even acknowledging how wish-washy Kennedy and Roberts can be, they align pretty strongly with the Court's other conservatives on First Amendment issues as a general matter, which is bad news for unions and Democrats.
Regardless of the merits of public unions (or even private unions, but public unions . . . or private unions whose dues power otherwise comes from law, are the problem here, constitutionally-speaking), I think this case is an easy one. How, I've long asked, is requiring non-members to pay dues to support causes and issues they don't believe in not unconstitutional?
Thankfully, the Supreme Court is giving this thing a look at. And, note, when the Supreme Court decides to take up a case where a ruling threatens to undo current Supreme Court precedent on the matter, that is a strong sign that there is sufficient support to overturn. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the precedent will be overturned, as it only takes 4 justices to grant cert, while 5 are needed for a majority, but its pretty telling. And, as I mentioned earlier, Kennedy is a generally strong defender of the 1st Amendment.
If the non-union workers don't want to pay dues, they should not get union wages.
I admit, I don't really know much about this topic. My father was in a union, and when they occasionally went on strike, the union still paid a weekly paycheck, although it was a reduced payment. My mother is still getting my father's pension (father deceased) and she is 93 years old!
If the non-union workers are getting union wages, they should at least contribute something, maybe a lower amount than a union worker, just to fund the union's efforts to improve wages or working conditions, or whatever. They would not get wages if the union strikes. They also would not contribute to the pension fund.
Sounds like the non-union workers want all the benefits of a union without paying the dues.
If the non-union workers don't want to pay dues, they should not get union wages.
I admit, I don't really know much about this topic. My father was in a union, and when they occasionally went on strike, the union still paid a weekly paycheck, although it was a reduced payment. My mother is still getting my father's pension (father deceased) and she is 93 years old!
If the non-union workers are getting union wages, they should at least contribute something, maybe a lower amount than a union worker, just to fund the union's efforts to improve wages or working conditions, or whatever. They would not get wages if the union strikes. They also would not contribute to the pension fund.
Sounds like the non-union workers want all the benefits of a union without paying the dues.
Ah, so you're admitting that extortion and the threat of violence and strikes is what makes union wages higher, NOT worth?
If someone doesn't want to join a little club and support a bunch of thugs, they shouldn't have to just to have a job. More importantly they shouldn't have to pay membership dues to a club that does nothing for them. Even today's SC should be able to recognize and support the choice to free association, not coercive membership.
Best part can be if the union strikes and non-union workers stay on. They prove their worth and value over those that use extortion to get their way. As long as they are as or more productive than their union coworkers they should get rewarded better.
If someone doesn't want to join a little club and support a bunch of thugs, they shouldn't have to just to have a job. More importantly they shouldn't have to pay membership dues to a club that does nothing for them. Even today's SC should be able to recognize and support the choice to free association, not coercive membership.
They don't have to work in a union shop, either. They have choices, as you note in your last sentence.
Even acknowledging how wish-washy Kennedy and Roberts can be, they align pretty strongly with the Court's other conservatives on First Amendment issues as a general matter, which is bad news for unions and Democrats.
Regardless of the merits of public unions (or even private unions, but public unions . . . or private unions whose dues power otherwise comes from law, are the problem here, constitutionally-speaking), I think this case is an easy one. How, I've long asked, is requiring non-members to pay dues to support causes and issues they don't believe in not unconstitutional?
Thankfully, the Supreme Court is giving this thing a look at. And, note, when the Supreme Court decides to take up a case where a ruling threatens to undo current Supreme Court precedent on the matter, that is a strong sign that there is sufficient support to overturn. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the precedent will be overturned, as it only takes 4 justices to grant cert, while 5 are needed for a majority, but its pretty telling. And, as I mentioned earlier, Kennedy is a generally strong defender of the 1st Amendment.
My problem is that, those employees not in the union get the pay and benefits of those union workers. This is the rub, if one is working alongside dues paying union members doing the same job within the same company, there is no way to deny the bargaining benefits of being in the union from those non union workers.
In other words they are getting the benefit of a having a unionized workplace without paying to support the union.
Once again the supreme court making policy and law.
If a work place voted to be union then that's majority rule. If you choose to work there and receive the same benefits the union bargained for then you may not have to officially join and support the union but should pay the same dues and not be a free rider.
This Supreme court is wrong on almost every issue, and issues it shouldn't be deciding in the first place.
My property tax pays for other's children to go to school. My taxes subsidize benefits for hetero married couple, singles don't get. These are all majority rules issues. And now we have to subsidize gay marriage and potentially free riders in supreme court rules.
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.