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.
Unions do not own the business and the employees do not work for the Union. So calling it a
Union-Shop is laughable.
If the Unions want to sell their services to individual employees, fine! No person should be required to
"join" a Union as a condition of employment or continued employment. I don't really care what the Unions negotiate for their members.
Unions do not own the business and the employees do not work for the Union. So calling it a
Union-Shop is laughable.
If the Unions want to sell their services to individual employees, fine! No person should be required to
"join" a Union as a condition of employment or continued employment. I don't really care what the Unions negotiate for their members.
I would agree if unions were not federally obligated to represent people who don't pay union dues.
Unions do not own the business and the employees do not work for the Union. So calling it a
Union-Shop is laughable.
If the Unions want to sell their services to individual employees, fine! No person should be required to
"join" a Union as a condition of employment or continued employment. I don't really care what the Unions negotiate for their members.
Oh really, you should because they look out for the middle class. The union my husband works for negotiated their employees healthcare benefits....$10 dollar co pay and $2 prescriptions. Who on their own can negotiate that
Well here is another salvo in the assault on public unions specifically and unions in general. What may happen here is that a non union member may be able to enjoy union benefits without paying union dues.
A union is a great idea: the workers and the business owners (who provide capital) negotiate for a fair split of the profits.
But a group of government workers, "negotiating" with other government workers to maximize the pay of both, and then sending the bill to the taxpayer, is NOT A UNION. It is yet another corruption of Big Government to make itself even larger (40% of the entire economy is not big enough?), and to create a nation of poverty stricken workers ruled by a tiny minority Ruling Class of political and Big Business elite.
But I have little hope our Supreme Court will do its job and save taxpayers from this ongoing travesty, since it has been a corrupt arm of the Progressive Movement for as long as I can remember.
A union is a great idea: the workers and the business owners (who provide capital) negotiate for a fair split of the profits.
But a group of government workers, "negotiating" with other government workers to maximize the pay of both, and then sending the bill to the taxpayer, is NOT A UNION. It is yet another corruption of Big Government to make itself even larger (40% of the entire economy is not big enough?), and to create a nation of poverty stricken workers ruled by a tiny minority Ruling Class of political and Big Business elite.
But I have little hope our Supreme Court will do its job and save taxpayers from this ongoing travesty, since it has been a corrupt arm of the Progressive Movement for as long as I can remember.
Government workers do not negotiate with other government workers, they negotiate with management which is non-union. Management represents the interest of the elected officials in the state/county/municipality who were chosen by taxpayers.
My sister in law works for a CA school where they purposely keep her hours just below the threshold for benefits like retirement/healthcare yet she has to pay union dues to work there.
Government workers do not negotiate with other government workers, they negotiate with management which is non-union. Management represents the interest of the elected officials in the state/county/municipality who were chosen by taxpayers.
The problem is, those unions are allowed to donate to and campaign for those very same elected officials. It's an incestious situation where the elected officials buy the support of the unions with taxpayer dollars. And not just those of the current taxpayers-they make agreements to unions that obligate generations of taxpayers to provide pathetically generous benefits that no private sector employee in a comparable job sees. This situation is bankrupting many cities and entire states, with promises that taxpayers can not pay.
IF public sector unions are allowed to exist, at the very least the obvious conflict of interest of donations, support and endorsement of elected officials HAS to end. Someone has to represent the taxpayers.
My sister in law works for a CA school where they purposely keep her hours just below the threshold for benefits like retirement/healthcare yet she has to pay union dues to work there.
I hope like hell this goes in favor of Janus...
You might want to get some more details from her because something's not right....she's either not credentialed or works for a private school. Even substitute teachers participate in the retirement system unless they opt out.
But the bigger question is, how does this school reduce a teacher's status to part time without reducing the mandatory number of school days in a year? Teachers are considered full time if they work 175 days a year regardless of the number of hours they work per day.
9% of California teachers don't belong to the Union so they only pay the portion of dues that is directly attributable to negotiations and representation.
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.