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 make this observation based two recent cases, Citizens United and Janus v. AFSCME.
Citizens United has taken a legal tool which protects individuals from liability and created a person. This was decided in this way not because of original intent but the evolution of the corporation away from it's original intent for political purposes.
Janus v. AFSCME deprives unions of their rights to speak as organizations of people and not as legal tools. The Supreme Court has chosen to deprive unions of the funds needed to speak as loudly as the corporations by twisting the right of Mark Janus not to speak into a device of their own creation.
I make this observation based two recent cases, Citizens United and Janus v. AFSCME.
Citizens United has taken a legal tool which protects individuals from liability and created a person. This was decided in this way not because of original intent but the evolution of the corporation away from it's original intent for political purposes.
Janus v. AFSCME deprives unions of their rights to speak as organizations of people and not as legal tools. The Supreme Court has chosen to deprive unions of the funds needed to speak as loudly as the corporations by twisting the right of Mark Janus not to speak into a device of their own creation.
Incorrect. Mandatorily taking money from those who do not want union representation is outright theft.
Incorrect. Mandatorily taking money from those who do not want union representation is outright theft.
I agree.
But they should have a completely different wage, work hours, vacation schedule, safety protocol, health insurance, and retirement plan as well.
Can't have it both ways. Unions have fought and paid for worker's benefits. Don't pay to belong is fine, but then you are in a right to work situation where the pay is minimum wage, the hours are long, and benefits are zilch. Come to Tennessee where they fought to keep unions out. It worked well. Average wage is peanuts, there are NO holidays, no overtime, no bennies, etc. You want to increase your pay check? You work more hours. Simple.
But they should have a completely different wage, work hours, vacation schedule, safety protocol, health insurance, and retirement plan as well.
Can't have it both ways. Unions have fought and paid for worker's benefits. Don't pay to belong is fine, but then you are in a right to work situation where the pay is minimum wage, the hours are long, and benefits are zilch. Come to Tennessee where they fought to keep unions out. It worked well. Average wage is peanuts, there are NO holidays, no overtime, no bennies, etc. You want to increase your pay check? You work more hours. Simple.
Maybe, but that is not the constitutional question that was put before the Supreme Court, and their job is not to make sure that union and non-employees have "completely different wage, work hours, vacation schedule, safety protocol, health insurance, and retirement plan as well."
The SCOTUS' job in the Janus case was to decide if state laws that forced non-union members in public sector unions to pay dues violated the 1st Amendment. They decided the case according to that criteria. Congress and the 50 legislatures in the state can now address your point of making the non-union and union compensation/benefits/etc properly reflect dues being paid or not.
SCOTUS doesn't make law. They hear cases that are appealed up to them, most often on the basis of an individual/group thereof being harmed by a law that is somehow violating the Constitution. More summarily, they tend to be the last appeal in state_vs_individual cases. In the case of Janus v. AFSCME, it was individual vs state. SCOTUS sided with individual. They are done a that point. All the follow on "well what about" stuff is the job of elected legislators. So send your legislator all your suggestions. They work for you, after all.
Maybe, but that is not the constitutional question that was put before the Supreme Court, and their job is not to make sure that union and non-employees have "completely different wage, work hours, vacation schedule, safety protocol, health insurance, and retirement plan as well."
The SCOTUS' job in the Janus case was to decide if state laws that forced non-union members in public sector unions to pay dues violated the 1st Amendment. They decided the case according to that criteria. Congress and the 50 legislatures in the state can now address your point of making the non-union and union compensation/benefits/etc properly reflect dues being paid or not.
SCOTUS doesn't make law. They hear cases that are appealed up to them, most often on the basis of an individual/group thereof being harmed by a law that is somehow violating the Constitution. More summarily, they tend to be the last appeal in state_vs_individual cases. In the case of Janus v. AFSCME, it was individual vs state. SCOTUS sided with individual. They are done a that point. All the follow on "well what about" stuff is the job of elected legislators. So send your legislator all your suggestions. They work for you, after all.
Maybe, but that is not the constitutional question that was put before the Supreme Court, and their job is not to make sure that union and non-employees have "completely different wage, work hours, vacation schedule, safety protocol, health insurance, and retirement plan as well."
The SCOTUS' job in the Janus case was to decide if state laws that forced non-union members in public sector unions to pay dues violated the 1st Amendment. They decided the case according to that criteria. Congress and the 50 legislatures in the state can now address your point of making the non-union and union compensation/benefits/etc properly reflect dues being paid or not.
SCOTUS doesn't make law. They hear cases that are appealed up to them, most often on the basis of an individual/group thereof being harmed by a law that is somehow violating the Constitution. More summarily, they tend to be the last appeal in state_vs_individual cases. In the case of Janus v. AFSCME, it was individual vs state. SCOTUS sided with individual. They are done a that point. All the follow on "well what about" stuff is the job of elected legislators. So send your legislator all your suggestions. They work for you, after all.
My first words were "I agree".
Maybe you missed that part.
I then went on to address the results of the decision which impacts the constituency. The Court did what they had to do. It is then up to the workplace to implement the results of such a decision.
But they should have a completely different wage, work hours, vacation schedule, safety protocol, health insurance, and retirement plan as well.
Can't have it both ways. Unions have fought and paid for worker's benefits. Don't pay to belong is fine, but then you are in a right to work situation where the pay is minimum wage, the hours are long, and benefits are zilch. Come to Tennessee where they fought to keep unions out. It worked well. Average wage is peanuts, there are NO holidays, no overtime, no bennies, etc. You want to increase your pay check? You work more hours. Simple.
I would have no problem with two separate payscales. However, you do realize this would likely not work out well for the unions as companies would likely pursue cheaper non-union employees.
But they should have a completely different wage, work hours, vacation schedule, safety protocol, health insurance, and retirement plan as well.
I'd agree and this will be the next thing coming up in the future however it won't be the union bringing the case. Once they lose the ability to dictate the pay of non union workers it will be the final nail in their coffin.
Quote:
Can't have it both ways.
Try and get union support for non union workers negotiating their own pay and benefits, not going to happen...
First the SCOTUS isn't a branch of government, the Federal Judiciary is. Second, because you don't like a couple of decisions they've made, they're no longer a independent branch of government. Sorry, no sale.
Time for you to grow up and deal with reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
I make this observation based two recent cases, Citizens United and Janus v. AFSCME.
Citizens United has taken a legal tool which protects individuals from liability and created a person. This was decided in this way not because of original intent but the evolution of the corporation away from it's original intent for political purposes.
Janus v. AFSCME deprives unions of their rights to speak as organizations of people and not as legal tools. The Supreme Court has chosen to deprive unions of the funds needed to speak as loudly as the corporations by twisting the right of Mark Janus not to speak into a device of their own creation.
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.
