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.
Should courts have the power to impose wage cuts, shrink the economy and require private organizations to deliver costly services for free?
Most people would probably say no. Yet this is what could happen when the U.S. Supreme Court issues its ruling in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, expected sometime in June.
At issue in Janus — a case that originated here in Illinois — are state laws that require public sector workers represented by unions to share in the cost of collective bargaining over their wages, benefits and working conditions through the payment of what are called “fair share” fees.
“Fair share” fees are not union dues and cannot be used for politics or lobbying. They are limited to the direct cost of negotiating and enforcing employment contracts.
Interference in the market place. I thought only Keynesian liberals did that. This is a new twist on what was settled law. This is definitely legislating from the judiciary.
I wonder if the anti union folks on these threads have direct experience being in a union or are just passing on folklore that they heard form someone or read on the internet.
Unions are all different. Some are better than others. Some misbehave. Most work for the benefit of the workers. Mine actually offered to helpmanagement when management was under political attack.
I wonder if the anti union folks on these threads have direct experience being in a union or are just passing on folklore that they heard form someone or read on the internet.
Unions are all different. Some are better than others. Some misbehave. Most work for the benefit of the workers. Mine actually offered to helpmanagement when management was under political attack.
None are perfect.
I have been in a union SEIU #49 and worked for a distributor who had one 25 year worker with so much seniority, he hardly worked. So yeah, I am not going off "What I heard" as to "What I have seen and experienced"
I like that comment "Most work for the benefit of the workers" (Shouldn't they ALL be for the workers benefit?) In other words some do well, some are garbage and yet we're supposed to embrace them? The good ones SHOULD survive. but the abusive and bad one deserve death. But I don't hear that from union supporters...
It seems like a lot of private sector people are jealous of public sector employees who have unions.
Jealous of what? Underachievers and do-nothings kept in protected jobs for life? Snuffing out all incentive to work and succeed? The idea that if I work hard, my union "brothers and sisters" will stab me in the back for making them look bad? While I get the same pay as them?
No. It isn't "jealousy". It's anger, that the bottom tier of society gets to hold everyone else hostage with higher prices, higher taxes, and a lack of services because the roads aren't getting fixed because all the money goes to lifetime union members who don't lift a finger, leaving nothing to actually get the work done.
I manage to work for and earn a living without pointing a gun at anyone else. I have zero respect for those who feel that's how to succeed.
Jealousy...anger. Whatever you wish to call it, the emotional energy is misdirected. There is no union leader on earth making more than the oligarchs who have the money to influence the policies that really affect workers. Your ire should be directed toward them. They are your real enemy.
Jealousy...anger. Whatever you wish to call it, the emotional energy is misdirected. There is no union leader on earth making more than the oligarchs who have the money to influence the policies that really affect workers. Your ire should be directed toward them. They are your real enemy.
Why is someone else making more money than me a reason to be angry?
The only job security I should ever have is being good enough at what I do that companies want to keep me. That's something everyone needs to prove on a daily basis. Unions don't seem to feel the same. I am angry at them for creating environments where personal achievements are downplayed.
If this guy knew anything about policy, he would not have agreed to be the face of this suit. This is just his cushy "thank you" job from his billionaire handlers. Smart move anyway. Continuing to work in the same capacity post-lawsuit would not have been a good experience for him.
Not a surprise, there's no way he'd be allowed to keep working in the same job after this. Glad the lawsuit ended up in a positive step, and that he still has a job.
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.
