SC going to decide fate of union "fair share" fees once again

[ApatheticAustrian]

NEW: #SCOTUS gets another shot to decide if public unions can charge "fair share" fees to nonmembers. Janus (7th Cir.) workers filing cert.
https://twitter.com/ChrisOpfer/status/856631387125940234



luckily trump is such a pro-union guy....

[Virginiá]

Can we just avoid the trial and get on with the 5-4 anti-union vote already.

[The_Doctor]

Tbh I'm with the conservatives here on unions.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Tbh I'm with the conservatives here on unions.

well, you haven't voted for trump to help the working class, or something.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Public sector unions are pretty worthless...unless they are being a blight to the public. I have personal experience with the former variety, but them doing absolutely nothing for you sure didn't stop them from raiding your paycheck.

[ApatheticAustrian]

being able to fight for better wages and working standards seems to be important.....and more than nothing.

[SoLongAtlas]

Fair share as in collecting a fair amount of dues and not a penny less.

[Rjjr77]

Forcing someone to collectively bargain isn't fair.
Forcing that same person to give up money for services they never wanted isn't fair.
I thought the left liked the right to choose

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Forcing someone to collectively bargain isn't fair.
Forcing that same person to give up money for services they never wanted isn't fair.
I thought the left liked the right to choose

"Forcing someone to have healthcare isn't fair"

No, hun, you're just appropriating the old right wing arguments that make no sense because irrational freaks don't want an objective good that benefits the collective.

[Rjjr77]

Forcing someone to collectively bargain isn't fair.
Forcing that same person to give up money for services they never wanted isn't fair.
I thought the left liked the right to choose

"Forcing someone to have healthcare isn't fair"

No, hun, you're just appropriating the old right wing arguments that make no sense because irrational freaks don't want an objective good that benefits the collective.

I actually agree that forcing someone to have health care isn't fair.

I'm not appropriating an argument, why can't a person decide whether they wish to bargain on their own? Why is this a "death knell" to unions? If unions were so strong and doing such a great job why do they need to force people to join them? If I want to advocate for my own raise rather than a union mandated raise why can't I? A lot of Union members love their union, a lot don't, people who don't want to be a part of them shouldn't have to, and shouldn't have to pay if they are operating on their own.

Unions had a place, they did a great job when workers voluntarily joined them to better themselves and working conditions, but they shouldn't be a requirement to work in a job, freedom to assemble includes the right to choose not to assemble.

[ApatheticAustrian]

there are 2 possibilities to preserve high working condition standards.

1) STRONG labor laws.....not really a thing in the US on the federal level.

2) STRONG unions, forcing quality of life solutions through strength.

republicans know, that if they kill unions, they can weaken labor standards in the whole country and make alabama great again or something.

[publicunofficial]

Republicans (and neoliberals) the  will continue to kill unions and then continue to wonder why the working class is in so much worse shape than 20-30 years ago.

[Rjjr77]

there are 2 possibilities to preserve high working condition standards.

1) STRONG labor laws.....not really a thing in the US on the federal level.

2) STRONG unions, forcing quality of life solutions through strength.

republicans know, that if they kill unions, they can weaken labor standards in the whole country and make alabama great again or something.

So why do the Unions need forced conscription to be strong? Why do, in fair share cases, they need to force people who aren't part of their union to pay?

If you want to stand on that ground, great, but your belief that the US needs strong labor unions doesn't mean that the only way to make a strong labor union is to force people into participating in a union they want nothing to do with.

Labor unions have been weakening, in large part, due to their own faults. many are a structure that protects seniority over quality, and have a bloated management structure that recklessly spends their constituents money.

[Beet]

No one is forcing anyone to join a union. In fact, no one, either employer or employees, should be forced to do anything. Our position is the free market, libertarian position. Let people enter into the contracts they want, without outside interference. If two people want to make an agreement that has nothing to do with you, why should the government get involved?

The reason why collective bargaining is generally preferred is that it gets rid of the free rider problem. If a company has 20 employees, and the union bargains for benefits for all 20, but charges a $5 fee, then it is a rational decision for any employee to drop out of the union. He still gets the benefits the union bargains for, only he does not have to pay the fee. There is nothing ideological about this; it is just a rational choice. All 20 employees face the same rational choice until the union disappears. The only way it works is if receiving the benefits of labor bargaining is conditioned on being a member of the union. Otherwise there is no basis to unions. It doesn't require any forcing or government intervention for this to work: All it requires is for government to stay out of the way, so employees and employers can settle the matter between themselves.

[Associate Justice PiT]

being able to fight for better wages and working standards seems to be important.....and more than nothing.

     You give the institutions I dealt with far too much credit. Sure you got "benefits", but they were meager and, particularly at Berkeley, usually inferior to what non-union employees at the same level got. I know several people who have been jockeying to be reclassified into non-union positions for years, because they are tired of getting robbed by the union for nothing in return.

[Rjjr77]

No one is forcing anyone to join a union. In fact, no one, either employer or employees, should be forced to do anything. Our position is the free market, libertarian position. Let people enter into the contracts they want, without outside interference. If two people want to make an agreement that has nothing to do with you, why should the government get involved?

The reason why collective bargaining is generally preferred is that it gets rid of the free rider problem. If a company has 20 employees, and the union bargains for benefits for all 20, but charges a $5 fee, then it is a rational decision for any employee to drop out of the union. He still gets the benefits the union bargains for, only he does not have to pay the fee. There is nothing ideological about this; it is just a rational choice. All 20 employees face the same rational choice until the union disappears. The only way it works is if receiving the benefits of labor bargaining is conditioned on being a member of the union. Otherwise there is no basis to unions. It doesn't require any forcing or government intervention for this to work: All it requires is for government to stay out of the way, so employees and employers can settle the matter between themselves.

Shouldn't any one of those 20 employees who wants to bargain on their own be able to? That's not the way it works in forced union states. A decision removing those fees would be a step towards that.

[Beet]

Shouldn't any one of those 20 employees who wants to bargain on their own be able to?

They can't, but it has nothing to do with the union. One person just doesn't have the same bargaining power as an entire company.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's no state where there is a legal requirement to join a union, or pay any union-related fees.

[The_Doctor]

being able to fight for better wages and working standards seems to be important.....and more than nothing.

     You give the institutions I dealt with far too much credit. Sure you got "benefits", but they were meager and, particularly at Berkeley, usually inferior to what non-union employees at the same level got. I know several people who have been jockeying to be reclassified into non-union positions for years, because they are tired of getting robbed by the union for nothing in return.

Accurate. I understand unions need to have collective bargaining to strengthen their bargaining hand but I think that people should be allowed to opt out both in union dues and benefits. As a conservative, I don't want to subsidize the political activities of unions.

[Rjjr77]

Shouldn't any one of those 20 employees who wants to bargain on their own be able to?

They can't, but it has nothing to do with the union. One person just doesn't have the same bargaining power as an entire company.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's no state where there is a legal requirement to join a union, or pay any union-related fees.

A person should have the right to bargain for themselves. There is absolutely no reason they couldn't. Going to a boss and asking for compensation changes on their own is perfectly achievable, people in non union jobs do it all the time.

And the second is false. In forced unionization states, they are required to pay union access fees, if they choose to opt out of the union, whether they wish to be represented by said union or not.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Shouldn't any one of those 20 employees who wants to bargain on their own be able to?

You're adorable.

In forced unionization states, they are required to pay union access fees, if they choose to opt out of the union, whether they wish to be represented by said union or not.

In "forced unionization" states, as you so soberly and non-hackishly call them, employers and unions are allowed to set rules on that for themselves. One who doesn't like it is, as the free market über alles types are always reminding us, free to find a job elsewhere.

[Rjjr77]

Shouldn't any one of those 20 employees who wants to bargain on their own be able to?

You're adorable.

In forced unionization states, they are required to pay union access fees, if they choose to opt out of the union, whether they wish to be represented by said union or not.

In "forced unionization" states, as you so soberly and non-hackishly call them, employers and unions are allowed to set rules on that for themselves. One who doesn't like it is, as the free market über alles types are always reminding us, free to find a job elsewhere.

Actually no. Unions set the fees, not employers, and employees who chose not to join the union are forced to pay those fees.

And once a group decides to unionize, an employee loses his right to bargain on his own, whether part of the union or not. Employers or non union employees wishes be damned. While they can then file to be objectors (a separate process) they are still on the hook for the union set agency fees.

If they wish to object to these rates they have to bear anywhere from 33 to 50% of the cost of an arbitration hearing

Non union members don't get to vote on these fees that they don't want to pay to an organization they don't want to be a part of...

But enjoy your myth of a dissenter having actual say in this process

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

But enjoy your myth of a dissenter having actual say in this process

Again, "dissenters" in pro-worker states have just as much of a right to seek employment elsewhere if they don't like their contract as you people keep insisting "dissenters" in right-to-scab states do.

I'm also going to need some sort of source or citation on employers having no say in negotiating union security agreements, because I've literally never heard that before even from other right-wing hacks except about other countries and my inclination is to believe you're either misinformed that that dynamic is present in America or simply making it up.

[Rjjr77]

But enjoy your myth of a dissenter having actual say in this process

Again, "dissenters" in pro-worker states have just as much of a right to seek employment elsewhere if they don't like their contract as you people keep insisting "dissenters" in right-to-scab states do.

Nothing is stopping workers from Unionizing in right to work states, the government literally prevents people from not funding unions in forced unionization states. How you don't see the difference is just kinda sad.

Imagine if your state forced you to pay to be part of a group you didn't want to be a part of.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

the government literally prevents people from not funding unions in forced unionization states.

No it doesn't. Union security agreements do, and the state can best protect freedom of association and freedom of contract by neither requiring nor prohibiting those. Which is the case in every non-right-to-scab state.

[Rjjr77]

the government literally prevents people from not funding unions in forced unionization states.

No it doesn't. Union security agreements do.

Union security agreements are dependent on state law.

In the US we have agency shops and fair share, that's it since Taft Hartley.

Fair share are negotiated between employer and union, this is probably why you are familiar with it, (assuming you are public sector) agency fees however are set by the union as their "cost of collective bargaining." The employer doesn't have a say in how much this is, just as the employer doesn't have a say in how much dues are.