Throughout this article, Richard Kahlenberg, conflates "unions" and public employee unions, particularly the teacher's unions, as if they were interchangeable. In doing this he ignores a crucial difference between them. In negotiating pay and benefits within a private company, the counterparts of the union representatives, are those who have a financial stake in the outcome, or represent those, owners and/or stockholders, who do. When this degenerated into industry wide settlements, with such as GM and US Steel setting the pattern for a whole industry, the result was increasing pressure from foreign conpetion. Public employee unions in contrast, negotiate with public officials who have no personal financial stake in the outcome and who are in a position to offload any excessive costs to the taxpayers, to be paid much, much later. Such collective bargaining is by its nature. corrupt. Teacher's union officials are of course acutely aware of this and spend enormous sums to elect those who are friendly to their interests, which in practice means Democrats. This is also the reason for the "phone banks and door to door canvassing", so beloved by Mr. Kahlenberg. It is also why the costs of collective bargaining are in a very great part, political and should be recognized as such. The bill for the past excessive settlements is now coming due in various states and cities who have no hope of sufficient revenue to support them.
16
I am a strong proponent of unions -- in the private sector.
But the public sector is not the private sector.
In the public sector, there is no "market" control over the demands of the unions. The interest of public sector unions in representing employees often runs counter to the public interest -- and that includes not just the classic whipping boy of "bureaucrats" but also sympathetic professions like teachers in public education and also police and fire, and also unions that often escape widespread attention in quasi-public but essential organizations where monopoly power prevails, such as gas and water districts.
I am not suggesting that public sector unions ought to be banned, but they do need more control than private sector unions.
But the public sector is not the private sector.
In the public sector, there is no "market" control over the demands of the unions. The interest of public sector unions in representing employees often runs counter to the public interest -- and that includes not just the classic whipping boy of "bureaucrats" but also sympathetic professions like teachers in public education and also police and fire, and also unions that often escape widespread attention in quasi-public but essential organizations where monopoly power prevails, such as gas and water districts.
I am not suggesting that public sector unions ought to be banned, but they do need more control than private sector unions.
6
People that support Union stances do not have to be members to donate to the Union. Mr. Kahlenberg can donate his money, don't forcible take mine.
5
Kahlenberg confuses the idea of unions (where people have a 1st amendment right to assemble) with the idea of "exclusive representation". They aren't the same. He quotes Reagan's reference to Poland - "“where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.” But in much of Europe (which is far more liberal than we are), they have unions without "exclusive representation".
Sure, workers can band together if they choose. But Freedom of Speech is NOT a collective right. It is an individual right. A majority of workers banding together may not compel the compliance of some workers who think differently. Diversity is not just about skin color. It's also about points of view. And the individual who disagrees with the union has every right to abstain from supporting it. And like any other service provider, if a union isn't paid, they shouldn't have to provide service to the dissenter.
Giving up a monopoly is understandably hard for the unions. But the Berlin Wall came down over 30 years ago. Unions will learn to live without forced totalitarianism also.
Sure, workers can band together if they choose. But Freedom of Speech is NOT a collective right. It is an individual right. A majority of workers banding together may not compel the compliance of some workers who think differently. Diversity is not just about skin color. It's also about points of view. And the individual who disagrees with the union has every right to abstain from supporting it. And like any other service provider, if a union isn't paid, they shouldn't have to provide service to the dissenter.
Giving up a monopoly is understandably hard for the unions. But the Berlin Wall came down over 30 years ago. Unions will learn to live without forced totalitarianism also.
6
The opposition to unions is a result of individualism trumping the values of community and solidarity. Labor unions makes individual workers strong, just as nurturing and close-knit families empower individual members of the family.
The teachers opposing union representation obviously believe that they have individual rights but no responsibility to their colleagues in the "same boat" and part of the same community of workers. They may believe that their individual voices will be more effective than a collective voice in bargaining for a living wage and benefits, but there is no historical documentation that the individual voice bargaining for wages and benefits trumps a collective voice. What rights did workers have prior to collective bargaining?
The civil rights movement provides a very good example of the importance of solidarity and the collective voice required getting results. How effective was the civil rights movement until there was solidarity of those individuals under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King in demanding change?
The teachers opposing union representation obviously believe that they have individual rights but no responsibility to their colleagues in the "same boat" and part of the same community of workers. They may believe that their individual voices will be more effective than a collective voice in bargaining for a living wage and benefits, but there is no historical documentation that the individual voice bargaining for wages and benefits trumps a collective voice. What rights did workers have prior to collective bargaining?
The civil rights movement provides a very good example of the importance of solidarity and the collective voice required getting results. How effective was the civil rights movement until there was solidarity of those individuals under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King in demanding change?
5
"Strong democracy" generally translates as "mob rule."
Unions once served a legitimate purpose; now they serve only to act as a kind of monopoly on various classes of labour and then go on to abuse that monopoly to extort concessions from the employers of their members. And, in the case of public-employee unions, when the governments that employ them are composed of Democrats, those employers are perfectly willing, even eager, to cooperate in that extortion of those who pay the bills, the taxpayers.
Unions once served a legitimate purpose; now they serve only to act as a kind of monopoly on various classes of labour and then go on to abuse that monopoly to extort concessions from the employers of their members. And, in the case of public-employee unions, when the governments that employ them are composed of Democrats, those employers are perfectly willing, even eager, to cooperate in that extortion of those who pay the bills, the taxpayers.
11
I am NOT anti-Union, but any argument from any group that is premised on the idea that "what's good for (insert interest group) is good for democracy/the country/the U.S." is already on thin ice with me. In this case, I take the author's point and happen to agree with the particular legal argument about membership dues. Yet, as with most institutions, the societal benefit of unions depends upon a number of factors. Workers need to be able to act collectively because their interests are not always aligned with their (usually) more powerful employers. To understand why, we need only look at the state of things prior to organized labor. Workers were exploited and harmed (sometimes with horrific or fatal injuries) to a degree we do not wish to revisit. It is only fair, however, to note that we have ALSO seen the rise of unions that seem less benign than the ideals that created them (also, see France). We might, for instance, recall the transportation strike on December 20, 2005 and the terms the TWU was demanding at the time.
So I don't disagree with the labor side of this membership dues issue, but I would reject the notion that union strength is inherently linked to the strength of our democracy. The important thing in the fight between management and labor is that neither side obtain a permanent upper hand. As history has shown, power (i.e., "strength") will corrupt either side. The union's strength is properly applied today, but that's no guarantee for tomorrow.
So I don't disagree with the labor side of this membership dues issue, but I would reject the notion that union strength is inherently linked to the strength of our democracy. The important thing in the fight between management and labor is that neither side obtain a permanent upper hand. As history has shown, power (i.e., "strength") will corrupt either side. The union's strength is properly applied today, but that's no guarantee for tomorrow.
1
While the "free rider" problem is hypothetically a concern, the bigger concern is that public sector unions are undermining democracy by creating a "some are more equal than others" form of political influence that is far more undermining to the ability of voters to see their priorities reflected in public policy. Clearly, the public employee unions are the big dog in every political circumstance now. Legislators, primarily Democrats, are controlled by them in virtually every way. If we want the Democratic party to be restored as a tribune of activist government, then freeing them from public employee unions' stranglehold is an unalloyed good outcome. Liberals, you should not panic if the right-wing court rules against labor here. You should celebrate because it will allow liberalism to be focused on the users of public services rather than the providers of them.
7
What is the problem with free rides? For years, I have paid taxes so that others could have a free ride under entitlement programs. This idea is readily embraced by the left. Now, when people consciously object to liberal agenda unions, they are become freeloaders. The left loves people intentionally signing up for freebies, but go crazy when a school teacher, as a byproduct of their objection to union thugary, support of liberal politics, and much more, benefits from union bargaining by simply not doing anything. Hypocrisy really is annoying.
8
We can argue until the cows come home about the benefits of unions. But the claim that they help create a strong democracy is about as big a pile of hogwash I've ever heard. At least with public employee unions. They are the very definition of a corrupt the conflict of interest. Pure and simple: "You vote for me, I pay you a lot of taxpayer money." Disgusting.
8
Well, Brown vs Topeka Kansas school board overturned precedent set by Plessey vs Ferguson that was established law for 62 years! So it happens.
As for the fairy tale that unions, those gangster ridden, coercive instruments of the left, are democracy, is a joke. If anything they teach us all about the tyranny of the majority.
As for the fairy tale that unions, those gangster ridden, coercive instruments of the left, are democracy, is a joke. If anything they teach us all about the tyranny of the majority.
7
Public sector unions are simply corrupt and should not be allowed. Consider that the Union bosses "negotiate" wages and benefits with the very people whom they will either support or not support during an election. It is the definition of conflict of interest, and taxpayers foot the bill.
8
What a bunch of hooey. Everyone knows the public sector unions collect dues and use it, without accounting, for more than overhead and a lot of political donations. The money goes to the politicians who then grant (un-affordable) tax-funded benefits, then the union members give the politicians more money for more benefits and so on. Here's the easy solution to this "free rider" issue: ban all political contributions of any kind by public sector unions so all union members pay the overhead expenses and not a dime more. Gee, think the Dems (as main beneficiaries of union largess) will go for that? Nope!
10
FDR was unequivocally against public sector unionization.
8
There is a brutal, bloody, history of private magnates taking advantage of the less wealthy, less powerful working people, that extends into violent, physical abuse of those same working people, with no regulated boundaries set for wealthy private owners. There is also the the history of democracy and unionization fought and won for working people, by working people, some of whom gave their lives to this cause born from necessity.
To this day, I wont cross a picket line in which working people stand and demand living wages and equitable benefits.
Perhaps some don't value the lessons taught us through history, and perhaps others are willing to give rein to the wealthy who hire and fire. I am not among this group and should the Supreme court rule in favor, those who do not contribute to their union, in my estimation, are left to fend for themselves with no needed back up support.
The privatized corporatists may seem appealing in the present but down the road, as they continue to gain power in the work place, woe to we the working class.
To this day, I wont cross a picket line in which working people stand and demand living wages and equitable benefits.
Perhaps some don't value the lessons taught us through history, and perhaps others are willing to give rein to the wealthy who hire and fire. I am not among this group and should the Supreme court rule in favor, those who do not contribute to their union, in my estimation, are left to fend for themselves with no needed back up support.
The privatized corporatists may seem appealing in the present but down the road, as they continue to gain power in the work place, woe to we the working class.
3
Styling this case as an attack on unions is not accurate.
Governments, unlike businesses, are bound by the Constitution. They may not restrict their employees' freedom of speech and association, as a private employer may.
That is why this case sees liberals arguing against government coercion of government employees who do not wish to pay dues to a union they do not support. It also explains why this case sees conservatives arguing in favor of the government's power to violate individual civil liberties.
Governments, unlike businesses, are bound by the Constitution. They may not restrict their employees' freedom of speech and association, as a private employer may.
That is why this case sees liberals arguing against government coercion of government employees who do not wish to pay dues to a union they do not support. It also explains why this case sees conservatives arguing in favor of the government's power to violate individual civil liberties.
1
Ok, I am a public employee in a union. What disgusts me about this debate is the same problem that exists with health care. Instead of fighting for a more equal share of the economic pie, we have folks who will call union members "an elite group"-seriously? I don't consider being a teacher, firefighter or police an "elite" job with any type of elite benefits. We fight to dismantle what our predecessors fought so hard to secure-like a decent living wage, decent work hours, health insurance-that's the new "elite" in this country. We hide under the first amendment and cry about the suppression of our free speech and that somehow paying union dues means that we support a different political viewpoint than our own. Likewise with health care, instead of fighting for everyone to have better insurance, we whine when we don't have any or enough, and then fight to destroy the insurance coverage that others have, all to save a single solitary dime, or maybe because "it's not fair". And we call ourselves a "democracy"... Our predecessors seemed intent on making life better not worse, and we today, seem intent on getting down to the lowest common denominator-where no one gets any decent quality of life. This is the legacy that we are leaving to our children? Why? Because we worry about the almighty dollar above all else. Thank you Supreme Court for downgrading life in America, and contributing to our burgeoning idiocracy...
6
Strong unions kill US industry. Case in point, steamships.
As of today, there are no US flagged steamships running international trade routes, while US merchant ships once dominated overseas shipping. Why? Because unions representing the crew members demanded unnecessarily large crews, and more highly paid, than those used by foreign-flagged vessels. It really is that simple. Steamship operators were forced to use foreign flagged vessels and foreign crews to remain competitive in the ocean freight market.
There is no clearer example of how "strong unions" forced what were once American jobs to be given to foreigners. In what way does this strengthen democracy?
As of today, there are no US flagged steamships running international trade routes, while US merchant ships once dominated overseas shipping. Why? Because unions representing the crew members demanded unnecessarily large crews, and more highly paid, than those used by foreign-flagged vessels. It really is that simple. Steamship operators were forced to use foreign flagged vessels and foreign crews to remain competitive in the ocean freight market.
There is no clearer example of how "strong unions" forced what were once American jobs to be given to foreigners. In what way does this strengthen democracy?
5
Freeloaders?
When corporations use the productivity of millions to enrich themselves, and pay off those we elect to represent us to fashion laws that further tip the balance of power to the top few---just who is a freeloader?
When corporations legally take and give back nothing, and shift the tax burden to underpaid average citizens, and hide corporate profits off shore---who is the freeloader?
It's typical blame the victim garbage, yet people swallow it.
Just where are all the jobs corporations were supposed to create for Americans? In Asia. Where are those Trickle Down benefits promised by giving big business all the advantages?
Americans have been well trained to gullibly accept self serving slogans by the corporate Gop rw, and not forcefully repudiated by the Democrats. In fact, hardly addressed by them, until Bernie Sanders stepped in with frank talk that even Hillary has to answer to now.
When corporations use the productivity of millions to enrich themselves, and pay off those we elect to represent us to fashion laws that further tip the balance of power to the top few---just who is a freeloader?
When corporations legally take and give back nothing, and shift the tax burden to underpaid average citizens, and hide corporate profits off shore---who is the freeloader?
It's typical blame the victim garbage, yet people swallow it.
Just where are all the jobs corporations were supposed to create for Americans? In Asia. Where are those Trickle Down benefits promised by giving big business all the advantages?
Americans have been well trained to gullibly accept self serving slogans by the corporate Gop rw, and not forcefully repudiated by the Democrats. In fact, hardly addressed by them, until Bernie Sanders stepped in with frank talk that even Hillary has to answer to now.
4
Consider that the folk you are railing against pay by FAR the majority of federal income tax. The fact is "progressives" are all about free ridership forcing the top tax brackets to carry the majority of the burden.
1
It seems to me that employment negotiations should be a simple one-to-one parley between one propective employee wanting to give a day's labor for a day's pay and the legal department of one multinational corporation.
1
I do enjoy how some people bring out the big "attack on the Middle Class" line every time the sacred public sector unions are taken down a notch for their obvious corrupt relationship with the political class (mostly Democrats). This entire episode, the episode in Wisconsin, and numerous other states has nothing whatsoever to do with private sector unions. There is absolutely nothing preventing people from forming unions in their private workplaces... apparently knowledge workers many of whom have college degrees don't feel the need. I know I don't.
1
I am forced to pay agency fees to a union that has negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with my state employer. When I have attended meetings and asked why I should become a member or why I am required to pay agency dues the answer is "to support the progressive agenda of the union", never once have I heard that I am paying for the supposed benefits of my wage and benefits. From the ground level agency fees are bonus revenue to support union agendas. In my case these fees represent acquiescence to a philosophy that is repugnant, but required.
8
If they loose, perhaps, moving forward, unions can negotiate a two tier wage and benefit system. Higher pay and benefits for those who join the union, and reduced pay and benefits for those who do not. Perhaps, the unions can refuse to represent individuals in disputes and disciplinary hearings who are not union members.
2
Although I count myself a progressive, I am not a big fan of unions, especially when they have too much power and can drive an industry (e.g. the auto industry) into the ground with excessive wage and pension demands and silly job rules. Nevertheless, they do serve the valuable function of being a counterbalance to greedy and even sometimes cruel corporate overlords.
The saddest part of this public employee union conundrum is that teachers have to resort to collective bargaining in order to get a decent salary and working conditions. Teachers are not laborers, they are professionals. Who among us does not owe much of our success to some of our best teachers? None, I dare say. I fail to understand why we do not more generously support our public education system and especially its dedicated teachers.
The saddest part of this public employee union conundrum is that teachers have to resort to collective bargaining in order to get a decent salary and working conditions. Teachers are not laborers, they are professionals. Who among us does not owe much of our success to some of our best teachers? None, I dare say. I fail to understand why we do not more generously support our public education system and especially its dedicated teachers.
I am in a teacher's union and believe it is important to pay for my share of the collective bargaining agreement. The problem is that the firewall compromise in established to separate political speech from bargaining has been torn to shreds. Instead of hiring the best lawyers to bargain on our behalf money is spent on pr on political pandering. This is why the issue is in front of the Supreme Court. Union members may blather about the need for unions, but they do a terrible job policing its abuses which gets us back into hot water every time.
5
"Strong Unions, Strong Democracy?"
Strong if you're a public employee making more money than the people that pay your salary with taxes. It's about time somebody woke up and smelled the coffee. Thank you to the plaintifs
Strong if you're a public employee making more money than the people that pay your salary with taxes. It's about time somebody woke up and smelled the coffee. Thank you to the plaintifs
6
Don't you think its cause the workers who pay their salary have been underpaid, this even after giving tax breaks to the rich.
I believe a majority of Americans would vote to eliminate public sector unions if they could do so without also electing Republicans. For me, a regular Democratic Party voter, if there were two Democrats running for, say, governor of California, and one proposed eliminating public sector unions and the other did not, I'm fairly confident in even true blue California that the former would win, handily.
However, those true blue voters in CA are not ready to destroy everything else they believe in by voting GOP just to get that one thing.
It's a delicate balancing act, and a political need in the marketplace that yet remains unfilled.
However, those true blue voters in CA are not ready to destroy everything else they believe in by voting GOP just to get that one thing.
It's a delicate balancing act, and a political need in the marketplace that yet remains unfilled.
1
explain to me why? cause they have benefits that the private sector lost when they got rid of unions?
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." - Franklin Roosevelt
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” - George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO
In other words, the experts beg to disagree that strong public-service unions make "strong democracy." Oops.
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” - George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO
In other words, the experts beg to disagree that strong public-service unions make "strong democracy." Oops.
2
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., and STEVENS, J., filed concurring opinions. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined.
The supremes were UNANIMOUS in Ahood.
The supremes were UNANIMOUS in Ahood.
1
This is a First Amendment issue, therefore can these conservative activist judges explain to me why I am obligated to pay federal income tax, when I oppose a war such as the debacle in Iraq and I want my government to know about it?
3
You make an eloquent case in favor of labor unions, Richard, but not in favor of forcing people to contribute to them.
4
Other countries with strong union protection policies don't allow states to have 'right to work' laws that destroy unions, giving corporations an unfair advantage over employees. Consistent policies a protection for democracy.
Decades ago 1/3 of America's private work force was unionized, which benefited all workers. But then politics changed, and companies could move to other states without union protections, so we saw the unraveling of progress made over generations. Moving jobs to Asia reinforced this---fewer jobs, lower pay/benefits.
Hard to believe now that at one time US companies saw their mission as more than just shareholder profits, but also responsibility to workers and the larger society. This became unfashionable. Just compare Mitt Romney’s era with his father George Romney’s for the change in attitude.
States Rights doctrine, supposed to protect our ‘freedoms’ against intrusive central govts, is actually a flaw in our democracy, in many areas, creating 2nd class citizenship---in employee rights, health care, taxes, criminal justice, education funding.
Decades ago 1/3 of America's private work force was unionized, which benefited all workers. But then politics changed, and companies could move to other states without union protections, so we saw the unraveling of progress made over generations. Moving jobs to Asia reinforced this---fewer jobs, lower pay/benefits.
Hard to believe now that at one time US companies saw their mission as more than just shareholder profits, but also responsibility to workers and the larger society. This became unfashionable. Just compare Mitt Romney’s era with his father George Romney’s for the change in attitude.
States Rights doctrine, supposed to protect our ‘freedoms’ against intrusive central govts, is actually a flaw in our democracy, in many areas, creating 2nd class citizenship---in employee rights, health care, taxes, criminal justice, education funding.
1
Public employee unions are a travesty.
4
There is no evidence to suggest that government workers would be exploited or mistreated by their employers if their unions were restrained or even eliminated. Hence, there is no compelling case for allowing the unions to continue extorting dues from those who prefer not to support them.
One can assert, as Mr. Kahlenberg does, that public service unions produce other social benefits. But that is not a legal argument and it should not concern the courts.
One can assert, as Mr. Kahlenberg does, that public service unions produce other social benefits. But that is not a legal argument and it should not concern the courts.
2
In the past, some unions helped some groups of workers with organized negotiations for compensation amd benefits. They now protect workers tenure whether performance merits it or not.
Teamsters and others were violent and continue to bend arms to get their self-sustaining ways. The UAW caused the over pricing of American wages that sent jobs permanently overseas. Federal and state and teachers Unions allow substandard workers to make overblown, even false claims that no one wants to hear, so government managers just cave to avoid the fight. Unions reward workplace mediocrity and poor performance with entitlement.
Unions have evolved in ways that burden workers, management, and society.
As a nurses aide in a convalescent home paid minimum wage, I was forced to pay Union dues that ate up literally more than half my paycheck for six months, then a quarter of it thereafter. My one and only Union benefit was a glossy monthly newsletter of the Union "fat"cats eating dinner at expensive restaurants with flashy public figures in luxury settings. I could not "opt out" of the Union dues to save money to get my RN, or get the Union to use recycled paper for their newsletters!
Teamsters and others were violent and continue to bend arms to get their self-sustaining ways. The UAW caused the over pricing of American wages that sent jobs permanently overseas. Federal and state and teachers Unions allow substandard workers to make overblown, even false claims that no one wants to hear, so government managers just cave to avoid the fight. Unions reward workplace mediocrity and poor performance with entitlement.
Unions have evolved in ways that burden workers, management, and society.
As a nurses aide in a convalescent home paid minimum wage, I was forced to pay Union dues that ate up literally more than half my paycheck for six months, then a quarter of it thereafter. My one and only Union benefit was a glossy monthly newsletter of the Union "fat"cats eating dinner at expensive restaurants with flashy public figures in luxury settings. I could not "opt out" of the Union dues to save money to get my RN, or get the Union to use recycled paper for their newsletters!
3
Ronald Reagan may have thought unions were good for Poland, but let us not forget that one of his first actions as President was breaking PATCO, the air traffic controllers union. He ended up firing 11,000 workers and banned them from ever again holding a federal job. For several decades the Republican Party has worked to destroy the labor movement, and this case before the Supreme Court is just another chance to do unions in.
1
The author tries to conflate public unions (which many conservatives are against) with private ones which garner a lot less heat.
Public unions contribute to the campaigns of the very politicians who are supposed to be negotiating for the taxpayers. This is inherently wrong in my opinion and the main reason why I think public unions should be outlawed.
Public unions contribute to the campaigns of the very politicians who are supposed to be negotiating for the taxpayers. This is inherently wrong in my opinion and the main reason why I think public unions should be outlawed.
3
This is a brand new argument that seems to have gotten a lot of traction. But of course it ignores the fact that this kind of conflict of interest is the essence of pluralist democracy (Madison called it the problem that as political actors citizens and legislators are at one and the same time parties to cases and judges of them). Just what do you think is going on with those giant contributions for politicians from the rich? No conflict of interest there?
1
People employed by the "State" should not have unions, people employed by the "Private Sector" should. Stop conflagrating the two.
4
Does anyone find it ironic that nine public employees with guaranteed life-time jobs and benefits will make this decision?
4
The most logical solution would be for teachers or other workers not wanting to pay for union representation to negotiate their own individual contracts. Practically, this would institute a constant struggle between unions, employers, and employees that would drain the energies of all and distract them from performing their roles. The interests of students or whatever the workers were supposed to do would be ignored or sacrificed.
1
If the SCOTUS plans to weaken unions, they need to do the same for all employer groups, from the Business Roundtable to associations for industry sectors that implement lobbying in all legislatures. Else they will increase inequality and dominance of corporations/business on Congress, where they already have purchased too much clout.
2
The history of union struggles since the beginning should be known by all. I recently picked up a copy of Irving Bernstein's "The Lean Years: A history of the American Worker 1920-1933" at my local recycling center. Without unions we are simply grist for the mill. Early in the book he cites a growing concern that the 1% held resources that surpassed the total of every other working American. That era was followed by The Great Depression. The freeloaders who refuse to pay union dues should be ashamed. I say, lets put them on a 60 hour work week and reduce their wages to subsistence level.
4
Ms. Friedrich knew when she entered into an employment contract with her school in California that she would be required to pay union fees. She still consented to take the job, probably because private schools generally offer less benefits and pay to their teachers. And now she has the audacity to demand the benefits of union membership but does not want to pay for it. Let her leave the California public school system and take a job at a private school. Problem solved and nobody but her gets penalized.
5
The headline should read,
"Strong Government Employee Unions, Corrupt Government."
Does the government exist for the benefit of its employees or for the benefit of the general public?
There is a huge difference between private and public sector labor unions.
Government employees are not coal miners, steel workers, or auto workers.
Government workers neither need nor deserve the right to collective bargaining, especially at the expense of the general public.
The public interest begs for the elimination of the corrupt nexus between public sector labor unions and politicians.
Outlaw public sector labor unions!
"Strong Government Employee Unions, Corrupt Government."
Does the government exist for the benefit of its employees or for the benefit of the general public?
There is a huge difference between private and public sector labor unions.
Government employees are not coal miners, steel workers, or auto workers.
Government workers neither need nor deserve the right to collective bargaining, especially at the expense of the general public.
The public interest begs for the elimination of the corrupt nexus between public sector labor unions and politicians.
Outlaw public sector labor unions!
5
It seems to me many Americans have a skewed view of unions. Both pro and con. So where should they look to educate themselves? The first answer that comes to my mind is the press.
The press could be producing all manner if informational news articles from both a historical and contemporary perspective. But what do we have, endless quotes from the union hating right. And the few pieces that are somewhat neutral like the Piecehealth Hospital in Springfield Oregon article the other day did not get it right. And fair treatment for teachers or school districts, forget about it.
If the situation continues to trend as it has these last few decades Americans will learn to rue the day they voted for Scott Walker, Chris Christi and the rest of the corptroids.
The press could be producing all manner if informational news articles from both a historical and contemporary perspective. But what do we have, endless quotes from the union hating right. And the few pieces that are somewhat neutral like the Piecehealth Hospital in Springfield Oregon article the other day did not get it right. And fair treatment for teachers or school districts, forget about it.
If the situation continues to trend as it has these last few decades Americans will learn to rue the day they voted for Scott Walker, Chris Christi and the rest of the corptroids.
3
Historically unions have been of great benefit to workers, but that was before they became adjuncts of the Democrat Party: anti-White, anti-defense, anti-gun, anti-self defense, anti-border control, anti-charity -- in short, anti-anything that smacks of personal and individual responsibility. For some time now, the unions primary function has been to trade their political support for the Democrat Party for higher wages (paid by the productive members of society through taxes) in "public service" unions. [Private sector unions have been decimated by the Democrat penchant for supporting job-stealing illegal immigrants and the union greed, accompanied by management spinelessness and incompetence, that destroyed a number of companies.]
It is unfortunate that hard workers don't have unions devoted to the protection their hard working members -- that lack leaves them more open to exploitation by the plutocrats (who, by the way, are also happy with illegal immigrants, because they can pay them less) -- as opposed to being devoted to the Democrat Party. But, alas, that is what has happened and workers will pay the price of electing Democrat supporters to the union hierarchy.
It is unfortunate that hard workers don't have unions devoted to the protection their hard working members -- that lack leaves them more open to exploitation by the plutocrats (who, by the way, are also happy with illegal immigrants, because they can pay them less) -- as opposed to being devoted to the Democrat Party. But, alas, that is what has happened and workers will pay the price of electing Democrat supporters to the union hierarchy.
1
Working without a union is slavery, but so is working and paying dues to an ineffectual union. Working for a do nothing union where special members get special favors. If you have to pay and the union is not required to do anything to earn the money, that is blackmail. If the union can take your job if you do not pay up, what is the difference in working without a union?
Collective bargaining is in the best interest of workers who without representation and an intermediary as with an union are at a major disadvantage on negotiating proper pay and benefits. The private employers and the government employer have agendas, in fact, their political agendas are more likely to influence the workers than the other way around, they are also heavily represented by lawyers and intermediaries, and they are also capable of obtaining the legal force needed to counter an employees, without union representation that is supported by fees, challenging the employer will be impossible. I don't think required payment of union fees by the teachers union represents political speech, given the fact that the government employer may change political sides routinely with elections etc. The arguments brought forward by the plaintiff in this case is very weak, represents very small personal rewards, that will affect thousands of people negatively if it is ruled that union fees represent political speech that should be regulated.
One of the most striking concessions in yesterday's oral argument was the concession by the California AG that there was no difference -- none -- on this issue as between the government of California and the teacher's union. Their arguments yesterday, and supporting briefs it would appear, are in lockstep. And this is, of course, the problem with public sector unions--they bargain with those they elect. This is not a case where "strong unions ameliorate extreme inequalities" because, it is well-established, the rich don't pay much tax. This is bureaucratic self-dealing. Strong public sector unions destroy state fiscal chests, like in Illinois, and harm all taxpayers, including most especially, middle income people.
We need better, stronger, and more robust private unions. Those unions actually may guard against the dangers Roosevelt quite rightly warned of, dangers that I dare say have come to pass today. Let's unionize Amazon shippers and warehousemen; that might actually help the middle class, and maybe the poor too. The author's suggestions, not so much.
We need better, stronger, and more robust private unions. Those unions actually may guard against the dangers Roosevelt quite rightly warned of, dangers that I dare say have come to pass today. Let's unionize Amazon shippers and warehousemen; that might actually help the middle class, and maybe the poor too. The author's suggestions, not so much.
3
Is there seriously a question as to which way this SCOTUS will rule?
Are they or are they not the most corporation-friendly SCOTUS in our history?
Have they or have they not overturned more precedents than any other SCOTUS in our history?
When you vote this fall, remember what they have done this week - and ask yourself - do I want the next President to nominate Supreme Court justices that are the same, or different from the present 'gang of five'???
Are they or are they not the most corporation-friendly SCOTUS in our history?
Have they or have they not overturned more precedents than any other SCOTUS in our history?
When you vote this fall, remember what they have done this week - and ask yourself - do I want the next President to nominate Supreme Court justices that are the same, or different from the present 'gang of five'???
2
Funny how the "gang of five" only seems to bother some folks, when a decision doesn't go (or fears that it won't go) their way. Hello Obamacare, twice now. Any concern with the four liberal justices, who vote in lockstep, for every left leaning issue, no matter what? Didn't think so...
Public sector unions are bankrupting municipalities. I am amazed that non union members stand up for continued union largess, that they themselves do not enjoy.
Public sector unions are bankrupting municipalities. I am amazed that non union members stand up for continued union largess, that they themselves do not enjoy.
1
Unions are either a legally valid construct, or they are not. The court can't have it both ways, that would defy legal logic. How could a company or government then be legally obligated to pay a non-contributor under the union contract? Isn't that the same legal argument? Without any contributions or ties to the union, that person should theoretically not be subjected to anything the union negotiates. They should be "free" by self declaration. Labor law needs reform and modernization to better protect employees. It also does need to treat employers and taxpayers fairly. The court would be overstepping its authority by selectively removing union protections it doesn't like. The laws enabling unions to exist are well established and court tested.
2
I could care less about private unions, but public unions are a different story.
There is no place for a public union period.
There is no place for a public union period.
4
What started out as protection for workers against their bosses' greed, reversed; now, money regulates everything and everyone and the whole country seems to have jumped into the boat where dog-eat-dog is the rule. Unions? They got greedy like everyone else and are now anathema in an unfettered capitalistic world; everything is measured by the dollar bill, and the worst crime, beside fettering the greed, is not having any money.
Human nature is at fault; it hinders as much as it tries to improve the lot of humanity. Who got us into this mess, in a land where the people were the government and were able to vote for representatives who were supposed to protect the voters' interests?
Unions? They were a quaint tool to protect against greed in more innocent days when fair play was the rule.
Human nature is at fault; it hinders as much as it tries to improve the lot of humanity. Who got us into this mess, in a land where the people were the government and were able to vote for representatives who were supposed to protect the voters' interests?
Unions? They were a quaint tool to protect against greed in more innocent days when fair play was the rule.
Unions are only strong when people want to join them. Coerced membership is not a sign of strength.
If unions want to be strong again, they need to offer value to members. Apparently the inability to make the case for membership coincides with union decline.
If unions want to be strong again, they need to offer value to members. Apparently the inability to make the case for membership coincides with union decline.
1
If unions had stuck to their original goals (increased benefits and wages for their workers and better working conditions) and remained transparent organizations, then I am sure the public would feel very differently about them. The problem is that a lot of public sector unions have become crony, opaque organizations. Lavish benefits and salaries are doled out to the people running the unions; money is wasted in numerous ways, including running political ads or supporting Democratic candidates. The cronyism comes in when those Democratic legislators reward these unions with even more generous benefits. Who is paying for these benefits? The average taxpayer through higher taxes, who is probably not in a union and already lives on a stretched budget. Is it any wonder that the average taxpayer resents unions?
Maybe the unions should take a hard look at themselves and realize where they failed and why that has led part of the public to turn against them.
Maybe the unions should take a hard look at themselves and realize where they failed and why that has led part of the public to turn against them.
3
To allow this "argument" as legitimate would mean that I can refuse to pay my taxes due to failing to convince some government agency of my need for a service after completing the process of asking for that service.
This is the essential basis of the article. This teacher did not get her way (she suggested that all teachers take a pay cut to avoid laying anyone off and was turned down) so now she is attacking the Union.
The problem with her idea is that it does not address the fundamental failure to fund the school system properly and if they were to accommodate her idea it would be a disincentive to the BOE to do anything about properly funding the system and it would lower the pay for all the teachers who did it permanently.
My dad told me this.
A young man was seeking his first job. He applied and the owner asked "How do I know you can do it?" The young man assured him he could. The owner said "OK I'll let you work at half pay $5 for a week and if you work out I'll pay you full boat." The young man agreed.
Two weeks later on pay day the young ma's paycheck is still at $5. He goes to the owner to fix the mistake and the owner says, "Why would I pay you $10 when I know you will do the work for $5?"
The whole situation and argument is a false setup not unlike the owner who refused to live up to the verbal agreement because he could.
This is the essential basis of the article. This teacher did not get her way (she suggested that all teachers take a pay cut to avoid laying anyone off and was turned down) so now she is attacking the Union.
The problem with her idea is that it does not address the fundamental failure to fund the school system properly and if they were to accommodate her idea it would be a disincentive to the BOE to do anything about properly funding the system and it would lower the pay for all the teachers who did it permanently.
My dad told me this.
A young man was seeking his first job. He applied and the owner asked "How do I know you can do it?" The young man assured him he could. The owner said "OK I'll let you work at half pay $5 for a week and if you work out I'll pay you full boat." The young man agreed.
Two weeks later on pay day the young ma's paycheck is still at $5. He goes to the owner to fix the mistake and the owner says, "Why would I pay you $10 when I know you will do the work for $5?"
The whole situation and argument is a false setup not unlike the owner who refused to live up to the verbal agreement because he could.
4
Not the same thing...the union, whether a public sector or private sector one, is not the government. You are legally required to pay taxes to the government regardless of your employment status, residence, etc., but dues to a union are levied solely based upon employment at a particular place in or a particular trade.
A funny story, but of course it could not be farther from the true situation. Business owners need workers who will do the job and will pay whatever is necessary to get the job done, unless doing so will put them out of business. [True, thanks to the Democrats and some Chamber of Commerce style Republicans, we have unlimited illegal immigration of people who will work for less than a reasonable, so wages are too low.] But in general a business owner does not want to train new hires every few weeks and will not insist on paying a wage that is less what the worker will be able to obtain somewhere else.
I disagree. BTW you have to pay dues when unemployed as well.
The woman who started this case had an idea the Union did not find as compelling as she felt they should and her reaction was to attack it. I suspect this was a set up on her part from the start. Millions of nasty anti worker and anti Union people join unions voluntarily & take the pay and benefits, as they seek ways like this phony case, to destroy it form within.
They are literally taking to the SCOTUS to a case that is based on the rejection of her very ignorant and naive idea. An idea that any Union person would see for the false path it is. My comparative stands, as it is just as ridiculous as is her case which is the point I am making.
The woman who started this case had an idea the Union did not find as compelling as she felt they should and her reaction was to attack it. I suspect this was a set up on her part from the start. Millions of nasty anti worker and anti Union people join unions voluntarily & take the pay and benefits, as they seek ways like this phony case, to destroy it form within.
They are literally taking to the SCOTUS to a case that is based on the rejection of her very ignorant and naive idea. An idea that any Union person would see for the false path it is. My comparative stands, as it is just as ridiculous as is her case which is the point I am making.
Unions are the best chance for ordinary working Americans to have a place at the table of power.
6
And as long as they can convince potential members of this they will have no trouble getting paying members.
1
An army is the best way to protect against foreign invasion. By your logic, we should make taxes to support the army voluntary. After all, the argument is a persuasive one!
As a current union member who struggles with my own union leaders 'poor choices' or efforts towards ends that do not align with my values, I understand some of the feelings of resentment of these union members. However, I also understand there are many benefits I receive as a member of a thriving union and balance this against the things I disagree with. I hope the union is allowed to let each of these individuals negotiate their own contracts and live with the consequences. I also hope that other union members surprise us all and recognize this for the political charade it is and stay on board.
4
I don't care if unions that benefit me are weakened. I don't care if regulations are repealed that protect me. I don't care if I am hurt and the rich are getting more and more. After all, I am a Republican.
3
No surprise that the US Supreme Court is leaning against the unions. The majority of this court are agents of big capital and the right. Never mind that they massage the rulings to try to justify their decisions with legalese.
Reagan and G.W. Bush , for once, knew what they was doing when the appointed the conservative majority.
The solution, I believe, is for the incoming president - Bernie Sanders I hope - to support legislation relieving unions of the obligation to represent the free loaders.
Don't want to pay dues? Then you are on your on.
Reagan and G.W. Bush , for once, knew what they was doing when the appointed the conservative majority.
The solution, I believe, is for the incoming president - Bernie Sanders I hope - to support legislation relieving unions of the obligation to represent the free loaders.
Don't want to pay dues? Then you are on your on.
2
Something feels coercive when union dues are compelled. Of even more concern is that the dominant culture in many unions tends to favor Democrat politics, so much so, that the union leadership has the potential to overwhelm the free speech rights of minority opinions in what the union chooses for its agenda.
There should be a middle ground where contract negotiation for core issues such as wages and benefits increases are enjoyed by those who contribute to unions. That has the risk of companies electing to hire folks who choose not to be union members, so as to pay lower wages. I.e., it is the unions's best interest to have the negotiated benefits apply to all. Let the sides negotiate, case by case.
If unions were required to strictly separate their political activities on things like curriculum and governmental electoral politics into political action committees, perhaps some middle ground could be negotiated. I think it is sad that this case comes to the SCOTUS: that implies that the two sides felt too empowered to compromise. I worry that unions will be further weakened at a time when pushing hourly wages up is a large social need.
There should be a middle ground where contract negotiation for core issues such as wages and benefits increases are enjoyed by those who contribute to unions. That has the risk of companies electing to hire folks who choose not to be union members, so as to pay lower wages. I.e., it is the unions's best interest to have the negotiated benefits apply to all. Let the sides negotiate, case by case.
If unions were required to strictly separate their political activities on things like curriculum and governmental electoral politics into political action committees, perhaps some middle ground could be negotiated. I think it is sad that this case comes to the SCOTUS: that implies that the two sides felt too empowered to compromise. I worry that unions will be further weakened at a time when pushing hourly wages up is a large social need.
The article doesn't mention that in many states it's illegal for public sector employees to strike and rightly so as shutting down public schools, police, sanitation, transportation and fire departments has a harmful effect on most communities, just look at Paris. In light of this, public sector unions must be given substantial authority to negotiate work pay and conditions.For this to happen it's imperative for all employees to contribute. Opting out of the benefits amounts to bringing in scabs.
3
As a free agent teacher, I grew up thinking unions were great..grew up in a union family, the ideals of a union were simple - work together to help reach other and yourself. Awesome! What could be better?!
Sadly, I have seen none of that. Instead I witnessed the union (which I left when I left the position) against me in favor of admin...union leadership used their power for building there resume for a future admin opening not for helping their own kind.
While I wish this wasn't the case, this experience has changed my mind now that I'm looking for a less corrupt environment....I wish I could actually negotiate my salary or move down the salary ladder to get a position. Talk about a double whammy...sad.
Sadly, I have seen none of that. Instead I witnessed the union (which I left when I left the position) against me in favor of admin...union leadership used their power for building there resume for a future admin opening not for helping their own kind.
While I wish this wasn't the case, this experience has changed my mind now that I'm looking for a less corrupt environment....I wish I could actually negotiate my salary or move down the salary ladder to get a position. Talk about a double whammy...sad.
1
I belonged to a school union for secretaries. I realized through my daily experience at the front desk, that the teacher's union was on the ball. I overheard several union presidents making deals with the principals before employee hearings were held. We had to pay dues or we would be reported to school administration and we could and would lose our jobs. It was assumed that all unions did a good job, but ours did not. A lawyer could come in to a hearing, but he/she could say nothing because we were forced to have union representation. At one point, a new emergency manager in our district asked that confidential letters be sent to him by all staff. It was promised that those letters would be kept confidential. He was not the enemy. A member wrote to the Emergency Manager about a situation in her office. One in which she tried unsuccessfully to get help from the union. At one of our union meetings, the President actually read that letter in front of our meeting. We were stunned. The letter had been downloaded to her phone from the Emergency Manager's office by a member. Those who do not want to pay dues, should be able to get out of the union without fear of losing their jobs. If unions are doing a good job and fairly representing their membership, members will remain. The money saved by not paying dues to a union that does not represent you, could be used toward retirement savings.
2
CA schools are ranked almost last nationwide so what kind of raise do these union members want?
5
The failure of unions across America is a direct result of wanting more from business ownership rather than working hand in had with them through good times and bad. The UAW had a huge part to play in the demise of Detroit, packing the contracts with unrealistic wage and benefit demands in the 60's, 70's and 80's. The reason for an 11% union membership rate is that unions don't have anything to offer their membership that isn't already mandated by the government. So the only way for the unions to regain their loss is to court lawmakers in hopes of crafting laws that demonstrate that unions really do matter.
1
This horse has left the barn and the middle class has suffered for it. We need an activist pro worker President like the two Roosevelts to restore some balance in this country.
5
FDR didn't believe in public sector unions.
We have killed the unions and we will pay the price for it. We deserve it.
2
There is a huge difference between a public sector union and a private sector union that the article seems to ignore.
Private sector unions have the workers on one side of the bargaining table and management on the other side. Both must compromise to avoid the company closing up shop or the worker's calling a strike.
For public sector unions, both the workers and the management sit on the same side of the bargaining table. No compromise is needed, as the unions elect the politicians, who promise them more pay and perks. There is no threat of the 'company' closing up shop and, even though it is illegal, the worker's still strike, if they do not get everything they want. (One example is the NYC MTA worker's strike, where they were asked to contribute something towards their 'free' lifetime health care plan.)
The public sector teacher's union is how the average teacher's pay in NYC is $80,000 a year and, after reaching the advanced age of 55 and working 25 years (called 55/25), the teacher's average annual pension is $60,000 ($5,000 a month), with a near free health care plan for life for them and their family. (That $60,000 a year is more than the average NYer makes, especially since it is not subject to the almost 10% NY taxes that the rest of us pay.)
Many people support *private* sector unions, but even FDR knew what would happen when government workers could hold us all hostage:
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
Private sector unions have the workers on one side of the bargaining table and management on the other side. Both must compromise to avoid the company closing up shop or the worker's calling a strike.
For public sector unions, both the workers and the management sit on the same side of the bargaining table. No compromise is needed, as the unions elect the politicians, who promise them more pay and perks. There is no threat of the 'company' closing up shop and, even though it is illegal, the worker's still strike, if they do not get everything they want. (One example is the NYC MTA worker's strike, where they were asked to contribute something towards their 'free' lifetime health care plan.)
The public sector teacher's union is how the average teacher's pay in NYC is $80,000 a year and, after reaching the advanced age of 55 and working 25 years (called 55/25), the teacher's average annual pension is $60,000 ($5,000 a month), with a near free health care plan for life for them and their family. (That $60,000 a year is more than the average NYer makes, especially since it is not subject to the almost 10% NY taxes that the rest of us pay.)
Many people support *private* sector unions, but even FDR knew what would happen when government workers could hold us all hostage:
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
7
While the First Amendment may protect the right of workers not to belong to the union that negotiates and protects their interest, it is only fair that they should conribute to the expenses of running that union.
In what universe can that be considered not fair? Of course, in a systematically pro-business universe. The lineup on the Supreme Court on this issue is precisely the lineup that gave us Citizens United. So is anyone surprised?
Given that the union negotiates for benefits everyone, members as well as non-members, then non-member shnould contribute, but only in proportion to the benefits the receive from the union's efforts. One way to do this is to set the non-members' contribution according to how long they have been working in that government sector...the longer they have benefitted, the more that should contribute, but up to a maximum of some fraction less than the full fee for members.
If I were a cop, teacher, or fireman, I wojuld consider this a fair arrangement. If I have been a teacher for 20 years, I would consider it fair that a teacher for only 5 years pay less.
In what universe can that be considered not fair? Of course, in a systematically pro-business universe. The lineup on the Supreme Court on this issue is precisely the lineup that gave us Citizens United. So is anyone surprised?
Given that the union negotiates for benefits everyone, members as well as non-members, then non-member shnould contribute, but only in proportion to the benefits the receive from the union's efforts. One way to do this is to set the non-members' contribution according to how long they have been working in that government sector...the longer they have benefitted, the more that should contribute, but up to a maximum of some fraction less than the full fee for members.
If I were a cop, teacher, or fireman, I wojuld consider this a fair arrangement. If I have been a teacher for 20 years, I would consider it fair that a teacher for only 5 years pay less.
1
To the post from a working man who is hostile to unions:
Your work life would have been infinitely worse than the boiling sun you mentioned had there been no labor rights movement in the early 20th century.
I defy any fairy tale teller to make a different case.
An unorganized working class, with none of the hard-won legal protections that are codified into labor and employment law is a throwback to an ugly era of worker exploitation that sparked the labor rights movement in the first place.
Ya get it?
To think that "kindly conservatives" want anything but to go backwards and serve their corporate masters is an example of extreme stupidity.
People are fed up with how many rights have been lost, how much the playing field has tilted to the wealthy and powerful and away from hard working average folks.
Unfortunately, many of these disaffected folks turn to people like Trump to wave a wand and make it better.
What nonsense. What a bunch of suckers.
The wand is you and your fellow American thinking clearly, organized for your interests and realizing there are powerful forces attempting to take as much as they can and leave you and your family smaller and smaller crumbs.
Stop siding with people who want to destroy you and your country.
Your work life would have been infinitely worse than the boiling sun you mentioned had there been no labor rights movement in the early 20th century.
I defy any fairy tale teller to make a different case.
An unorganized working class, with none of the hard-won legal protections that are codified into labor and employment law is a throwback to an ugly era of worker exploitation that sparked the labor rights movement in the first place.
Ya get it?
To think that "kindly conservatives" want anything but to go backwards and serve their corporate masters is an example of extreme stupidity.
People are fed up with how many rights have been lost, how much the playing field has tilted to the wealthy and powerful and away from hard working average folks.
Unfortunately, many of these disaffected folks turn to people like Trump to wave a wand and make it better.
What nonsense. What a bunch of suckers.
The wand is you and your fellow American thinking clearly, organized for your interests and realizing there are powerful forces attempting to take as much as they can and leave you and your family smaller and smaller crumbs.
Stop siding with people who want to destroy you and your country.
5
I don't think anyone is arguing that unions played an important role in the mid to late 20th century.
1
I don't know why the author spent his time touting the merits of unions, especially with regard to the public education system, rather than discussing the merits of the argument to overturn the 1977 decision that forces participation in them - namely, that due to their nature the collective bargaining they engage in is political, therefore cannot be separated from the other political activities they engage in.
2
If the Court ruling is what he probably favors, I doubt that Ted Cruz and others will call them 'lawless.' It's a theme that runs through the minds of Repub candidates for President. Indeed Rand Paul, who has been dropped from the 'adult' table at the debates, asserted that what the Supreme Court rules does not necessarily make it the law of the land. Well then what would even be the purpose of the Court?
Kahlenberg doth protest too much. While I'm a strong supporter of unions and the right to collectively bargain, Kahlenberg errs when he argues that unions need to compel dues to be strong. I run a statewide association that represents a financially-strapped political constituency. We cannot compel our members to pay us fees, but a very high proportion do so voluntarily because they know we work hard on their behalf and deliver tangible benefits. Some voluntary pay extra--even without our asking. My staff and I know we need to continually deliver tangible benefits to our dues-paying members for our organization to be viable. Yes, there are many "free riders" who don't pay dues, but our organization is stronger because our members have the choice and my staff and I know we cannot take our membership for granted. Ironically, when they have to earn their keep, public sector unions will be stronger too and the "conservative" justices will learn a tough lesson.
2
Ayn Rand ( the Conservative Goddess) never hesitated to collect social security as soon as she could.........Shame on these so called Conservatives, but worse are the feeble minded followers who can't see the forest from the trees......
5
Didn't she pay for her SS benefits?
It is astounding how the same people who vilify the NRA support organizations that are similarly out of touch with the times.Private sector unions had to weaken to make US companies more competitive.Public sector Unions,specifically the ones in Public Education, must weaken to make Americans more competitive.Tenure in high schools,for example,does nothing but lower teaching standards at a time when we needed to improve education and provide skills necessary for the global,technology enabled world we live in.Public sector Unions would be best advised to lie low and take what they can get.It would be both appropriate and timely if the Supreme Court concluded that free riders are "a cost of doing business" for the Unions.
2
I disagree. Corporations are making RECORD profits. Employees are making record low wages, low job security and low to no pensions.
1
I had to chuckle when I read Richard Kahlenberg's attempt to persuade us that "vibrant" unions help to make our democracy work. Vibrant public unions manipulate the democratic process to beat the fastest path to the public trough. Democracy is the big loser.
Take teachers' unions. Thanks to rationally apathetic and ignorant voters, they control the elections of school board members with whom they "negotiate" their pay and conditions. How corrupt is that?
Now Kahlenberg wants the Supreme Court to compel teachers who deplore this travesty of democracy to subsidize it.
In 1937, FDR clearly explained why public sector unions are undemocratic.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, .... It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."
More.
"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations."
"The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed ..., by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
Roosevelt strongly opposed strikes by unions representing government workers....
Take teachers' unions. Thanks to rationally apathetic and ignorant voters, they control the elections of school board members with whom they "negotiate" their pay and conditions. How corrupt is that?
Now Kahlenberg wants the Supreme Court to compel teachers who deplore this travesty of democracy to subsidize it.
In 1937, FDR clearly explained why public sector unions are undemocratic.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, .... It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."
More.
"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations."
"The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed ..., by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
Roosevelt strongly opposed strikes by unions representing government workers....
8
Whatever happened to Chief Justice Roberts' commitment to precedent and stare decisis?
Should American's now expect continued lurching from one ideology to another in Supreme Court decisions every time the make-up of the Court changes?
Should American's now expect continued lurching from one ideology to another in Supreme Court decisions every time the make-up of the Court changes?
2
"In the case before the Supreme Court, Rebecca Friedrichs, a dissident teacher in Southern California, argues that she should be able to accept the higher wages and benefits the union negotiates, but not help pay for the costs." Isn't she what the Republicans a taker? I just call her and her ilk freeloaders or sponges.
4
I live in Arizona. Arizona needs unions desperately!
6
Public unions are bleeding the taxpayer with little to no accountability. They buy support from a cast of elected liberals who could care less about the taxpayer.
5
Liberals are tax payers too!
The tragedy is that it will never dawn on that woman the debt she owes to all those teachers who preceded her and gave her the arena in which she could argue such a selfish point. The Republican Party would, no doubt, welcome her.
3
Plutocrats, oligarchs, closet fascists and anti-democracy radicals are awaiting this ruling, which will cement 40 years of middle class-withering wage stagnation, with heightened anticipation.
7
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Franklin Roosevelt, August, 1937
Franklin Roosevelt, August, 1937
6
I know that there are people that feel Unions are passe however this is a political issue. the Koch brothers and other billionaires shovel large amounts of cash into politics thanks to Citizens United. The very top of the income ladder wants to quite the Main Street voice by propaganda against Unions so they can have their way. It is very insidious and people need to stand strong with Unions or we will have workhouses and debtors prisons again.
5
The cost of the decline of union membership is not limited to wages and benefits; there is also a significant social cost. With powerless union representing only a small fraction of the working population, who speaks for ordinary working people? While we all can elect those who represent us in the different governments, who meets with those representatives between elections to pressure them to look out for our interests? Business interests are well represented, the working class is increasingly without an advocate. Voting every few years does not address the problem that a large portion of the population is becoming, de facto, disenfranchised.
3
That the Supreme Court was even willing to hear arguments on this case shows that they are looking to overturn a (unanimous) precedent, instead of "just calling balls and strikes," as John Roberts said in his confirmation hearing.
5
Public unions, coerced membership, and politician promising anything to get elected....this is a receipt for corruption and bad government. And that is what we have in many states.
"Move along, nothing to see here..."
"Move along, nothing to see here..."
6
Let people opt out of paying union dues, and at the same time let their employers negotiate with them separately from any union contract. Let's see how well that goes. Perhaps the "real" people backing all of this will make up the difference when these people lose pay and benefits!!
People who opt out of health insurance aren't then covered by insurers when they get sick. Why, then, should people who opt out of unions get the same benefits as members? When unions bargain for pay increases, those who choose not to belong and pay for the betterment of everyone, should not get the same benefits as those who pay. I've proudly belonged to unions my entire working life, in journalism and academia, and have always paid gladly and gratefully.
5
Plenty of people do just that, by opting to work in non-unionized environments. Which is probably why union membership has fallen so precipitously--people don't want to buy what they're selling.
2
Strong Unions don't result in a strong democracy. When large public sector unions are allowed to bankroll candidates and then demand payback after their candidates are elected, democracy suffers. The California Teachers Union put itself in this position. The union exclusively backs democratic candidates with progressive positions; often on issues that have nothing to do with education Why should an union member be forced to help bankroll campaigns in favor of open immigration, minimum wage, police reform. and gay rights. it doesn't matter if the unions position on these issues is correct; that isn't the point, members shouldn't be forced to pay dues to support those positions..
7
Of course they exclusively back Democrats. Why in the world would they support republicans, who want to get rid of them!
Why do you need to belong to a private organization in order to serve in government? This sounds fundamentally unfair and very much like a patronage system of old.
4
You are not compelled to belong.
But if that organization spends money on your behalf and gets you a raise or enhanced health or retirement benefits, shouldn't you be asked to pay some of the cost of securing those benefits?
Or should you be allowed to be a leach?
But if that organization spends money on your behalf and gets you a raise or enhanced health or retirement benefits, shouldn't you be asked to pay some of the cost of securing those benefits?
Or should you be allowed to be a leach?
1
The existence of functioning democratic institutions in any society depends on how inequality of power and wealth are handled. Even such a conservative document as the Federalist Papers faces this issue squarely, and has been celebrated for this realism.
The position of public employees is not somehow exempt from the power dynamics that exist in the rest of society. In public education, where the Friedrichs case originates, we have recently seen a massive push for so-called "reform," led by corporate leaders and a lot of money, which is now disrupting public schools without any genuine improvement in education.
In US society until about 1980, unions were the most important institution by which ordinary people would counter the power and wealthy of the few. Now the existence of unions in the US is in doubt.
Can another institution can take their place?
The position of public employees is not somehow exempt from the power dynamics that exist in the rest of society. In public education, where the Friedrichs case originates, we have recently seen a massive push for so-called "reform," led by corporate leaders and a lot of money, which is now disrupting public schools without any genuine improvement in education.
In US society until about 1980, unions were the most important institution by which ordinary people would counter the power and wealthy of the few. Now the existence of unions in the US is in doubt.
Can another institution can take their place?
4
PSUs are doomed to extinction. Teachers don't need a union to negotiate with their respective school districts. Who is going to steal their jobs?
PSUs have only them selves to blame for their demise. The charades of "fighting for the little guy" while funneling money (and votes) to democrats has contaminated the political process.
Teachers unions "endorsing" a political candidate and then "negotiating" with that candidate on contracts is self serving and duplicitous.
Ending PSUs= a break for taxpayers.
If you can lose your right to a firearm you can lose your right to collective bargaining.
PSUs have only them selves to blame for their demise. The charades of "fighting for the little guy" while funneling money (and votes) to democrats has contaminated the political process.
Teachers unions "endorsing" a political candidate and then "negotiating" with that candidate on contracts is self serving and duplicitous.
Ending PSUs= a break for taxpayers.
If you can lose your right to a firearm you can lose your right to collective bargaining.
4
"If you can lose your right to a firearm you can lose your right to collective bargaining."
Who's losing their right to a firearm, besides the mentally unstable and those on the no-fly list? In fact, there's been an influx of new legislation further relaxing gun restrictions. Not a fair or accurate comparison, because unlike gun ownership, which has been steadily increasing, collective bargaining has been in steady decline, thanks to those in Congress who accept large donations from the Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interests in return for their fervor against the American worker.
And for your information, teachers aren't in much of a position to negotiate squat. They're offered set wages, take it or leave it. If a state is having trouble finding enough teachers, they may consider increasing teacher pay. That's about it.
Who's losing their right to a firearm, besides the mentally unstable and those on the no-fly list? In fact, there's been an influx of new legislation further relaxing gun restrictions. Not a fair or accurate comparison, because unlike gun ownership, which has been steadily increasing, collective bargaining has been in steady decline, thanks to those in Congress who accept large donations from the Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interests in return for their fervor against the American worker.
And for your information, teachers aren't in much of a position to negotiate squat. They're offered set wages, take it or leave it. If a state is having trouble finding enough teachers, they may consider increasing teacher pay. That's about it.
1
It's always the same. The pro-union side always start out with the wage and benefit statements, but they can't stop themselves from boasting about their political activities, even if those activities are "pro public education". It doesn't stop there of course. Pretty soon the political stuff veers into environmentalism, pro-diversity blah blah blah. That's what the question is about.
Locally we have a teachers union chief who insists on inserting himself into local politics. I figure he's either misleading the pols about being willing to work with them about school policies, or he's misleading the teachers about working for their improved pay and conditions. That's what happens when unions get into politics and it's why this case is important.
Locally we have a teachers union chief who insists on inserting himself into local politics. I figure he's either misleading the pols about being willing to work with them about school policies, or he's misleading the teachers about working for their improved pay and conditions. That's what happens when unions get into politics and it's why this case is important.
3
Environmentalism and diversity are "blah, blah, blah?" That's truly enlightened.
1
The author captures the issues nicely: The radicalism of the Supreme Court overturning settled law, the importance of unions to increase salary and benefits, and to pull people together in a fractured society, and the willingness of people to free-ride on those benefits.
Union’s aren’t obsolete. They brought us the weekend. And as unions decline, more of us are working those weekends, too.
Union’s aren’t obsolete. They brought us the weekend. And as unions decline, more of us are working those weekends, too.
7
There is possibly some justification for unions in the private sector, but there is no justification for unions in the public sector. Remember, the whole purpose of any union is to do less work for more compensation. While this can be partially justified as a reallocation of the owner's profits there is a built-in constraint in the private sector. Even union members can understand if they ask for too much and the owner can't pass on such costs by increasing the price of his products then the entire organization will come crashing down.
With public unions there is no "pricing" or market constraint. Government can always raise taxes or incur debt. Consequently, there is no limit on the demands of public unions, which is what is happening all over the country. In Chicago, more than 50% of the public school system's operating budget is going to fund retirement expenses. In the next 10 years it will exceed 70%. Public unions will destroy the country.
With public unions there is no "pricing" or market constraint. Government can always raise taxes or incur debt. Consequently, there is no limit on the demands of public unions, which is what is happening all over the country. In Chicago, more than 50% of the public school system's operating budget is going to fund retirement expenses. In the next 10 years it will exceed 70%. Public unions will destroy the country.
6
Unions are monopolies, and just like how all monopolies go, at some point they provided products and services the market wanted but once they have control over the market they are more concerned with protecting themselves rather than protecting their customers. It is not relevant to bring up how unions have been historically instrumental in forwarding workers rights. Maybe workers actually think that unions are not looking out for them as well as they should. Not a radical thought!
3
As it currently stands, the law compels people in many industries (teachers, auto workers, municipal employees, etc . .) to pay for political support they may not agree with. This is far different from corporations - nearly all people have a choice of what corporation to work for or which stock to own.
As such the law states that if I want to be a teacher, money will be taken from me to support a specific political view.
People who are for 'right to work' are not anti-union. We are anti union monopoly. If unions really offer a better deal why would they need to force people that want to work in an industry to join. If unions offer a better deal, they should be able to get their members placed in employment while competing against non-union individuals in the market place.
As such the law states that if I want to be a teacher, money will be taken from me to support a specific political view.
People who are for 'right to work' are not anti-union. We are anti union monopoly. If unions really offer a better deal why would they need to force people that want to work in an industry to join. If unions offer a better deal, they should be able to get their members placed in employment while competing against non-union individuals in the market place.
2
There is a distinction between public worker and private worker unions. The problem seems to be that public sector unions have used their power to curry favor with largely Democratic politicians to increase their pay and power. The public can be left in a very difficult spot when teachers or other public unions strike. If the workers at a restaurant strike, I can eat at home. It is not so easy if the schools or the transportation system shuts down. This is the heart of the public employee union issue, their ability to bring coercive actions against the public. Unions can do many very good things that protect workers, particularly where workers do similar jobs. But, make no mistake, public employee unions have a lot of power and they will curry favor with the politicians who promise them the most. This is not a knock on them, it is what I would do in their shoes. But, the public can suffer because of their power.
5
It appears to me that this issue has already been decided once at the Supreme Court, so why is it back, aside from the fact that the court now is packed with right-wing zealots? Does this mean that Roe vs Wade will also make a come-back?
3
Based on that logic then the Court should never have heard or ruled in Brown versus Board of Education, for the doctrine of separate but equal had been decided long before. The world changes and 1977 and now are two distinct eras.
Then someday, hopefully, the idiotic Second Amendment decision can be overturned.
Mr. Kahlenberg's view of unions is, to put it kindly, overly rosy. As I tell my students: Corporations aren't bad. Bad corporations are bad. Unions aren't good. Good unions are good.
Here in Massachusetts, the Boston Carmen's Union has extracted extremely generous pay (see here: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Smart_Forms/News,_Events_and_Press_Rel... from the MBTA - or, more accurately, the residents the MBTA purports to serve. I see bus operator salaries of $70,000 a year - why?
Part of the reason we are incensed over fare hikes is that there is no evidence that MBTA workers' bloated salaries are being revisited as part of the MBTA's perennial financial restructuring. And we have the union to thank for that.
By the way, I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat.
Here in Massachusetts, the Boston Carmen's Union has extracted extremely generous pay (see here: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Smart_Forms/News,_Events_and_Press_Rel... from the MBTA - or, more accurately, the residents the MBTA purports to serve. I see bus operator salaries of $70,000 a year - why?
Part of the reason we are incensed over fare hikes is that there is no evidence that MBTA workers' bloated salaries are being revisited as part of the MBTA's perennial financial restructuring. And we have the union to thank for that.
By the way, I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat.
4
Mr. Kahlenberg is right on the money. Unfortunately, I have no faith whatsoever in the current Supreme Court's political bent. If they issue a decision authorizing free-loading as they seem likely to do it will significantly weaken public employee unions and ultimately damage the standard of living for all public employees, as well as the rest of us.
2
This column is predicated on the assumption that USAmericans want democracy. Well, they say they want it but frankly I am doubtful. Americans do not support democracy in the workplace, which is where most people spend about half of their waking hours. So it's fine to vote in political elections where the choices have been winnowed by corporate campaign funding, but upon arriving at work, people are expected to check their rights at the door. How very sad.
Actually, many successful democratic countries support labor unions. Germany, for one example. I do wish the USA could be so mature.
Actually, many successful democratic countries support labor unions. Germany, for one example. I do wish the USA could be so mature.
2
Bet you don't want Germany's GNP growth.
It goes up and down, as does any country's. So over the long run, it would be fine, esp. considering the strength of their corporations, unions, and the social safety net.
Over the long run? Not sure your wishes are consistent with some inconvenient facts.
So if unions lose in this case, perhaps their collective bargaining agreement should include better pay and benefits for union members only.
2
Would probably work in the private sector but odds are the government would be legally required to pay all workers in the same position (such as a teacher) the same across the board, for if they didn't they would be rightly accused of tacitly supporting a private venture over the rights of all the civil service employees to be treated equally.
1
"È finita la cuccagna!"
Upon ascending to becoming mayor of New York, Fiorella La Guardia stated those words.
I agree with Mr. La Guardia and would probably leave the protections in place. But let's be honest: unions don't support Republicans and have a quid pro quo with Democratic candidates. "Back me with money and manpower and you'll be looked upon favorably during contract time".
The argument that unions should look out for their members and support those whom are more likely to look upon them favorably is valid. But equally as valid is the claim by some union members that their dues is going to support things they have little say in holds weight also.
I'm a former union member and always viewed them with suspicion. I saw them as a necessary evil - a counter weight against man's inherent greed. But I wouldn't have wanted to be without them.
Upon ascending to becoming mayor of New York, Fiorella La Guardia stated those words.
I agree with Mr. La Guardia and would probably leave the protections in place. But let's be honest: unions don't support Republicans and have a quid pro quo with Democratic candidates. "Back me with money and manpower and you'll be looked upon favorably during contract time".
The argument that unions should look out for their members and support those whom are more likely to look upon them favorably is valid. But equally as valid is the claim by some union members that their dues is going to support things they have little say in holds weight also.
I'm a former union member and always viewed them with suspicion. I saw them as a necessary evil - a counter weight against man's inherent greed. But I wouldn't have wanted to be without them.
Take a look at the poor, primarily minority, children trapped in failing public schools that unions lackeys refuse to close or dismiss incompetent teachers and remind me how public teacher's unions are combating inequality.
4
Unionism, like Socialism, works better in theory than in practice. The proof of this is that Unions have been in a downward spiral for years. The places that were strongly associated with Labor Unions are typically the shrinking cities of the rust-belt. The booming cities of the West and South tend to be non-Union. Many States are facing financial straits and even bankruptcy because past politicians have promised the unions too much -in exchange for their votes- and now the bill is coming due, especially on over-generous pensions and there is no money to fund these long ago promises. That is a legacy of the union movement. Eventually you run out of other people's money.
2
Let's face it--Scotus is a political entity. Dems vote progressive and Repubs vote Republican line. The current Republican line supported by all those who would support the guy in the big house to curry favor is to return to the gilded age when there were no income taxes, no unions, monopolies, no social security for the aged, no medical care for the aged, infirm or poor unless they could pay private market rates, 80 hour work weeks, child labor, no minimum wage, no government agency ensuring safety in the work place, christian control of public life, quiet service by minorities, women at home taking care of their man...
2
This whole case is a ruse from start to finish.
Where did the plaintiffs, ten school teachers, find the resources to hire a legal team to get their case before the Supreme Court?
Those costs are at least hundreds of thousands of dollars. And these are people that don't want to pay a few hundred dollars in union dues?
Corporate America is the plaintiff. Corporate America wants to undermine the countermeasure that unions impose when unions support democratic candidates: the only candidates/politicians that support the preservation of unions.
The Justices are essentially deciding whether they want to eliminate the competition posed by unions to outright rule by corporate America and their Republican shills.
Where did the plaintiffs, ten school teachers, find the resources to hire a legal team to get their case before the Supreme Court?
Those costs are at least hundreds of thousands of dollars. And these are people that don't want to pay a few hundred dollars in union dues?
Corporate America is the plaintiff. Corporate America wants to undermine the countermeasure that unions impose when unions support democratic candidates: the only candidates/politicians that support the preservation of unions.
The Justices are essentially deciding whether they want to eliminate the competition posed by unions to outright rule by corporate America and their Republican shills.
2
Unions are essential to maintain the balance between those of us considered workers and the wealthy. Inequality persists and advances due to an imbalance in our ability to counter the fight against unions that I believe gained momentum with Raygun when he fired the Air controllers which then destroyed their union.
With that said: In the 60's my labor econ Professor stated that, at that time, Cesar Chavez was the only labor leader with an imagination. Today, to me, many of the labor leaders look and act like thugs, arrogant and uninspiring. It is true that unions can be abusive in exercising their power. I recall railroad workers, communications workers, and others who were guilty of featherbedding and forcing rigid work rules on members and employers. This drove up the cost of labor and sullied the unions reputations. Today's Teachers unions are guilty of similar inflexible rules that reek of too much power.
We need a new Cesar Chavez before it is too late.
With that said: In the 60's my labor econ Professor stated that, at that time, Cesar Chavez was the only labor leader with an imagination. Today, to me, many of the labor leaders look and act like thugs, arrogant and uninspiring. It is true that unions can be abusive in exercising their power. I recall railroad workers, communications workers, and others who were guilty of featherbedding and forcing rigid work rules on members and employers. This drove up the cost of labor and sullied the unions reputations. Today's Teachers unions are guilty of similar inflexible rules that reek of too much power.
We need a new Cesar Chavez before it is too late.
I am very much in favor of labor unions, specifically in order to combat the high-priced lobbying efforts of corporations and industry, as they sway Congress through their ;political contributions. At the same time, Big Labor needs to get smart, and educate workers, for the jobs of the future--not the past!
Labor needs to band with governments, educators and industry in order to determine what the jobs of tomorrow will be. Just graduating from high school and expecting to take-ova a job at the local plant just won't cut it anymore. Corporations certainly have the right to cut jobs as technological efficiencies change, diversifying away from one particular region of the country (such as automotive near Detroit) an, yes, overseas.
At the same time, Labor needs to convince all parties that Industry shouldn't be able to pick-and-choose the jobs they wish. It takes teamwork, from all elements of the equation. And hey, let's face it, certain industries have been sent to less-developed countries for centuries. Business shouldn't b e forced to support tasks, which cannot possibly support today's demands for higher pay scales.
Over the past several decades, America has transformed more from industrial; to the service industry. And now, that is morphing more and more into the digital industry. All parties need to work together to solve this problem.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.co
Labor needs to band with governments, educators and industry in order to determine what the jobs of tomorrow will be. Just graduating from high school and expecting to take-ova a job at the local plant just won't cut it anymore. Corporations certainly have the right to cut jobs as technological efficiencies change, diversifying away from one particular region of the country (such as automotive near Detroit) an, yes, overseas.
At the same time, Labor needs to convince all parties that Industry shouldn't be able to pick-and-choose the jobs they wish. It takes teamwork, from all elements of the equation. And hey, let's face it, certain industries have been sent to less-developed countries for centuries. Business shouldn't b e forced to support tasks, which cannot possibly support today's demands for higher pay scales.
Over the past several decades, America has transformed more from industrial; to the service industry. And now, that is morphing more and more into the digital industry. All parties need to work together to solve this problem.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.co
Unions support public education and that is good. Unfortunately, they seldom support quality public education and that is bad.
4
I share your judgment in principle with regard to the benefits of union membership and activity. These are benefits inherent to belonging to and being actively engaged in any intermediate or voluntary group--it's where we learn and exercise good citizenship. I do not share your judgment that public sector unions bestow these benefits, because, in principle, they involve a conflict of interest. They exist to pursue their own self interest, whether or not that interest conflicts with the interests of the public. Civil service regulations were created to provide basic protections to public employees. Such regulations should be sufficient protection and, if they are not, they should be revised. I take this position reluctantly. The problem is not the existence of public unions, but the decline of civil society generally and Ms. Friedrich's cynical law suit is an example of this decline, as much as is the existence and functioning of public sector unions--in short, the unions are themselves are symptoms, not the problem. Her law suit is addressing symptoms, not the problem. A Supreme Court decision that may be seen as conservative may in fact be more concerned with the problem. I don't identify myself as a conservative (even with a lower case "c"), but I haven't stopped listening.
Unions are a relic of the communist period, a promise of betterment by taking more, more, more from the person who invested and created a job for someone else. Their answer is to get a checkout person fifty cents more per year every few years and collecting dues from him or her over the years, instead of instilling the much more powerful characteristic of aspiration. Their mantra is that we live in a class-ruled society where they are the road to improvement. The instill the notion that we are not an opportunity society, despite the evidence everywhere around us and no more clearly than by the millions of immigrants who want to join us. That anyone who wants to teach school should have to be a part of their noxious, political, self-serving enterprise--no matter how important it is to the democratic party--should be a crime. I say this as someone who grew up working with his hands under a boiling sun.
2
To the post from a working man who is hostile to unions:
Your work life would have been infinitely worse than the boiling sun you mentioned had there been no labor rights movement in the early 20th century.
I defy any fairy tale teller to make a different case.
An unorganized working class, with none of the hard-won legal protections that are codified into labor and employment law is a throwback to an ugly era of worker exploitation that sparked the labor rights movement in the first place.
Ya get it?
To think that "kindly conservatives" want anything but to go backwards and serve their corporate masters is an example of extreme stupidity.
People are fed up with how many rights have been lost, how much the playing field has tilted to the wealthy and powerful and away from hard working average folks.
Unfortunately, many of these disaffected folks turn to people like Trump to wave a wand and make it better.
What nonsense. What a bunch of suckers.
The wand is you and your fellow American thinking clearly, organized for your interests and realizing there are powerful forces attempting to take as much as they can and leave you and your family smaller and smaller crumbs.
Stop siding with people who want to destroy you and your country.
Your work life would have been infinitely worse than the boiling sun you mentioned had there been no labor rights movement in the early 20th century.
I defy any fairy tale teller to make a different case.
An unorganized working class, with none of the hard-won legal protections that are codified into labor and employment law is a throwback to an ugly era of worker exploitation that sparked the labor rights movement in the first place.
Ya get it?
To think that "kindly conservatives" want anything but to go backwards and serve their corporate masters is an example of extreme stupidity.
People are fed up with how many rights have been lost, how much the playing field has tilted to the wealthy and powerful and away from hard working average folks.
Unfortunately, many of these disaffected folks turn to people like Trump to wave a wand and make it better.
What nonsense. What a bunch of suckers.
The wand is you and your fellow American thinking clearly, organized for your interests and realizing there are powerful forces attempting to take as much as they can and leave you and your family smaller and smaller crumbs.
Stop siding with people who want to destroy you and your country.
3
The narrow issue here, of course, concerns what is speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Recent decisions have focused heavily on if and when spending is free speech. And, to the extent it is, as held in Buckley v. Valeo in the 1970's, that conclusion has favored the wealthy -- most notably in Citizens United and possibly now in Friedrichs. The notion that spending is speech, however, is hardly a foregone conclusion. Money is clearly a means of funding speech. And the listeners hear all kinds of political views funded by that money, whether it be pro-billionaire or pro-union. But speech should not be judged by what the listener hears. It should be judged by what the speaker intends. And what the speaker intends is not to persuade by political means but to buy influence. It comes down to whether the big spender intends to persuade or to take action in order to drown out the opposition. Billionaires and labor unions aren't interested in political discourse. They are interested in getting their way. Their spending of millions is intended as action, not speech.
These vaunted unions are, of course, the same ones that idly watched state and local governments under fund their pensions. Now billions in deficit, these funds cannot make payments to retirees as promised. A crime of the century to be sure, but like most financial crimes no one get punished.
1
While the majority of the comments thus far posted extol unions in general, the case at hand affects only public sector unions. While the author calls them "a bright spot", their collusion with Democratic politicians over the decades have wrought the financial havoc that is our large cities,
FDR was against allowing public sector unions, a fact that should be sufficient reason to convince our liberal friends of the dangers they pose.
FDR was against allowing public sector unions, a fact that should be sufficient reason to convince our liberal friends of the dangers they pose.
4
No mention was made of the legal requirement that unions have to represent employees who refuse to join the union. This is one area where the law should be changed to allow these "rugged individualists" who don't need anybody speaking for them to be on their own entirely. Let these scabs negotiate their own health care, pension, etc, and good luck if their at-will employer decides to show them the door for no reason whatsoever.
5
“Strong unions, strong democracy, weakening labor increases inequality and instability.”
Although this is absolutely true, does anyone with brains really expect this right-wing, fascist court care about democracy and the rights of We The People?
From Benito Scalia down to the useless uncle Tom Clarence thy only care about the vultures.
Although this is absolutely true, does anyone with brains really expect this right-wing, fascist court care about democracy and the rights of We The People?
From Benito Scalia down to the useless uncle Tom Clarence thy only care about the vultures.
6
Can I get a refund of the portion of my taxes that go to red states?
5
So, the Supreme Court may continue to unravel the progressive achievements of this country from civil rights to labor rights, from first amendment rights to women's rights. So be it.
How will our Supreme Court and conservative state legislatures around the country deal with national general strikes. It may make the riots of the 60s look like peaceful demonstrations. Imagine, local and state police forces, firemen, road crews, teachers, social workers, women and minorities finally brought to the point of joining forces to address their grievances. I imagine a do nothing Congress, making laws quickly to insure peace and civil order.
How will our Supreme Court and conservative state legislatures around the country deal with national general strikes. It may make the riots of the 60s look like peaceful demonstrations. Imagine, local and state police forces, firemen, road crews, teachers, social workers, women and minorities finally brought to the point of joining forces to address their grievances. I imagine a do nothing Congress, making laws quickly to insure peace and civil order.
1
The argument against unions or regulation or any other counterbalance to corporate authority is that corporations will do "what is right" as an extension of the open market system. History, however, shows that largely viewed, corporations will not "do what is right" but rather what maximizes profits in the short term. There are examples stretching across days and decades and centuries as proof, which needn't be reviewed here. While we don't need gross excesses, we do need unions for situations in which corporations will otherwise not do "what is right" vis-à-vis their work force. Should teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc., all be left without the benefit of collective bargaining, I think you'll see the rapid privatization of those services which are essential to a free society. Then, the "conservatives" of today will really see their utopia bloom - private clusters will form wherein the rich maintain their roads, their education, their security, and the rest of us flail amongst the ever decaying remains of our great society.
2
Strong right of the courts to uphold the law of the land, Strong Democracy. We want a strong democracy, but many seem to only support the courts when they rule in our favor. Oh, the irony.
The US desperately needs a labor party. Sanders just may well have laid the foundation for one.
1
The legacy of George W. Bush lives on through his Supreme Court appointees.
2
The most misguided of the points here is the effect of a public sector union on local elections. By influencing the local electorate, unions practically choose who they have to negotiate against.
3
The legacy of the Bush's, four dogmatic conservative justices we are all stuck with.
1
I have always found it troubling that these unions have directed the majority of their members dues and efforts only to the Democratic party and we know that their membership is not 100% Democratic.
2
Unions like church membership take to big of a bite out of a workers paycheck. Great rhetoric and power point presentations won't change that.
1
What nonsense. The public employee unions have ruined the finances of many towns and cities in New York State. Demand after demand is made annually by these unions with the expectation that the tax payer can foot the bill. For years public employee unions in New York pumped thousands upon thousands of dollars into political campaigns and then routinely threatened retribution if the vote or contract did not go their way. The public employee unions have undermined democracy here in New York. Look at our state Assembly...
4
'..Reagan declared, “where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”' Only if the union is in Poland, certainly not if you are an American and a member of the air traffic control union PATCO.
I worked construction my whole life. I have a pension. There is only one way those two statements go together. Union.
I worked construction my whole life. I have a pension. There is only one way those two statements go together. Union.
4
Ethically, there is something very wrong and very disturbing about people who would sponge off their fellow workers and accept the benefits of a middle class life style that so many fought tooth and nail to achieve while withholding the funds needed to carry on that fight. Solidarity is a civic virtue while parasitic sponging is a moral vice.
4
The fundamental problem with your article is, you combine private unions with public unions. With public unions, bargaining is done with the politicians. When this happens, corruption ensues as there is no representation of the taxpayer who must bear the burden of these decisions. (government produces nothing..their monies come only from the taxpayer). Politicians make grandiose deals with Unions to buy their collective monies and votes. The promises they make are paid for by the taxpayer. The politician leaves office and the taxpayer is saddled forever with these debts. It is an unworkable scenario and has led to insurmountable debt burdens in every State. Democracy is strong and viable only when choice is fully available to all. REMEMBER the TAXPAYER.
1
The argument I always hear from union backers is how much value they bring to the worker through their negotiating and representation. If unions bring so much value, why is it necessary to create laws to force people to join them? Wouldnt people be naturally inclined to join. It is a bit like Communist China . . .if it is such a great place to be, why the need for the walls?
Right to work laws allow workers to decide if a union truly offers value or not.
Right to work laws allow workers to decide if a union truly offers value or not.
1
On the other hand, if life in a republic is so great, why is it necessary to make taxation compulsory?
1
There are many commenters who hate unions and blame unions for the demise of industry in the country. They also seem to feel that teachers are greedy miscreants who sit in classrooms in most districts in America and eat Bon Bons and watch soap operas while they children are ignored and left to their own devices. Unions did not cause the demise of industry in this country. Globalization did. Globalization creates greater profits for the 1%. If you believe that greedy employers will pay a "fair wage and benefits" to employees without the threat that their profits/productivity will stop unless they agree to sit at the table I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would be happy to sell you! Public education has as a subtext sexual repression. The majority of primary/secondary school teachers are female. For two thirds of the 20th century we expected college educated well trained females to teach our most valuable resource. Teachers made much less than a majority of factory workers! We don't mind paying highschool educated factory workers to produce cars that are designed for obsolesence after four years. However, our greatest assest, our children we begrudingly pay teachers that many people expect to do the job of teacher and parent. For the most "American exceptionalism" was and still is the 1% smoke and mirrors game on lazy people who want "middle class" standard of living without little to no upfront cost to themselves .
1
NOW people are worried about the Stability of Society.
1 of the defining characteristics of the Oligarchy is INSTABILITY-like American Society is becoming increasingly every day.
P.S why are corporations I own shares in allowed to use my money for politics?
1 of the defining characteristics of the Oligarchy is INSTABILITY-like American Society is becoming increasingly every day.
P.S why are corporations I own shares in allowed to use my money for politics?
2
So only union member employees should reap the benefits of the union's work, creating a two tier salary/wage system, similar to some auto plants, and the court's ruling should be applied to all unions, including police unions which are often exempted from deleterious policy changes.
3
Looks like the SCOTUS is preparing to drive yet another nail into the coffin of the middle class. Killing off labor unions because some don't want to pay their union dues is the definition of penny wise and pound foolish. Perhaps those erstwhile teachers in California should study up on the history of the American labor movement? Men and women fought and died so that we could enjoy the working conditions we do today. Remember the 7 day work week, child labor, no paid time off and owing your soul to the company store? The "job creators" would very much like to return us to the playing field we enjoyed in the 19th century. For those lacking historical perspective that means everything for them and nothing for us. So before we completely eradicate labor unions in this country we might just want to give that a second thought.
4
It's so typical of Justice Roberts to take the cowardly position that, and yet, another attack on the American public would not be disruptive, an unethical prevarication for a Supreme Court Justice since he knows full well that it would deal a lethal blow to collective bargaining in the public sector. Anything that weakens the power of the little guy, the average American, this conservative Supreme Court supports.
Let's be clear, labor unions have done a lot of great things for American workers, and today it's the American worker who is being squeezed to death, in part, due to the steep decline of union influence. Why would any American support another blow to average working Americans? Wealth disparity in the US is a real and serious problem. Labor unions are one of the best solutions to that problem.
We should be doing all we can to strengthen the voices of average Americans, not weaken them. Especially in this age of American plutocracy, where the wealthy and corporations are increasingly backing us into corners of underprivileged servitude.
Let's be clear, labor unions have done a lot of great things for American workers, and today it's the American worker who is being squeezed to death, in part, due to the steep decline of union influence. Why would any American support another blow to average working Americans? Wealth disparity in the US is a real and serious problem. Labor unions are one of the best solutions to that problem.
We should be doing all we can to strengthen the voices of average Americans, not weaken them. Especially in this age of American plutocracy, where the wealthy and corporations are increasingly backing us into corners of underprivileged servitude.
2
As an Educator, with three distinct job roles, working for one employer (no PTO, no vacation, and without permanent job status) I had the option, for the first time in my life this year, to join a Union. I never blinked once after the paper was put in front of me to join. I signed. I had finally reached 1,000 hours of temporary work.
We are all women in my office. All five are single and most are past forty years of age. Most all have one or two college degrees.
I cannot put together a network of people who will bargain with me to help ensure better work conditions when there is no one else in my workplace who feels they can "afford" to join a Union. The employer has little pressure to improve conditions.
The argument to households with two incomes, creating a living wage in one household, to join is weak and less compelling. This is the group that does not need further protection yet this is the group the Court would move to protect. When one of those incomes is already protected by a Union, a couple are already protected and can take larger risks.
There is already the incentive to create underemployed workers on a long term basis without living wages. Weaken the Union and it is the underemployed who will suffer a collapse of any, or all, bargaining power in an employment situation. Poverty is what will be strengthened.
Pass a living wage law or keep Unions strong. Employers cannot have their cake and eat it too.
We are all women in my office. All five are single and most are past forty years of age. Most all have one or two college degrees.
I cannot put together a network of people who will bargain with me to help ensure better work conditions when there is no one else in my workplace who feels they can "afford" to join a Union. The employer has little pressure to improve conditions.
The argument to households with two incomes, creating a living wage in one household, to join is weak and less compelling. This is the group that does not need further protection yet this is the group the Court would move to protect. When one of those incomes is already protected by a Union, a couple are already protected and can take larger risks.
There is already the incentive to create underemployed workers on a long term basis without living wages. Weaken the Union and it is the underemployed who will suffer a collapse of any, or all, bargaining power in an employment situation. Poverty is what will be strengthened.
Pass a living wage law or keep Unions strong. Employers cannot have their cake and eat it too.
1
Try as an individual negotiating with a fortune 500 company for better salary or benefits. You would get no where, but a union which has the collective power of many has some clout, (often not enough, remember furloughs) can get employees something. I don't understand why those that are not in unions, without pensions,low wages and virtually no job security would rather NONE of us get these, rather than work with unions so ALL employees get these?
4
The boss won't listen when one guy squawks,
But he's gotta listen when the union talks.
-- Pete Seeger, "Talkin' Union"
But he's gotta listen when the union talks.
-- Pete Seeger, "Talkin' Union"
1
Teachers unions aren't just supporters of the Democrat Party. Teachers unions ARE the Democrat Party, and their mandatory union dues finance the Democrat Party.
What this article, and all those who support it, are really saying is that any Republicans who want a teaching job in California must pay a percentage of their salary to the Democrat Party.
What this article, and all those who support it, are really saying is that any Republicans who want a teaching job in California must pay a percentage of their salary to the Democrat Party.
2
Strong labor unions like the Untied Federation of Teachers produced the following in White Plains: Average teacher salary: $110,000. Annual benefits per teacher: $50,000. Tenure, when achieved which requires an act of God to dismiss the offending or sub-performing teacher. And standardized test scores which rank below the median for all school districts in New York state, despite an average class size of 20 students.
1
In other words, they are doing their job.
" Union members also staff phone banks and canvass voters door to door,"
Staffing phone banks and canvassing voters door to door is the main reason many of us will be happy to see the unions reduced to poverty.
Their duty is to negotiate pay and benefits for their members. Were there more bipartisanship in these actions many of us would not have these feelings. What we see is an unpaid army of people advocating for one political party, a party that runs nearly all of the nation's cities and donates to the politicians that award them their contracts.
Stripping them of the power to subvert the political process will be the best part of this law suit.
Staffing phone banks and canvassing voters door to door is the main reason many of us will be happy to see the unions reduced to poverty.
Their duty is to negotiate pay and benefits for their members. Were there more bipartisanship in these actions many of us would not have these feelings. What we see is an unpaid army of people advocating for one political party, a party that runs nearly all of the nation's cities and donates to the politicians that award them their contracts.
Stripping them of the power to subvert the political process will be the best part of this law suit.
2
I wish I could see clearly through this swamp of conflicts. To stop moving like a yo yo, I need to go to to bring up ultimate goals. First, we need to make Police and Prison Guard unions illegal, because too often they protect bullies, scoundrels and criminals. Ideally, we would simply dismantle these unions, because they have played a part in crimes against humanity by overprotected police officers and prison guards. If necessary, I would weaken most unions, just to dismantle these two types, because crimes against humanity are not acceptable. These people are our guards and enforcers. Who guards the guards is a critical part of our safety, and should not be up to the guards themselves. The guardians of public safety require external oversight. Their unions are guilty over and over again of protecting their bullies and scoundrels from external oversight.
I might support the new restrictions under debate, because teacher unions are guilty of putting seniority over quality, their comfort over excellence in education. Since they have not acted in the public interest on such matters, they should be trimmed down till they wake up to the need to take care of their students, not just themselves.
I might support the new restrictions under debate, because teacher unions are guilty of putting seniority over quality, their comfort over excellence in education. Since they have not acted in the public interest on such matters, they should be trimmed down till they wake up to the need to take care of their students, not just themselves.
Life is struggle, readers. And if life is no struggle for you, then you won't understand the importance of unity.
The lampreys like Ms. Friedrichs, fevered desperate temps looking for a "permanent position", the employees resisting unionization " because my wages match that of union shops", the stooges who give personal services to the boss, socially aloof incompetents viewed as management material, and those who wear track shoes on the job in hopes of advancement will retard cohesion, production & efficiency of human beings until robots, non-organic or other wise are the only ones left.
Short- term profit rules for finance & management. Fight for dignity & humanity with strong unions.
Short- term profit rules for finance & management. Fight for dignity & humanity with strong unions.
1
For many years I worked for Westinghouse Corp. (Before the management destroyed the Company by becoming a bank during the junk bond era and deciding to lend their money out at high interest rates, rather than reinvest in manufacturing,) Although mine was a white collar sales engineering position, (and therefore non-union) every benefit I ever received from comprehensive very affordable health care, to three (yes three) continuing pension plans, contributory, non-contributory and profit sharing), to numerous paid holidays including the day after Thanksgiving, Good Friday, and up to six weeks vacation after 15 years, was the result of the collective bargaining of the unionized factory workers. It was unions that gave us a middle class, and it's the demise of unions that is erasing it and causing the income gap, militarism, and extremes of right and left. If you want your citizens to have a vested interest in the security and well being of the nation, you must give them the opportunity to gain that vested interest. Free market capitalism does not do that without the big fist of unions hanging over their head.
4
Given the near near-gilded age levels of wealth disparity in the country, this court has a moral imperative to uphold Abood. Should they do the wrong thing. let's hope it generates enough outrage to put Bernie in the White House.
1
"their fair share of fees provided by nonmembers"
A union's "fair share" of NONMEMBERS' money is ZERO.
A union's "fair share" of NONMEMBERS' money is ZERO.
Strong unions today mean corruption as they use their power to get things that are good for them no matter what they do to our economy or other people. Now if they provide value to their members without using force people would be happy to join them. They use questionable methods to be anointed, reduce competitiveness of industries, and have strikes that don't really pay off. Most are obsolete in our time.
1
Political grandstanding at the cost of the middle class is what makes this country destined to fail. When the middle class fails, so will this countries ability to prosper. Eventually, even the wealthy will see the failure. failure of society, all around them, will make this a country not worth fighting for, dying for, living in. Hillary is all about the grandstand. Bernie is so Mortimer Snerd-like that we will lose ground across the globe on the advances Obama made during his tenure.
A Republican President will be like the death blow, and their will be bloodshed. If you think the oligarchy can suppress the crazy right wing when their jobs are lost, they are starving and they refuse to do the jobs immigrants are doing, there will be blood. And it won't be poor people's blood.
A Republican President will be like the death blow, and their will be bloodshed. If you think the oligarchy can suppress the crazy right wing when their jobs are lost, they are starving and they refuse to do the jobs immigrants are doing, there will be blood. And it won't be poor people's blood.
Well Ms. Friedrichs ISN'T complaining about getting the same pay and benefits as the dues paying union teachers;she isn't in this suit demanding that the school district she works for gives less.In which case she may over the long run lose,if she wins this case ,it as a result growing numbers of union teachers quit the union and also decide not to pay any fee.There's a very good chance of that being the result if Ms. Friedrichs wins.
Regardless of what the radicals on the Supreme Court this article fails to be honest about the loss of support among the public for unions. It ignores the reactionary nature of teachers' unions. Who works harder to shield incompetent teachers than their unions. Similarly, anyone dealing regularly with those already protected by civil service rules realize what contempt they have for the citizens who are responsible for their pay.
Many of the commenters correctly point out some of the historic achievements of the labor movement while omitting three salient points.
First, most of those improvements took place decades ago. Once better working conditions and pay were gained the unions, in order to justify continued existence and dues, had to demand ever more from employers, more of everything. Sometimes that gets out of control. Many unions today are more focused on their own finances and one-party political aims than on the average worker. It self limits to a point in the private sector, for if a company goes belly up the union suffers too, not the case with public funds that adds to the deficit.
Secondly, those achievements were by private sector unions, not public. Public sector unions have done nothing remotely comparable for the working class. Instead they have burdened many states and municipalities with wages and benefits that are a drain on the public coffers with little to no recourse for the taxpayers, as deals are made between politicians and labor, both on one side of the negotiating table.
Finally, unions have no one to blame but themselves for much of their own decline. Members got tired of years of corruption, mob ties, theft of pension funds, union funded shenanigans by the leadership that wasted the hard won dues of the lowly workers, bullying of their own members, etc. It wasn't Reagan or conservatives that gave us Hoffa or the Teamster/Mafia ties or similar disgraceful conduct.
First, most of those improvements took place decades ago. Once better working conditions and pay were gained the unions, in order to justify continued existence and dues, had to demand ever more from employers, more of everything. Sometimes that gets out of control. Many unions today are more focused on their own finances and one-party political aims than on the average worker. It self limits to a point in the private sector, for if a company goes belly up the union suffers too, not the case with public funds that adds to the deficit.
Secondly, those achievements were by private sector unions, not public. Public sector unions have done nothing remotely comparable for the working class. Instead they have burdened many states and municipalities with wages and benefits that are a drain on the public coffers with little to no recourse for the taxpayers, as deals are made between politicians and labor, both on one side of the negotiating table.
Finally, unions have no one to blame but themselves for much of their own decline. Members got tired of years of corruption, mob ties, theft of pension funds, union funded shenanigans by the leadership that wasted the hard won dues of the lowly workers, bullying of their own members, etc. It wasn't Reagan or conservatives that gave us Hoffa or the Teamster/Mafia ties or similar disgraceful conduct.
1
The problem with unions is that their objects are at odds with the company who's workers they represent. One of the primary objects of unions is to protect bad workers. By doing so they weaken the organization the workers rely on for their livelihood and in some cases they act against the interests of the United States. It is nearly impossible to fire bad teachers. The result is that while we are number 2 in the world in spending per student we rank behind some third world countries with respect to test scores. It is shameful that this country allows that to happen.
All unions should look to Germany to see how unions can be a positive advocate for workers and strengthen the middle class.
All unions should look to Germany to see how unions can be a positive advocate for workers and strengthen the middle class.
A couple of points:
Forcing someone to join any organization and forcing them to pay for the privilege is unamerican and unconstitutional.
In every case I am aware of, when employees are given a free choice, union membership has plummeted. If unions were a good deal for employees, the benefits of membership would be obvious and membership would be increasing.
Unions serve as what Robert Putnam, a political scientist at Harvard, calls “schools for democracy.”
This is incredibly naive and shows the writer has never spent time in a union hall. As a member you are told what you vote will be and who you will vote for. Disagreeing too loudly gets you car keyed, and tires flattened. God help you and your family if you cross a picket line during a strike because you need to eat. I have worked with 5 unions during my career and seen this in each one.
Unions are dying because they have forgotten about their members. They are not about building people up they are about pulling everyone down to the lowest level. They are about money and power, for the officers. Ordinary members can lose everything during a long strike and meanwhile Mr. Trumka rides around DC in a limo. THIS is why union membership is below 10% nationwide, except for government. The sooner the current union movement dies off and is replaced by one that puts the interest of workers first, the better for all.
Forcing someone to join any organization and forcing them to pay for the privilege is unamerican and unconstitutional.
In every case I am aware of, when employees are given a free choice, union membership has plummeted. If unions were a good deal for employees, the benefits of membership would be obvious and membership would be increasing.
Unions serve as what Robert Putnam, a political scientist at Harvard, calls “schools for democracy.”
This is incredibly naive and shows the writer has never spent time in a union hall. As a member you are told what you vote will be and who you will vote for. Disagreeing too loudly gets you car keyed, and tires flattened. God help you and your family if you cross a picket line during a strike because you need to eat. I have worked with 5 unions during my career and seen this in each one.
Unions are dying because they have forgotten about their members. They are not about building people up they are about pulling everyone down to the lowest level. They are about money and power, for the officers. Ordinary members can lose everything during a long strike and meanwhile Mr. Trumka rides around DC in a limo. THIS is why union membership is below 10% nationwide, except for government. The sooner the current union movement dies off and is replaced by one that puts the interest of workers first, the better for all.
13
While public sector unions may be a "bright spot" in the remaining union firmament, they do not make for "strong democracy". First, please stop conflating public with private unions. The latter once did great things for the average worker and can proudly hold title to having pushed for many of the things we take for granted today. The same cannot be said for public unions who went into a work force that was already, in comparison, well paid, had good benefits and pensions, and had far more worker protection through civil service laws than private sector employees.
It is far from democratic when the taxpayers are squeezed out of financial and policy issues when public sector unions align with politicians in an often secretive quid pro quo "negotiation" process where, in exchange for political support and financing, the pols agree to union demands. Look at unions like those for corrections officers in California who so intimidate politicians that many needed reforms in a dire prison system are stifled and interfered with by the union and it's goals - not the publics'.
The people have a right to expect that their elected representatives will look after their interests first, not those of donors. We hear that all the time when it refers to "greedy interests" giving money to pols, but when it's teachers or cops giving the money suddenly it's okay (to some) for campaign money to sway public policy. Nonsense. It does not make for strong democracy as the headline says.
It is far from democratic when the taxpayers are squeezed out of financial and policy issues when public sector unions align with politicians in an often secretive quid pro quo "negotiation" process where, in exchange for political support and financing, the pols agree to union demands. Look at unions like those for corrections officers in California who so intimidate politicians that many needed reforms in a dire prison system are stifled and interfered with by the union and it's goals - not the publics'.
The people have a right to expect that their elected representatives will look after their interests first, not those of donors. We hear that all the time when it refers to "greedy interests" giving money to pols, but when it's teachers or cops giving the money suddenly it's okay (to some) for campaign money to sway public policy. Nonsense. It does not make for strong democracy as the headline says.
1
The unions that helped built America were private sector ones when the country's industrial base was the envy of the world. But comparing them to public sector unions is apples to oranges. If a private company becomes noncompetitive then the unions make concessions or the company fails or goes abroad. But public unions use their clout to try elect politicians who will serve their agenda. This has lead to it taking years to fire bad teachers in NYC. It has lead to municipalities having to raise taxes and cut current employees to feed excessive pensions of retires, many 50 or younger. It has also lead to half of states passing right to work laws. Public unions are inherently political. They are in fact one of the largest contributors to the Democratic party which is another reason that forced dues should be unconstitutional for employees who disagree with their political agenda. The government shouldn't be involved in forced collection of dues. The First Amendment issues far out way the other considerations. Federal employee unions can't require membership or fees but they survive, so if the unions can't make a case for their continued existence then they will. But the government isn't responsible for guaranteeing it.
2
Excellent column. If the SCOTUS rules against CO union fees, which are only fair, we will see all unions damaged, public education weakened, and the teaching profession seriously damaged. -- Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)
1
So the SCOTUS will decide if public support is required for the benefit of Unions.
Maybe we forgot some of the many benefits that Unions gave to America:
The end of child labor
Fair wages
Health care
Sick time
Fair accounting for actual hours worked
protection of employee health and life
A hour hour work week
Therefore, are we so stupid to destroy the benefits of Unions for the benefit of Corporations?
Maybe we forgot some of the many benefits that Unions gave to America:
The end of child labor
Fair wages
Health care
Sick time
Fair accounting for actual hours worked
protection of employee health and life
A hour hour work week
Therefore, are we so stupid to destroy the benefits of Unions for the benefit of Corporations?
Thanks for the view from the era of Dickens. Can you think of any benefits of a union that aren't provided by statute now, as all of yours above are? If not, it would seem that the unions have outlived their usefulness and serve only as a drag.
This woman, Rebecca Friedrichs, should be ashamed of herself. How does she think she got to the point where she makes a good salary - it was the union. Unions are the only way anybody gets a pension anymore. My husband was a union carpenter, worked long hours in extreme hot and cold weather, but now in his 60's has been able to retire and with a healthy pension we are able to glide through our golden years. This woman should sit down and see just how much money she will have to live on when she retires, without the benefits of a pension. It is a stark contrast. It's funny nobody in congress would give up their pensions, but the republicans have been trying to break the unions for decades. How hypocritical they are.
1
Yes, everyone knows that in America, the only way to earn a good salary and set yourself up for retirement is to join a union. That's why Bill Gates secretly wishes he could be a meter maid in Sacramento. Then he would have it made.
I live in France where contrary to popular belief unions are weak, divided and terribly ineffective. The main reason for this is the fact that there is no obligation to either pay dues or contribute to collective bargaining in either the private or public sector.
The result of this is a union leadership that is over-politicized, elitist and completely cut off from the grassroots. In order to garner support unions then resort to unnecessary strikes and a confrontational attitude towards management which has just led gridlock on most social issues.
The result in education has been that teachers in France are among the most poorly paid in the Western world with often horrid working conditions.
If this is the goal of the California plaignants it just shows their ignorance of how the world, the economy and democracy functions.
The result of this is a union leadership that is over-politicized, elitist and completely cut off from the grassroots. In order to garner support unions then resort to unnecessary strikes and a confrontational attitude towards management which has just led gridlock on most social issues.
The result in education has been that teachers in France are among the most poorly paid in the Western world with often horrid working conditions.
If this is the goal of the California plaignants it just shows their ignorance of how the world, the economy and democracy functions.
1
Without strong unions, a teaching career is simply not viable. Very few males find teaching a viable career path as is. On a bright note networks of home schooling communities are growing to meet the needs of serious students. It is always easier to create new institutions than to fix broken ones. Home schooling won't work for everyone, but down the road public schools won't work for anyone.
My father was a member of the IBOP (look it up in your Funk & Wagnalls). I remember my Mother making bologna sandwiches for him and his Union brothers on the picket line the few times they went on strike in my childhood. It wasn't a powerful Union, but when settlement was reached -- perhaps twenty or thirty cents an hour, phased over the life of the contract -- everyone one went back to work and felt vindicated. There were no scabs or gun thugs, unlike other strikes in my home state when the UMWA tried to secure pay, benefits and safe and decent conditions for its members. In my life, I have been a member of the USWA and AFGE at times in my working life. Although, I later became "management" I guess, I was always a Union Man in my heart. I'm not going to break into a rendition of "Brookside Strike", but it saddens and worries me. Like all pendulums, the power arc of Unions has swung away, in part because of their own abuses, but --and this potential decision is but a small step-- I fear we have moved toward a time when figures like Joe Hill, Mother Jones, and Cesar Chavez are but footnotes in an oligarchical history.
15
The pendulum CAN swing back.
1
When the trades were highly unionized most trades people made a middle-class living and did well. Without unions, those same trades now pay minimum wage or slightly better with no benefits. When I hear the Republican banter of breaking unions I know exactly who they are working for and who they are working against.
In every profession there are freeloaders. State and federal governments are the worst. Even without unions it takes an act of congress to get rid of a poor state or federal employee. However unions give common workers, most who are great employees, a living wage and add substantially to the tax base and money flow within a community.
Poor people make poor consumers. Republicans and corporations need to see the big picture and beyond the one employee that gives a hundred a bad name. Unions add greatly to the economy and help free up the money supply so it does not rest in one person's pocket and does nothing for the economy, middle-class workers, cash flow and the community. Further, in communities with unions, non-union workers also benefit from higher wages.
Unions, on the other hand, should protect their own integrity and actively work to remove poor employees and free loaders. They should have a vested interest in maintaining the health of the organization and the quality of the work-force, perhaps even more so than the corporation.
In every profession there are freeloaders. State and federal governments are the worst. Even without unions it takes an act of congress to get rid of a poor state or federal employee. However unions give common workers, most who are great employees, a living wage and add substantially to the tax base and money flow within a community.
Poor people make poor consumers. Republicans and corporations need to see the big picture and beyond the one employee that gives a hundred a bad name. Unions add greatly to the economy and help free up the money supply so it does not rest in one person's pocket and does nothing for the economy, middle-class workers, cash flow and the community. Further, in communities with unions, non-union workers also benefit from higher wages.
Unions, on the other hand, should protect their own integrity and actively work to remove poor employees and free loaders. They should have a vested interest in maintaining the health of the organization and the quality of the work-force, perhaps even more so than the corporation.
15
Freeloaders?
When corporations use the productivity of millions to enrich themselves, and pay off those we elect to represent us to fashion laws that further tip the balance of power to the top few---just who is a freeloader?
When corporations use the productivity of millions to enrich themselves, and pay off those we elect to represent us to fashion laws that further tip the balance of power to the top few---just who is a freeloader?
Self-policing is one of the weak points in Unions just like every other organization of people be it lawyers, doctors, engineers. That does not mean unions have to do a better job than they have and realize they will be held to a different standard than any of the other professions I listed. They will have as in the past take the blow and keep on going, it is the Union way.
How completely and truly ridiculous. Mr. Kahlenberg completely ignores the fact Federal workers are right to work, and things are just fine with them. Nor does he mention the 27 states where Union dues are not allowed to be extorted from workers.
I have to disagree with the content of the article as it applies specifically to unions and governments. Society is being held hostage at the public level for the level of changes necessary to compete in the world. Public Unions are not representing the people but only a small class of individuals with very strong self interest. Public schools are failing. Towns, cities and states are going bankrupt and structural change is required yet the unions hold on to promises that they received at the favor of the very people that they paid money to for support. Employees need protection but the current public union model is a failure and needs brought into the current age.
9
Your statement contains a lot of rhetoric and no substantiation.
Public schools are failing because politicians who know nothing about teaching are calling the shots, not because of the unions protecting teachers from the whim of their state's legislature.
There might be another way of looking at this. Rather than dragging down "privileged" public union members, why not encourage the same "privileges" through re-unionization of the private work force.
The GOP has often pointed out the dangers of "envy".
The GOP has often pointed out the dangers of "envy".
Some say that we need "paycheck protection" laws so unions do not use member monies in political activities.
By the same reasoning, we need "dividend protection" laws to ensure that corporations do not use shareholder entitled monies in political activities.
By the same reasoning, we need "dividend protection" laws to ensure that corporations do not use shareholder entitled monies in political activities.
Union members already have paycheck protection against paying for political activity!
We are witnessing the ultimate effects of weakened unions with the dramatic economic inequality that has arisen with capital extracting an unfair share of employee productivity. I have always been troubled by the fact that unions inevitably lead to reduced productivity and preservation of deadwood employees. The latter is most evident in teachers, where slugs can survive for their entire careers at the expense of students, but it is also evident in "blue flue" and other activities. However, I am concluding that for all of the faults of unions, the they are necessary for helping to maintain the balance between capital and labor. Because the "owners" side of the equation with public employees consist of elected officials, public unions are able to negotiate egregious work rules, bad-employee protections, and excessive benefits.
If Ms Friedrichs is so determined not to give any money to those with whom she disagrees politically I suppose she has vetted the stores and other businesses she patronizes to ensure she only shops at those who agree with her.
However, while she may be free to boycott stores for politically disagreeing with her, she cannot shoplift. She is not free to take their merchandise and services without paying for them.
This is precisely what she asks the Supreme Court to let her do. There is no rationale future generations will respect that will justify this.
However, while she may be free to boycott stores for politically disagreeing with her, she cannot shoplift. She is not free to take their merchandise and services without paying for them.
This is precisely what she asks the Supreme Court to let her do. There is no rationale future generations will respect that will justify this.
i disagree with the concept of strong unions, strong democracy. I'm for the right to collectively bargain, but not for government coercion of business to negotiate with them or forcing individuals to participate in any way. As often the case, when people cry out for freedom, they mean for themselves.
Unions are not schools for democracies. Bargaining power based on government coercion is not democratic. I have little personal experience with unions, being in one briefly in my first full time job at a warehouse in the 70s, before I really had much political education. However, even then I resented having to belong to any group. And, though I'm sure, like with everything, there are mostly good people involved and that unions do some good things, my own experience and from what I read today - democracy is not a big concern. No one should be required to participate.
Unions are not necessary. How could they be - only about 6-7% of the private workforce is union. Public unions dwarf them. :Last, though I was far from a Reaganite, using only the Polish example is misleading. He was then backing Polish people in the face of totalitarianism. He was a president of a union. I'm sure he was more for them than against, but he had a rule of reason, and when the FAA workers crossed it, he fired them.
Reason to me dictates that since people have the right to collective bargaining, they also have the right not to do so.
Unions are not schools for democracies. Bargaining power based on government coercion is not democratic. I have little personal experience with unions, being in one briefly in my first full time job at a warehouse in the 70s, before I really had much political education. However, even then I resented having to belong to any group. And, though I'm sure, like with everything, there are mostly good people involved and that unions do some good things, my own experience and from what I read today - democracy is not a big concern. No one should be required to participate.
Unions are not necessary. How could they be - only about 6-7% of the private workforce is union. Public unions dwarf them. :Last, though I was far from a Reaganite, using only the Polish example is misleading. He was then backing Polish people in the face of totalitarianism. He was a president of a union. I'm sure he was more for them than against, but he had a rule of reason, and when the FAA workers crossed it, he fired them.
Reason to me dictates that since people have the right to collective bargaining, they also have the right not to do so.
Same argument with the anti-vaccine crowd.
Vaccines have become so effective that some start to believe they're not necessary. To bolster the anti-vaxxers arguments they come up with all the perceived damages from vaccines.
Unions brought ALL our modern worker's benefits. This anti-union crowd wants us all to forget this.
Vaccines have become so effective that some start to believe they're not necessary. To bolster the anti-vaxxers arguments they come up with all the perceived damages from vaccines.
Unions brought ALL our modern worker's benefits. This anti-union crowd wants us all to forget this.
In other words, Jack, there is only one side to an argument, and if someone doesn't agree with you, they are delusional (or stupid, forgetful, arrogant, etc.) and therefore believe all delusional things? I get it. Hear it a lot. And I apologize for discussing the actual issue rather than trading insults, but --though the same people who supported labor unions also supported many labor laws (not always), the difference is when vaccines aren't used, the disease can come back. If unions go away, it is not going to generally applicable labor laws. Perhaps a better analogy is - Communism helped defeat fascism - but that doesn't mean we wanted them in Eastern Europe.
Unions gave us the 40 hour week. They protected us from arbitrary firing and guaranteed people a decent wage. They gave us decent, safe, working conditions. Do they overstep sometimes? Of course. But those issues can be negotiated. Do they support political causes? Yes, but union members can request a refund on that portion of their dues. If you don't want them to be politically active then we have to take away the power of corporations to be active as well.
The good that unions have done far exceeds the problems. If people are not required to pay dues than they also should not be eligible to receive the benefits of a negotiated contract. Let them negotiate for themselves and see how that works for them. Just look back to what it was like for workers in pre-union days. Given half a chance, corporations would love to return to the glory years of the robber barons.
The good that unions have done far exceeds the problems. If people are not required to pay dues than they also should not be eligible to receive the benefits of a negotiated contract. Let them negotiate for themselves and see how that works for them. Just look back to what it was like for workers in pre-union days. Given half a chance, corporations would love to return to the glory years of the robber barons.
3
Unions are the last barrier against total domination by the rich and powerful, and the irony is, here in this Country, a lot of the wealth comes from demand, from consumers consuming. To strangle people bargaining power, what the weakening of the unions does, it shrinks the pie, people have less to spend, basically we are killing the golden goose. All of us are affected, rich and poor, for the worse.
2
Republicans have been funneling the wealth of the US upwards to the 1%. Remember the "welfare queens" claim of the Ronald that he used to cut taxes on the wealthy again and again. The real welfare kings and queens are the rich. The republican agenda is to give even more tax breaks, entitlements really, to those who have already had their taxes reduced to below 20% and cripple anything that opposes this unending greed. This latest ploy has nothing to do with freedom of speech but has everything to do with killing unions and silencing the men and women who belong to them.
4
Two assumptions I see in the comments: 1) That unions actually represent the members. Some do, the CTA most assuredly does not. I'm a card carrying member because it's cheaper than being harassed and threatened. 2) That public employee unions are valuable to anyone.
2
One of the problems here is the public unions disregarding the negative effects of their rules, the bad PR they get, by protecting incompetent teachers, (rubber rooms), seniority rules where younger teachers who are more efficient than older workers just waiting for retirement, get let go first (happened to one of my children's teachers), to protecting their workers instead of the children they were hired to educate.
Then, when a financial crisis happens, when cities and towns fall way behind in funding retirement plans, when taxpayer are being effected, this lack of good PR leads to what's happening now.
Then, when a financial crisis happens, when cities and towns fall way behind in funding retirement plans, when taxpayer are being effected, this lack of good PR leads to what's happening now.
1
Aside from the fairly preposterous idea that this is a First Amendment issue at all, the problem with this case is the plaintiff's curious sense of entitlement to the benefits of collective bargaining without having contributed to it. In case the Court blunders into the wrong answer, the resulting mess could be fixed quite neatly by introducing the idea of two-tier labor agreements: one based on the results of collective bargaining (reserved for union members), and another, appropriately less desirable for those who fancy putting their faith in pure market dynamics. No good proponent of free markets would want to get something for nothing, right?
Somehow I think that union membership would come roaring right back.
Somehow I think that union membership would come roaring right back.
If union participation is 11%, doesn't that mean that 89% of workers have gone for the "less desirable" approach? Jesus, even the Red Sox didn't lose 89% of the time last year.
Unions were once an important civil check on concentration of power, but now unions are a power that need to be checked.
10 paragraphs about how unions are sunshine and then you close with " Unions aren’t faultless"? Let's address unions faults before we decry the need to protect unions. This case is explicitly about people not wanting to pay for the faults of a union - greedy and bloated leadership, partisan politics, and protection of incumbency at the expense of the young and a meritocracy.
How is it that the UAW can get $26/hr + $50/hr in benefits for OEM workers, but a UAW worker at a tier 2 plant working in worse conditions makes $12/hr and $10/hr in benefits? Two tier wages in the same plant to protect the benefits of existing members at the expense of young workers? What happened to equal pay for equal work? I seriously doubt unions provide any trickle down benefit to the broad middle-class. They spend more effort on protectionism and self preservation than eliminating gender wage inequality or raising the minimum wage.
10 paragraphs about how unions are sunshine and then you close with " Unions aren’t faultless"? Let's address unions faults before we decry the need to protect unions. This case is explicitly about people not wanting to pay for the faults of a union - greedy and bloated leadership, partisan politics, and protection of incumbency at the expense of the young and a meritocracy.
How is it that the UAW can get $26/hr + $50/hr in benefits for OEM workers, but a UAW worker at a tier 2 plant working in worse conditions makes $12/hr and $10/hr in benefits? Two tier wages in the same plant to protect the benefits of existing members at the expense of young workers? What happened to equal pay for equal work? I seriously doubt unions provide any trickle down benefit to the broad middle-class. They spend more effort on protectionism and self preservation than eliminating gender wage inequality or raising the minimum wage.
1
How can shareholders be forced to part with their money in a corporation to support politics they dont agree with (Citizens United) and teachers cannot? This disconnect shows the extreme activist politics of these five justices. They seem to have forgotten all about CU.
1
When we discuss the famous Federalist Essay No. 10--the "factions" one--we tend to think of factions as almost exclusive to the intense battles over slavery that resulted in the Civil War. Those sides were certainly "factions" that tore the republic apart.
But please read the essay in a more modern light. Madison/Hamilton warn of the power of these factions to disrupt or stop any progress, but then they write that the most common source of disruptive factions "...are the various and unequal distribution of property." The Founders knew that the fair distribution of property--skin in the game for everyone--was the best way to grow a healthy republic. And they further stated that there was no way to eliminate factions, but that if there was some equality of the strength of the factions, then they could fight it out on even terms and keep the republic on an even keel.
These principles are being flouted by corporate/property interests, and they have sought to limit throughout our history any countervailing force to their ability to concentrate wealth and power. Unions were and remain the only force available to workers to have their interests fairly represented, and during the period when Unions were strongest, ordinary people had the most fulfilling lives in our history.
Unions can be one of the modern tools by which the "various and unequal distribution of property" does not destroy the republic. Publius knew the power of unchecked factions to destroy. Do we?
But please read the essay in a more modern light. Madison/Hamilton warn of the power of these factions to disrupt or stop any progress, but then they write that the most common source of disruptive factions "...are the various and unequal distribution of property." The Founders knew that the fair distribution of property--skin in the game for everyone--was the best way to grow a healthy republic. And they further stated that there was no way to eliminate factions, but that if there was some equality of the strength of the factions, then they could fight it out on even terms and keep the republic on an even keel.
These principles are being flouted by corporate/property interests, and they have sought to limit throughout our history any countervailing force to their ability to concentrate wealth and power. Unions were and remain the only force available to workers to have their interests fairly represented, and during the period when Unions were strongest, ordinary people had the most fulfilling lives in our history.
Unions can be one of the modern tools by which the "various and unequal distribution of property" does not destroy the republic. Publius knew the power of unchecked factions to destroy. Do we?
1
Until the New York Times addresses the very real agency costs stemming from the fact that the public sector unions quite often elect the very people responsible for negotiating their benefits, whose principle goal is reelection, I will not agree that reducing public sector union power is a bad thing.
The teachers unions in NYC refused to negotiate with Mayor Bloomberg, because his term was up and their interests were not aligned. However, Mayor DeBlasio gave into even giving them back pay from when they didn't get raises during the period in which city revenue was down 20+% during the depth of the recession. Does that really sound fair?
The public sector is not a charity.
The teachers unions in NYC refused to negotiate with Mayor Bloomberg, because his term was up and their interests were not aligned. However, Mayor DeBlasio gave into even giving them back pay from when they didn't get raises during the period in which city revenue was down 20+% during the depth of the recession. Does that really sound fair?
The public sector is not a charity.
1
Actually respect for voting citizens and not special interests, lobbying groups, PACs, etc. is what keeps democracy strong. See the Constitution, "We the people".
Public sector unions should be abolished. Even FDR was against them. They hold the taxpayers of their districts for ransom and work hand in hand with politicians - usually democrats - in a circular feeding loop in which politicians pay unions tax payer funded benefits in return for union support again using public money. We can see the damage that unions have done to cities and sates across the US - Detroit, Chicago, California and yes NYC which has an ever increasing pension benefit burden. Unions may have some benefit in the private sector but even here are subject to abuse and damage - see the US auto industry.
2
Never happen. In fact unions will get stronger. Watch it all happen and weep.
1
Wasn't it Winston Churchill who made famous the saying, "“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried." A similar case may be said for unions, unions may be the worst form of enhancing worker's positions, barring all others that have been tried."
The evidence is clear that unions have helped to shape the United States in building the middle class and reducing inequality, often trading the immediate short term goals on an individual worker, through fees and dues, which reduce their immediate wages.
I recall when many companies moved from the unionized North, aka 'the Rust Belt' to the 'Sun Belt'. Afterall, the argument was why should the companies move to where labor was less expensive. As these companies move operations from the 'Sun Belt' to over seas locations, the out cry has been tremendous.
The one 'commodity' that should be expanding and growing throughout the work should be unions, the benefit to everyone would be substantial.
The evidence is clear that unions have helped to shape the United States in building the middle class and reducing inequality, often trading the immediate short term goals on an individual worker, through fees and dues, which reduce their immediate wages.
I recall when many companies moved from the unionized North, aka 'the Rust Belt' to the 'Sun Belt'. Afterall, the argument was why should the companies move to where labor was less expensive. As these companies move operations from the 'Sun Belt' to over seas locations, the out cry has been tremendous.
The one 'commodity' that should be expanding and growing throughout the work should be unions, the benefit to everyone would be substantial.
1
When I buy a gallon of gas, can I choose whether my money can be used for policial purposes by the company? When I buy a service, ca I choose to only pay the cost of the service and not the political activities of the service provider? So if workers use the services of a union to bargain for them, why should they not have to pay the full freight?
1
I am sure you will be told to patronize a business with which you agree. So why can't these teachers find non-union jobs? There are plenty out there at charter, private, and parochial schools. Yet Ms. Friedrichs and her friends chose to work at public schools. Has anyone asked them why?
2
Is it too much to ask that our government employees be compensated at market determine levels and based on merit? I live in a town with declining school population and the best teachers are being let go because they lack seniority. I have a huge problem with that.
2
Public sector unions should not participate in politics at all. It is inherently corrupt. They get mayors, city councils and governors elected and the negotiate their contracts with them. If you are a Democrat, the only justification for allowing this kind of political activity is that private sector unions are weak and you want the public sector union dollars in the political system to counter-balance corporate and other money. That is a very weak reason for allowing corruption. But if you are going to participate in that kind of realpolitik analysis at least be willing to argue that public sector union money is no more justified than corporate money in our political system.
1
Same then can be said about publicly held companies. There should be no distinction between unions and corporations which shareholders make up the ownership. Are these shareholders asked about their political affiliations? Should they be supporting the political donations of these corporations?
It works both ways, but your side is unwilling to discuss real fairness in political contributions.
It works both ways, but your side is unwilling to discuss real fairness in political contributions.
Public sector unions should not participate in politics at all. It is inherently corrupt.
===============
Exactly so
===============
Exactly so
My husband was the president of a large urban teacher local union. Before our state allowed fair share/agency fees that required non-members to pay a fair share of the union dues as a fee a full 30% on the union's resources were spent defending the contractual rights of NON-members who did not contribute a dime for those services. I suppose the Supreme Court justices...who see nothing wrong with the unearned profits of exploitative corporations... think this shameful level of morality and ethics ought to apply all across the board.
Any decision allowing free loaders to avoid paying for the services they themselves use and/or enjoy...they already are exempted from paying for all other services provided by teacher unions...should be accompanied by legislation allowing unions to act solely on behalf of its members and refuse services to non-members. But, with a Congress as reactionary as ours, that is not ever going to happen.
BTW, Professor Kahlenberg is absolutely right. Comparing student performance in states with strong teacher unions and those with weak or non-existent unions there is no question that the strong union states, i.e. Massachusetts and Minnesota have much better results no matter how they are determined than right to work states like Mississippi and Idaho.
Any decision allowing free loaders to avoid paying for the services they themselves use and/or enjoy...they already are exempted from paying for all other services provided by teacher unions...should be accompanied by legislation allowing unions to act solely on behalf of its members and refuse services to non-members. But, with a Congress as reactionary as ours, that is not ever going to happen.
BTW, Professor Kahlenberg is absolutely right. Comparing student performance in states with strong teacher unions and those with weak or non-existent unions there is no question that the strong union states, i.e. Massachusetts and Minnesota have much better results no matter how they are determined than right to work states like Mississippi and Idaho.
25
I notice you didn't pick Chicago or Los Angeles to use as examples of performance to demonstrate performance in areas with 'strong teacher unions'.
Mr. Kahlenberg, in this excellent column, pretty clearly shows that today's "conservatives" have strayed far from their traditional values, no longer support a vibrant democracy, are hostile to the middle class, and are much more comfortable working for a de facto oligarchy.
And while it's no news to many of us that Ronald Reagan was a hypocrite, it's satisfying to see it so clearly here. Reagan declared [In Poland], “where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.” Then back in the United States he busted the Air Traffic Controllers Union.
And, at the lowest, most personal level, this column demonstrates that today's "conservative" wants something for nothing. Just as Cliven Bundy is a deadbeat who would rather die than pay his legally mandated grazing fees, Rebecca Friedrichs wants all the benefits of union membership with none of the responsibility.
And while it's no news to many of us that Ronald Reagan was a hypocrite, it's satisfying to see it so clearly here. Reagan declared [In Poland], “where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.” Then back in the United States he busted the Air Traffic Controllers Union.
And, at the lowest, most personal level, this column demonstrates that today's "conservative" wants something for nothing. Just as Cliven Bundy is a deadbeat who would rather die than pay his legally mandated grazing fees, Rebecca Friedrichs wants all the benefits of union membership with none of the responsibility.
1
I see no conflict in what Ronald Reagan said in Poland and today's situation. This case, if it goes against the unions is not going to prevent them from collective bargaining. The Air Controllers failed to bargain in good faith and endangered the flying public. For that they were fired and replaced.
It doesn't pay to be intransigent in negotiations, Ever heard of compromise?
It doesn't pay to be intransigent in negotiations, Ever heard of compromise?
I believe the title should be, "No Unions, Strong Democracy". For too long parents have be held hostage by the Teachers Unions. Every school budget vote is, "If you vote no your child will not have any activities". All the while pensions and benefits which are unheard of in the private sector are increased.
Without a Teachers Union you will not see incompetent, out of date teachers in a classroom since they will have been fired years ago. And instead of always firing the ones without "tenure" teachers who don't perform are dismissed.
So I applaud the Supreme Court in taking on this venomous cabal and relegating them to the dustbin of history.
Without a Teachers Union you will not see incompetent, out of date teachers in a classroom since they will have been fired years ago. And instead of always firing the ones without "tenure" teachers who don't perform are dismissed.
So I applaud the Supreme Court in taking on this venomous cabal and relegating them to the dustbin of history.
1
Those individuals who have brought a lawsuit against paying union dues are another example of individuals who are voting against their own self interest. And these are supposedly educated people! It seems they do not wish to have the protection of a union against unfair labor practices or ensuring that their wages are fair and allow them to make a livable wage. Also I'm certain they are willing to accept the wage increases negotiated by the unions without having to contribute to the fight. The individuals also seem to reject the data that has shown that as union numbers have decreased so has the size of the middle class. Unions are vital in checking the excesses of companies and governments who do respect the hard wok and sacrifices that are made to provide goods and services to the economy.
1
Unions have done much good. True. Unions have gotten top wages in many industries. True. Unions dealing with management over a share of the proceeds from providing products in a competitive market... are a mixed bag. Unions in government jobs are ....powerful influences on all public policy.
In competitive markets Union wages and benefits have led many employers to shift their production enterprises into labor markets where labor cost are much lower. Why? Resistance to modifying wages and benefits.
In governments the Unions spend time, money, human resources to elect politicians who will more easily yield to their demands. They have been enormously successful in getting public employee wages and benefits much higher on average than private employment. They enjoy outsized influence on public policy. Politicians on one side of the bargaining table and public unions on the other side: the Public, kept outside and paying. Even FDR and George Meany knew that public unions had the potential power to corrupt government and would not work. So it has come to pass: we are in a pickle with all of the promises and fewer ways to pay for this fruit of labor and politicians efforts, working together on the same team.
In competitive markets Union wages and benefits have led many employers to shift their production enterprises into labor markets where labor cost are much lower. Why? Resistance to modifying wages and benefits.
In governments the Unions spend time, money, human resources to elect politicians who will more easily yield to their demands. They have been enormously successful in getting public employee wages and benefits much higher on average than private employment. They enjoy outsized influence on public policy. Politicians on one side of the bargaining table and public unions on the other side: the Public, kept outside and paying. Even FDR and George Meany knew that public unions had the potential power to corrupt government and would not work. So it has come to pass: we are in a pickle with all of the promises and fewer ways to pay for this fruit of labor and politicians efforts, working together on the same team.
1
Public sector Unions are not negotiating in good faith. They are using political muscle to get an edge in negotiations.
A Union worker in the private sector needs the company to thrive to continue to get their wages and benefits. Public sector Unions have been working in tandem with elected officials to kick the economic can down the road to the next elected official. Using their political muscle is not good faith negotiations and should be illegal.
Everyone recognizes that money is corrupting our government but when it comes to public sector Unions the NY Times views them as the anti Koch Brothers instead of what the really are. Another side of the same coin.
A Union worker in the private sector needs the company to thrive to continue to get their wages and benefits. Public sector Unions have been working in tandem with elected officials to kick the economic can down the road to the next elected official. Using their political muscle is not good faith negotiations and should be illegal.
Everyone recognizes that money is corrupting our government but when it comes to public sector Unions the NY Times views them as the anti Koch Brothers instead of what the really are. Another side of the same coin.
1
Could any union stay out of politics? Of course not. That is why the dues issue matters. A possible way to bring balance would be to let members control what political speech takes place. Yes, that means divorce the union's ability to spend a dime of dues money for any political activity What they could do is set up Political Action Committees out side the funding from dues. Then, any member could then do volunteer donations to these PAC's, you could have a separate one for every issue. Most estimate that if the latter approach was done, the actual dues amounts would be reduce by 30%. Unions could still do politics, but only from volunteer PAC's. Do you think union members would contribute to these PAC's? The estimate is that only about 10% of members would do so.
Why should companies be free to spend essentially unlimited amount of money on politics without the approval of shareholders, or, indeed, their workers? Unions must not only get approval from the majority of workers, they must get approval from each individual worker before they can spend a penny of his dues on politics.
How is this fair?
Why is education better in states and countries where unions are strong?
Why was inequality high in periods like the 1920's and today when unions were/are weak and low after WWII when unions were strong?
Why should a worker benefit from union activities like higher wages, safer working conditions, etc. without paying for the collective bargaining that gave rise to these benefits?
Since their livelihood depends on a company's performance, why shouldn't workers has a voice on the company's Board of Directors as they do in Germany?
How is this fair?
Why is education better in states and countries where unions are strong?
Why was inequality high in periods like the 1920's and today when unions were/are weak and low after WWII when unions were strong?
Why should a worker benefit from union activities like higher wages, safer working conditions, etc. without paying for the collective bargaining that gave rise to these benefits?
Since their livelihood depends on a company's performance, why shouldn't workers has a voice on the company's Board of Directors as they do in Germany?
2
At a non-union company, each employee is responsible for negotiating what they get paid & what benefits they receive. Force these freeloaders to go thru that.
1
I read these comments about big bad teacher unions. I was a member of a very large teacher union and it enabled me to earn a middle class living for 30 years. I retired in 2005 with a final salary of $62,000 and a pension that is currently at $32,000. It helped make sure that I received good medical insurance and one that continues to this day. Compare that to a friend who taught in a parochial school. Why he just "retired" because he was getting too old. No pension and no health insurance. In my school principals ruled the roost. They came into your classroom and observed you and wrote everything up. The first two years they could fire you at will. After tenure, they had to follow strict guidelines that enabled you to defend yourself and not be strictly at the mercy of a vindictive principal. Conservatives want to do away with public unions because our pensions point out about the big lie of 401K plans. When we go on vacation we don't worry like many Americans about whether someone will replace us while gone. We get sick days and maternal leave, etc. So unAmerican. So unlike Paul Ryan's vision for America.
2
I have a bad feeling that this will turn out to be a case of "be careful what you ask for."
I don't agree that giving up your right of free speech can be good for Democracy but even it is true it doesn't matter since we are guided by the Constitution. If you don't agree with the Constitution, then you need to change it.
1
When the federal judiciary is done trashing governance, not even co-op boards will be able to collect maintenance fees.
2
The teachers who do not wish to join the unions, or who may be philosophically against unions, should not be coerced to support them. Let the unions lobby for state laws that say teachers who are not in the unions cannot receive the benefits acquired by the unions. If it is difficult to say what those benefits actually are, then perhaps the unions should not get so much credit for them.
At least 4 of the Republican appointed members of the Supreme Court were placed there specifically to weaken and dismember progressive groups and enhance the position of conservative and reactionary interests. This has nothing to do with Constitutional law or any form of justice. Roberts, Scalia, Alitto and Thomas are not jurists. They are political hacks and they are destroying this country for the benefit of the very few Americans who have made it to the top of the economic heap hered.
1
Public sector unions are an abomination that should never have been allowed.
FDR refused to allow public sector unions because he saw the connection between union wages and benefits and politics.
Think about our wonderful union leaders, Jimmy Hoffa, Jackie presser and all the rest. Gangsters is what they are.
FDR refused to allow public sector unions because he saw the connection between union wages and benefits and politics.
Think about our wonderful union leaders, Jimmy Hoffa, Jackie presser and all the rest. Gangsters is what they are.
2
Right-wing tripe that FDR was against worker's rights. How can a president who championed the American worker with the Social Security program, WPA initiatives and the complete willingness to take on the corporate structures that brought America into the Depression.
FDR's statements require a careful , scholar's approach to fully understand.
This lie that FDR was against worker's rights emanate from a Scott Walker speech in 2013. Why should we expect any different result from a college dropout?
FDR's statements require a careful , scholar's approach to fully understand.
This lie that FDR was against worker's rights emanate from a Scott Walker speech in 2013. Why should we expect any different result from a college dropout?
You misunderstand, perhaps deliberately. FDR was not against unions in the private sector only in the public sphere. He understood what we all have now seen. The unions "negotiate" with politicians in the various states. Large chunks of union money go to the politicians for campaign contributions if they give the unions what they want. That isn't a negotiation. It's a circle jerk.
Now we have public sector pensions and benefits that no one could ever in a million years pay for. FRD knew that would be how it would end up.
Now we have public sector pensions and benefits that no one could ever in a million years pay for. FRD knew that would be how it would end up.
I simply don't know what the fuss and feathers is all about. It's simple: Us against Them. I'm not really crazy about either Us (for me the bottom 80% or so) or Them ( the remainder) but to have a balance, not a 'compromise',
between the two so that there there is neither the anarchy of the mob, nor the oppression of the few. For that we need strong unions. The rich can take care of their own interests and always have.
between the two so that there there is neither the anarchy of the mob, nor the oppression of the few. For that we need strong unions. The rich can take care of their own interests and always have.
4
What relationship in our economy is more inherently corrupt than that between public sector unions and the politicians that are responsible for paying them. It is a given in our society that public workers are not as efficient or productive as their private sector counterparts and in some cases that is an acceptable trade off given the necessity and public value of some of the functions they perform. At the same time we should severely limit the size of our public workforce due to this very same lack of productivity and need to carefully monitor the relationship between the workers, unions and those who pay them on the back of current and future taxpayers. Where is the accountability in this system. Liberals love to decry the money in politics and in the case of public unions not only is there money but the promise of votes as a quid pro quo. Forcing people to pay for this in return for their jobs is blatantly unconstitutional.
8
"It is a given in our society that public workers are not as efficient or productive as their private sector counterparts..."
This is a "given" to you because it is an article of faith impervious to evidence. Examples of inefficiency, low productivity, and corruption in the private sector are too numerous to list. And examples of efficiency, productivity, and societal benefit in the public sector abound.
This is a "given" to you because it is an article of faith impervious to evidence. Examples of inefficiency, low productivity, and corruption in the private sector are too numerous to list. And examples of efficiency, productivity, and societal benefit in the public sector abound.
1
"What relationship in our economy is more inherently corrupt than that between public sector unions and the politicians that are responsible for paying them."
1) The Koch Brothers creation and support of ALEC, a private, non-government organization engaged in writing legislation and then conducting vigorous, well-monied lobbying campaigns to get their way. (Once upon a time, elected officials were drafters of legislation. Now that they spend 2/3 of their time in the black room raising money.........no time for governing.)
2) The "revolving-door" syndrome. Elected officials leave Washington, sign on as lobbyists for industrial interests and work their govt. contacts specifically for the benefit of special interests. This plays out in the following arenas: arms manufacture, Wall St., industrial agriculture, industrial food production, "health insurance", tech industry, fossil fuel industry...........not much point in continuing this list because EVERY industry plays this game.
3) The prison industrial complex, best illustrated by the PA judge who funneled youthful offenders into private prisons for profit.
I will admit--public union money can buy influence. However, the total dollar amount is a tiny fraction of the influence bought by the super-wealthy and is useful as a "corrective", albeit relatively insignificant, to the unprecedented (Supreme Court sanctioned) influence of the rentier class.
1) The Koch Brothers creation and support of ALEC, a private, non-government organization engaged in writing legislation and then conducting vigorous, well-monied lobbying campaigns to get their way. (Once upon a time, elected officials were drafters of legislation. Now that they spend 2/3 of their time in the black room raising money.........no time for governing.)
2) The "revolving-door" syndrome. Elected officials leave Washington, sign on as lobbyists for industrial interests and work their govt. contacts specifically for the benefit of special interests. This plays out in the following arenas: arms manufacture, Wall St., industrial agriculture, industrial food production, "health insurance", tech industry, fossil fuel industry...........not much point in continuing this list because EVERY industry plays this game.
3) The prison industrial complex, best illustrated by the PA judge who funneled youthful offenders into private prisons for profit.
I will admit--public union money can buy influence. However, the total dollar amount is a tiny fraction of the influence bought by the super-wealthy and is useful as a "corrective", albeit relatively insignificant, to the unprecedented (Supreme Court sanctioned) influence of the rentier class.
1
Our Constitutional democracy rests on the tripartite division of powers between the executive, legislative and legal branches of government for a true "balance of power." Our democratic society has thrived under a similar tripartite balance of power between business, government, and labor. The right to have strong unions has been fundamental to our prosperity and to handling social unrest from political forces like communism which only thrives when workers are suppressed. Since the Reagan Administration labor has been under unrelenting attack starting with the disbanding of air traffic controllers union (PATCO). When we look back at the wage stagnation currently affecting most workers, it stems from that seminal event and time. When unions are weak, the social balance of power is upset and the very social fabric of democracy begins to fray. If the Supreme Court rules, as many predict, against public unions ability to have dues and union fess collected by the government, it will further the demise of unions and inevitably lead to the type of social unrest and turmoil experienced in America in the era of the "robber barons" in the late 19th and early 20th century.
21
"Social unrest and turmoil" - what a marvelous phrase for sowing the wind and reaping a tornado.
Of course, PATCO was destroyed by its own hubris (typical of "public service" unions), believing it was above the law and could strike without consequences. Fortunately, a Republican President (and former union president!) with some courage was willing to call their bluff. Can you imagine a Democrat doing that? Of course not. Democrats don't represent taxpayers; they represent unions, welfare takers and other special interest groups. [This is not a defense of country-club Republicans, who support illegal immigration as a way to keep wages low and tax breaks as a way for the very rich to avoid paying their fair share. If you are a taxpayer, paying federal income tax, the only party concerned about your tax burden is the Tea Party.]
The party of, by and for the disgruntled have set themselves up brilliantly here, ironically using union spending on political activities as a cloak to take another stab at the power of the people. This is not the case of injustice that America is clamoring for, yet the conservative battleship carries on, leaving , among other things, respect for teachers in its wake. It's hard enough to convince America's brightest to enter this noble profession these days, and with this agenda item to have wormed its way into SCOTUS , educators must again apologize for claiming a decent wage and working conditions. The formula works for the likes of Christie and Walker whose lack of vision and public service speaks for itself, but the needs of the children in public education fall by the wayside.
22
Get a clue, folks. The 700 richest families in the US are a collective bargaining juggernaut.
2
The headline should really be "Strong Unions, Strong Democrats." The incestuous relationship between the teachers' unions and the Democratic party is problematic to democracy. The unions support Democrats for election, and once elected, the Democrats support the unions' goals. Taxpayers and students are the ultimate losers.
Unions can only survive where they have a monopoly (government) or a lack of competition (the US economy in the 1950's before Japan and Europe were rebuilt following WWII.) Workers benefit most when the economy is growing robustly, and unions do more to prevent than support economic growth.
Unions can only survive where they have a monopoly (government) or a lack of competition (the US economy in the 1950's before Japan and Europe were rebuilt following WWII.) Workers benefit most when the economy is growing robustly, and unions do more to prevent than support economic growth.
4
Timely article. Unless you are a crazy loon, not supporting Unions makes no sense. Unions fought for the decent wages we see nowadays, and take for granted, making inequality a bit less unequal. The individual trying to remain a free rider by slamming the virtues of a, by force, imperfect union, is harming the greater good for a provincial search for the perfect deal, utopia indeed, and fool's paradise.
The notion of having to pay dues to a union you disagree with in order to have the privilege to teach at a public school is nonsensical. I truly understand the argument that a non-paying member might benefit somehow from union negotiations in some ways. However, if you disagree with the union's politics (and let's face it - they're heavily biased) but, more importantly , the negotiation of salaries and job status based on tenure more than on ability is offensive to many and one shouldn't be forced to perpetuate this.
I know many will try to portray this somehow as a 1% conspiracy but I work in the teaching community and there are many teachers who do not support or agree with the negotiations the union supposedly does on their behalf and they don't want to pay for it - no one should force them to in order to keep their job.
I know many will try to portray this somehow as a 1% conspiracy but I work in the teaching community and there are many teachers who do not support or agree with the negotiations the union supposedly does on their behalf and they don't want to pay for it - no one should force them to in order to keep their job.
18
This IS a 1% conspiracy. Nobody has to pay dues to a union if they don't want to. They simply have to pay a reasonable fee for services they receive (at least, they do if they live in a state that hasn't already legalized theft with a "Right to Work" law).
1
As a union member, you can join the leadership and affect the negotiations. If there are others teachers at your school who agree that ability and not tenure should be what matters, and can come to a consensus as to how that should be measured, fight within the union to get that into the contract. If you think there are too many teachers that are ineffective, burned out or just don't care, work with the union to make them more effective, give them a break or help the union and school management work to remove teachers that are harming the students. Without the union you are powerless to make changes. Within the union you can work with other workers to make that change.
By exclusively latching on to the Democratic Party, by demonizing even the mildest of school reforms proposed by Republicans and by extension, those who support them, unions have made the very act of collective bargaining, if not their very existence, a political act. And that opens the door to this first amendment challenge.
5
G R E A T C O L U M N ! ! !
I've been there and done that, I worked for the State of NH which has a State Employee's Union but membership is not required and neither is "fair share." The result is that every time it was time for new contracts, the first word out of EVERY Governor's mouth was "Sorry, there is no money for raises." During my 15 year tenure, 7-2 year contracts, we got level funded 4 times, once (during the boom times of Wang and Digital) we got 3% followed by 2.3%, once we got a bonus that amounted to 2.1% of the mean salary level followed by a 2% raise (it should have been raise first followed by the bonus) and the last contract before I left included salary give-backs on all but the very top and bottom salary levels. Everyone seems to love to hate municipal workers, because their taxes pay the salaries, forgetting that these workers are their neighbors. The 34% free ride statistic is accurate, people love to get a free ride on other people's back. I am watching this case, one of the most important before SCOTUS is many years.
I've been there and done that, I worked for the State of NH which has a State Employee's Union but membership is not required and neither is "fair share." The result is that every time it was time for new contracts, the first word out of EVERY Governor's mouth was "Sorry, there is no money for raises." During my 15 year tenure, 7-2 year contracts, we got level funded 4 times, once (during the boom times of Wang and Digital) we got 3% followed by 2.3%, once we got a bonus that amounted to 2.1% of the mean salary level followed by a 2% raise (it should have been raise first followed by the bonus) and the last contract before I left included salary give-backs on all but the very top and bottom salary levels. Everyone seems to love to hate municipal workers, because their taxes pay the salaries, forgetting that these workers are their neighbors. The 34% free ride statistic is accurate, people love to get a free ride on other people's back. I am watching this case, one of the most important before SCOTUS is many years.
1
The only real weapon we have against the tyranny of money is the power of people united in a common cause. This is why we need unions - and political parties that represent people, not billionaires.
2
Public unions exist primarily to influence the political process and elect politicians that put the interests of those unions ahead of the interest of taxpayers - the quintessential embodiment of special interest corruption. I for one will be applauding the Supreme Court when it overrules Abood.
4
Really? A worker is a worker regardless of employer.
Corrupt & dysfuntional unions are also bad for democracy.
The American Federation of Teachers & The National Education Association have both endorsed Hillary Clinton for President despite her history as a Corporate Director at Wal-Mart- arguably the most union hostile company in America. The loyalty comes from parochial concerns of teachers unions and discounts the greater union movement. In fact the Walton Family Foundation is one of the leaders in using Charter Schools to undermine public education and the unionization of teachers. The NEA & AFT seem totally oblivious and Hillary is all smiles.
The United Auto Workers helped undermine the American Auto industry by opposing modernizations like robot welding & painting rather than embrace and adjust to the new technology in the decades leading up to the collapse of the Big 3. Similar folly happened on shop floors of industry after industry.
Individual union members have voted against their self interest, falling to the social conservative nonsense since Nixon (God, Gays, Guns, Abortion, Flag Burning, Pledge of Allegiance, etc) while their house was being systemically robbed by the very same gang. Long ago the GOP learned that putting ballot initiatives over certain hot button issues would increase the turn-out of those most likely to also vote for them. Many Union members took the bait and elected Ronald Reagan and others who have undermined our economy and unions place in it.
Unions & the membership need to wake up.
The American Federation of Teachers & The National Education Association have both endorsed Hillary Clinton for President despite her history as a Corporate Director at Wal-Mart- arguably the most union hostile company in America. The loyalty comes from parochial concerns of teachers unions and discounts the greater union movement. In fact the Walton Family Foundation is one of the leaders in using Charter Schools to undermine public education and the unionization of teachers. The NEA & AFT seem totally oblivious and Hillary is all smiles.
The United Auto Workers helped undermine the American Auto industry by opposing modernizations like robot welding & painting rather than embrace and adjust to the new technology in the decades leading up to the collapse of the Big 3. Similar folly happened on shop floors of industry after industry.
Individual union members have voted against their self interest, falling to the social conservative nonsense since Nixon (God, Gays, Guns, Abortion, Flag Burning, Pledge of Allegiance, etc) while their house was being systemically robbed by the very same gang. Long ago the GOP learned that putting ballot initiatives over certain hot button issues would increase the turn-out of those most likely to also vote for them. Many Union members took the bait and elected Ronald Reagan and others who have undermined our economy and unions place in it.
Unions & the membership need to wake up.
2
Its the rank and file members who enjoy benefits yet spew Republican mantra especially in the voting booth.
1
Public sector unions have been one of the greatest fiscal disasters in the history of this country. Politicians are able to reward a class of voters directly with compensation. Liberals complain about people spending money through corporations in the exercise of their right to free speech as a threat to democracy. Yet they see this blatant buying of votes as a boon to right to self-governance. We should open the windows of the outhouse that has been created to clear the stench of public sector unions.
3
Totally unsaid so far in the election cycle, but intensely important as this case shows, is that the next President will appointment new Justices. A another who interrupts the constitution as Roberts does, and the 1/10 of 1 % will be able to truly see themselves as everlastingly in ownership of The United States. This is the Regan revolution.
1
So now we should feel sorry for California's public union workers, the so-called "middle class" where members routinely retire in their 50s with six-figure pensions that will be paid for by the taxpayers' children and grandchildren because the union-bought politicians failed to adequately fund the pension plan. Who get retiree medical benefits no one in the private sector receives. And who make far more, on average, than the taxpayers paying their salaries.
4
If the teachers involved in this suit don't want to pay for union benefits they receive, they should be forced to negotiate the terms of their employment individually. Then they might realize what they're missing. If they don't like the political stance(s) of the union, they should get involved in the union and work to change those stances. All for one, one for all.
I've been a union man in the private sector my entire working life, belonging to three different ones over 35 years and serving as shop steward to negotiate two contracts. I give unions some latitude for their failings because there is no alternative to management power, but when the author here wraps unionism in the shawl of 'Democracy' and then goes on to say that Teacher unions are the 'champions of public schooling' I have to walk away. The existence of PUBLIC unions was a mistake made by JFK that needs correcting. Bargaining with yourself (and that's what it is when you sit across from political appointees to whom your union is giving campaign donations) is lucrative, but it's not educating our children well or making our government run more efficiently ....and it's killing the taxpayer.
23
Killing the taxpayer because those teachers are making such lucrative salaries? Give me a break.
Walk away or not, the author's right. Teachers' unions are about the only group pushing good education policy and pushing back against the bad. Our education system would be in much worse shape if not for the unions.
And the idea that teachers' salaries or benefits are killing the taxpayer is laughable. They're astonishingly cheap at the price.
And the idea that teachers' salaries or benefits are killing the taxpayer is laughable. They're astonishingly cheap at the price.
Sure there is an alternative to management power. We professionals are valuable, abuse us and first we work less effectively until we can leave. You could do the same without a union.
Forcing people to financially support a union against their will is at odds with America's sense of freedom. It is clearly un-Constitutional and will easily be decided so by the Supreme Court.
If a union is unable make a convincing case for a worker to join and support that union without intimidation then that is the unions problem and the worker has a right not to be coerced.
Part of the problem some unions (not all) face today is the knowledge that they are intensely corrupt and infiltrated by organized crime. There is no reason while law abiding workers should be forced to subsidize that corruption.
If a union is unable make a convincing case for a worker to join and support that union without intimidation then that is the unions problem and the worker has a right not to be coerced.
Part of the problem some unions (not all) face today is the knowledge that they are intensely corrupt and infiltrated by organized crime. There is no reason while law abiding workers should be forced to subsidize that corruption.
2
Ronald Reagan was a member of a union and enjoyed the benefits of that membership when he was an actor. When he became president, he did the bidding of his 1% handlers and led the attack on unions when he supported the de-certification of the Air Traffic Controllers Union. Just part of the damage that the Reagan presidency inflicted on the middle class.
3
As a retired teacher in a state where educators could not strike, I have a mixed reaction to Kahlenberg's column. He correctly identifies the benefits of unions, but he overlooks the dilemma faced by the members of those who represent public employees. Collective bargaining relies partly on the threat of a strike to force concessions from government authorities. But the impact of closing a school differs sharply from that of shuttering a factory.
Corporate owners have a personal interest in avoiding a shutdown, but school board members suffer no financial loss from a strike. Teachers seek to coerce their employers, but in practice they target students, the very people they aspire to help.
If teachers lose the strike weapon, on the other hand, they have to depend on the uncertain effect of popular support or school board empathy. In most states teachers enjoy considerable popularity with the public, especially if they don't strike, and this support can translate into pressure on the school board or other governing authority. School officials, for their part, can more easily grant raises because, unlike corporate managers, they suffer no loss of income from such generosity.
Public employee unions confer benefits on members and society alike, but they must always weigh carefully the impact of their actions on the people they have pledged to serve.
Corporate owners have a personal interest in avoiding a shutdown, but school board members suffer no financial loss from a strike. Teachers seek to coerce their employers, but in practice they target students, the very people they aspire to help.
If teachers lose the strike weapon, on the other hand, they have to depend on the uncertain effect of popular support or school board empathy. In most states teachers enjoy considerable popularity with the public, especially if they don't strike, and this support can translate into pressure on the school board or other governing authority. School officials, for their part, can more easily grant raises because, unlike corporate managers, they suffer no loss of income from such generosity.
Public employee unions confer benefits on members and society alike, but they must always weigh carefully the impact of their actions on the people they have pledged to serve.
Public service unions expropriate member fees from their members who are paid by citizens of the United States. Unions use those fees to fund (bribe) corrupt politicians (usually Democrats) that return the favor by increasing pay and benefits of public service workers and then raising taxes from citizens effectively transferring billions of dollars of wealth from the middle class to the political class. One can only hope that the Supreme Court stands with America's middle class by deciding to stop the public service union and political elites from continuing to rob the middle class.
4
There's nothing democratic about public labor unions forcing workers to pay for politics/policies they don't agree with, i.e., using taxpayer money to support only one political party and the union agenda at the bargaining table. Just ask FDR. And explain to me how unions don't benefit from Citizens United. Unions are "coporations."
4
In general I consider teachers unions vile as they protect the incompetent and block accountability in a strategic area where America needs to grossly improve.
However, given the aggressive rot that is the current Republican Party, unions in general need to exist to counterbalance.
However, given the aggressive rot that is the current Republican Party, unions in general need to exist to counterbalance.
Private sector unions combined with rational tax policies transformed the United States into an economic system fueled by the middle class. They gave voice to the people at a time when GM hired goons to club strikers. Such were the times.
Today, private sector workers no longer seem to believe that unions offer much to them in spite of the vast and growing gap in living standards and wealth of today's trickle down system. Ok, that's their choice.
Choice, and it's implications for free speech is at the heart of the matter before SCOTUS.
Since the Supreme Court is focusing on whether union dues infringe an individual's 1st amendment rights, let's examine the same issue from a different perspective.
Corporations and their ability to fund PACs, lobbyists and other political mechanisms to further their political and economic agendas.
Same issue. Different winners and losers.
Workers contribute their intellectual and physical capital to the companies that employ them. When executives of those companies use corporate profits to fund PACs and lobbyists in pursuit of business friendly tax, outsourcing and de-regulation policies, individual workers may be, usually are, harmed by the result. Think off-shoring of work.
So if unions are to be denied political clout because of a few who disagree with union political agendas, why should SCOTUS allow corporations to make political donations funded by profits generated by the work force of those corporations?
Today, private sector workers no longer seem to believe that unions offer much to them in spite of the vast and growing gap in living standards and wealth of today's trickle down system. Ok, that's their choice.
Choice, and it's implications for free speech is at the heart of the matter before SCOTUS.
Since the Supreme Court is focusing on whether union dues infringe an individual's 1st amendment rights, let's examine the same issue from a different perspective.
Corporations and their ability to fund PACs, lobbyists and other political mechanisms to further their political and economic agendas.
Same issue. Different winners and losers.
Workers contribute their intellectual and physical capital to the companies that employ them. When executives of those companies use corporate profits to fund PACs and lobbyists in pursuit of business friendly tax, outsourcing and de-regulation policies, individual workers may be, usually are, harmed by the result. Think off-shoring of work.
So if unions are to be denied political clout because of a few who disagree with union political agendas, why should SCOTUS allow corporations to make political donations funded by profits generated by the work force of those corporations?
1
"They gave voice to the people at a time when GM hired goons to club strikers. Such were the times."
Today it is the unions that send out goons to harass and beat people into submission. The Supreme Court gave them this option in the Enmons decision long ago.
Today it is the unions that send out goons to harass and beat people into submission. The Supreme Court gave them this option in the Enmons decision long ago.
Will this be yet another example of a fundamentalist supreme court that doesn't even understand what their job is and what it entails? For some justices there is no gray, there is only black and white. They don't see themselves as the wise gatekeepers of democracy and the spirit of what is right and wrong in the decisions they make.
In their eyes bikinis would have been unconstitutional; after all, they weren't mentioned specifically in the constitution, so it can't be judged by them; next issue, please. Unless the issue is something they care deeply about then their rules change dramatically. Abortion is not mentioned, but they vote to outlaw it.
They are no more and no less then religious fanatics that view everything through the dark glass of their own prejudices. The fact that some of them are conservatives and despise unions are now in a position to help further the 'cause' they so firmly believe in.
And the only way to overturn the system of bribery that is our government lies in the hands of the very men who are the bribed. Or the nine men and women of the supreme court. Our only hope is that they become wiser as they get older, knowing they cannot be unseated. But I fear they were bred to be what they are, handpicked in their youth and groomed for the job as they grew. Now people's lives are being controlled by one of a group that wonders aloud why their aren't any miracles anymore- like their were in biblical times.
In their eyes bikinis would have been unconstitutional; after all, they weren't mentioned specifically in the constitution, so it can't be judged by them; next issue, please. Unless the issue is something they care deeply about then their rules change dramatically. Abortion is not mentioned, but they vote to outlaw it.
They are no more and no less then religious fanatics that view everything through the dark glass of their own prejudices. The fact that some of them are conservatives and despise unions are now in a position to help further the 'cause' they so firmly believe in.
And the only way to overturn the system of bribery that is our government lies in the hands of the very men who are the bribed. Or the nine men and women of the supreme court. Our only hope is that they become wiser as they get older, knowing they cannot be unseated. But I fear they were bred to be what they are, handpicked in their youth and groomed for the job as they grew. Now people's lives are being controlled by one of a group that wonders aloud why their aren't any miracles anymore- like their were in biblical times.
Every ruling by the Roberts Court is based on two questions and only two: 1) What is in the best short term interest of the GOP? 2) What is in the best long term interest of the .001%? Even the ACA and LGBT rulings fit this paradigm in that if either had gone the other way voters would have been strongly motivated to throw Republicans out of office at all levels.
Look at the Friedrichs case thru this prism. Destruction of public sector unions remove a major source of money and workers from the Democrats. Bada-bing - GOP gains in 2016. Kill off public sector unions and private sector unions cannot be far behind. Bang-boom - more profit, more cash to the .001%.
What will be interesting to see is if this corrupt SCOTUS majority carves out an exception for police and fire unions that generally support the GOP.
Look at the Friedrichs case thru this prism. Destruction of public sector unions remove a major source of money and workers from the Democrats. Bada-bing - GOP gains in 2016. Kill off public sector unions and private sector unions cannot be far behind. Bang-boom - more profit, more cash to the .001%.
What will be interesting to see is if this corrupt SCOTUS majority carves out an exception for police and fire unions that generally support the GOP.
Unions are key to resisting corporate power, even public unions. Remove government and unions, as Conservatives desire, and there is little opposition to corporate domination. We have seen this before in the Gilded Age, with 60 hour work weeks and oppressive work conditions. It is more subtle now, but we can see this in the continual decline of median wages and a shrinking of the middle class.
Conversely, we see what unions can do to help companies succeed from examples in other countries, where they help improve both production and products, as well as the society at large.
Conversely, we see what unions can do to help companies succeed from examples in other countries, where they help improve both production and products, as well as the society at large.
1
Pensions and their cost-of-living adjustments and other overly-bloated benefits (courtesy of unions) are not a constitutional right. Unions today are not the unions of fifty years ago. Their demands are highly unrealistic and union workers do not represent the middle class or the college-educated middle class. A unionized worker has a much higher pension, healthcare plan and everything else. Teachers work nine months a year and have more "diversity holidays" than ever before. They constantly complain and in NJ they do not wish to pay their healthcare or its adjustments, however, everyone else can (retirees, Medicare recipients, etc.) America cannot afford the pensions these unions demand look at Detroit and Chicago. I came from two union parents and they believed in fairness for the American worker. Not so today with unions.
8
The statement "But humans enjoy getting benefits for nothing" does not apply to welfare, extending unemployment benefits etc etc. Nor does it apply to union members hiding behind the union to get pay and benefits while doing as little as possible.
I am pro-union and agree in general with the assessment of the human condition, just asking for a little consistency in the application of the assessment.
I am pro-union and agree in general with the assessment of the human condition, just asking for a little consistency in the application of the assessment.
1
If they strike down the law, that leaves no doubt, that war has been declared!
2
Public unions have declared war on taxpayers long ago.
1
There is no "fair compromise" when it comes to limiting free speech. The unions are just grubbing for money and power; nothing else. If they can't make it on a VOLUNTARY basis, without coercing workers to join and/or pay fees, then maybe they shouldn't exist at all.
3
Hear, Hear!
2
Unions “make America strong.” Just like Diversity makes America strong, and illegal immigration makes America strong. Liberals are always telling us what makes America strong.
It was unions which wrecked America’s auto industry, and drove millions of America’s factory jobs overseas. It was unions like the Teamsters that were totally run by the Mob. Strikes were always violent or at least threatened violence.
And I’m old enough to remember unions in their prime in the 1950s and 1960s, when American manufacturing jobs were plentiful because the rest of the world’s industry was destroyed in WWII. America had strikes, strikes, strikes. The bus drivers, the teachers, the coal miners, the aluminum workers, the steel workers, the cab drivers, the auto industry, the airline pilots, the airline mechanics, the airline controllers, the railroad workers, the truck drivers, the dock workers, the garbage collectors, the telephone employees, the textile workers. Somebody was ALWAYS on strike. Assembly-line workers were making more than college graduates. Coal miners and auto workers would go on strike in the fall so they could go deer hunting.
Yes, those were the glory days for America’s unions. They ended when the rest of the world’s manufacturing rebuilt and out-produced America’s lazy and over-paid union workers.
It was unions which wrecked America’s auto industry, and drove millions of America’s factory jobs overseas. It was unions like the Teamsters that were totally run by the Mob. Strikes were always violent or at least threatened violence.
And I’m old enough to remember unions in their prime in the 1950s and 1960s, when American manufacturing jobs were plentiful because the rest of the world’s industry was destroyed in WWII. America had strikes, strikes, strikes. The bus drivers, the teachers, the coal miners, the aluminum workers, the steel workers, the cab drivers, the auto industry, the airline pilots, the airline mechanics, the airline controllers, the railroad workers, the truck drivers, the dock workers, the garbage collectors, the telephone employees, the textile workers. Somebody was ALWAYS on strike. Assembly-line workers were making more than college graduates. Coal miners and auto workers would go on strike in the fall so they could go deer hunting.
Yes, those were the glory days for America’s unions. They ended when the rest of the world’s manufacturing rebuilt and out-produced America’s lazy and over-paid union workers.
3
I remember a strike back in 1971 at New York Telephone. Hundreds of picketers smashed into one of the company's central offices and destroyed switching equipment and tore out Operator positions.
One of the conditions for settling was amnesty for the vandals. And unions wonder why they no longer have the public's respect?
One of the conditions for settling was amnesty for the vandals. And unions wonder why they no longer have the public's respect?
Jack Dancer...talk to me about the unionized German auto industry. I assume you are as knowledgeable about them as you are the US auto industry.
Amazing how lopsided the argument is!
Union not representing a person negotiates a deal for its members… And the non-union employee gets the same deal and that suppose to make him/her happy… Well, it doesn’t! Because it takes, like all union arrangements do all the merit and hard work out of the equation… If I’m better and deserve more, my advance is not possible because of union rules, my pay, if I deserve more is stifled by union rules, if I don’t like my money going to a particular candidate too bad, they will!
Gov’t unions are altogether a racket and a clear violation of election law… Public money just being syphoned into single party coffers… Not to mention total lack of merit in advance, promotion and reward for better workplace performance and innovation… It’s pure unrefined socialism casting bad and good into the same pigeon hole in pursuit of some ephemeral “equality”…
I don’t want to be equal to someone who’s not as good as I am and I would like to try to be better than someone who’s better that me now, called competition…
At this point unions are regressive and outdated until they reinvent themselves into competitive and innovative force… Politicians and “equality” apologists like the author are just duplicitous in their effort to protect status quo of unions by stifling thought and freedom of those who raise voices reason and common sense.
Union not representing a person negotiates a deal for its members… And the non-union employee gets the same deal and that suppose to make him/her happy… Well, it doesn’t! Because it takes, like all union arrangements do all the merit and hard work out of the equation… If I’m better and deserve more, my advance is not possible because of union rules, my pay, if I deserve more is stifled by union rules, if I don’t like my money going to a particular candidate too bad, they will!
Gov’t unions are altogether a racket and a clear violation of election law… Public money just being syphoned into single party coffers… Not to mention total lack of merit in advance, promotion and reward for better workplace performance and innovation… It’s pure unrefined socialism casting bad and good into the same pigeon hole in pursuit of some ephemeral “equality”…
I don’t want to be equal to someone who’s not as good as I am and I would like to try to be better than someone who’s better that me now, called competition…
At this point unions are regressive and outdated until they reinvent themselves into competitive and innovative force… Politicians and “equality” apologists like the author are just duplicitous in their effort to protect status quo of unions by stifling thought and freedom of those who raise voices reason and common sense.
3
Let's stop calling anti-union legislation..right to work laws.
PS..The labor movement has been watered down in the standard US History textbook to the point of obscurity.
PS..The labor movement has been watered down in the standard US History textbook to the point of obscurity.
9
Those who try to weaken unions want to move us back to the sweatshop labor of the 1800s. They want to destroy the ability of employees to negotiate for conditions and wages.
Those who oppose the unions say they don’t want to pay dues. But they take the benefits of union negotiation.
Game theory shows that there is no meaningful bargaining or negotiation between parties substantially unequal in wealth or power. The slogan “right to work” is dishonest. The issue is not the right to work. The issue is the right to negotiate. History shows that legitimate commercial transactions require legitimate negotiation. Without that you have some form of slavery.
The real issue is “free to negotiate.” Everyone knows what it’s like to be the little guy, against a larger competitor. In a non-union shop, you are not really free to negotiate. The employer can ignore you or remove you from the premises.
So called Right to Work Laws are Right to Work for Less Laws. They are Right to Sweatshop laws, Right to Serfdom laws. Feudalism Forever laws.
Those who oppose unions say that the union may not represent their point of view. But unions are far more democratic than corporations. Corporations make huge political contributions without asking their employees, customers, or most of the thousands of people who own shares of stock directly or in mutual funds, insurance policies, or retirement accounts.
Public sector unions also represent the majority of their members.
Those who oppose the unions say they don’t want to pay dues. But they take the benefits of union negotiation.
Game theory shows that there is no meaningful bargaining or negotiation between parties substantially unequal in wealth or power. The slogan “right to work” is dishonest. The issue is not the right to work. The issue is the right to negotiate. History shows that legitimate commercial transactions require legitimate negotiation. Without that you have some form of slavery.
The real issue is “free to negotiate.” Everyone knows what it’s like to be the little guy, against a larger competitor. In a non-union shop, you are not really free to negotiate. The employer can ignore you or remove you from the premises.
So called Right to Work Laws are Right to Work for Less Laws. They are Right to Sweatshop laws, Right to Serfdom laws. Feudalism Forever laws.
Those who oppose unions say that the union may not represent their point of view. But unions are far more democratic than corporations. Corporations make huge political contributions without asking their employees, customers, or most of the thousands of people who own shares of stock directly or in mutual funds, insurance policies, or retirement accounts.
Public sector unions also represent the majority of their members.
65
you wrote that . . . Those who oppose unions say that the union may not represent their point of view. But unions are far more democratic than corporations. . . .
That is not a fair comparison.
1. If I want to teach, or be an auto worker, I am compelled to join the union.
2. If I want to work in the private sector industry or own stock in a company I am free to choose an employer that shares my values.
Also, the right to negotiate the terms of employment do not go away if an employee does not join the union. He/she simply chooses to represent themselves. This is common practice for the 90 percent of workers not currently in unions.
That is not a fair comparison.
1. If I want to teach, or be an auto worker, I am compelled to join the union.
2. If I want to work in the private sector industry or own stock in a company I am free to choose an employer that shares my values.
Also, the right to negotiate the terms of employment do not go away if an employee does not join the union. He/she simply chooses to represent themselves. This is common practice for the 90 percent of workers not currently in unions.
1
" Corporations make huge political contributions without asking their employees, customers, or most of the thousands of people who own shares of stock directly or in mutual funds, insurance policies, or retirement accounts."
A stockholder who scruples over political contributions is free to sell his stock if he is unhappy with management's decisions.
Closed and agency shops force people to "buy stock" in a union whose principles they disagree with.
A stockholder who scruples over political contributions is free to sell his stock if he is unhappy with management's decisions.
Closed and agency shops force people to "buy stock" in a union whose principles they disagree with.
Elliot, if you want to teach or be an auto worker you are NOT compelled to join a union. Teach in any charter school or parochial school--no union membership, no union, no job security, trivial if any benefits. If you want to be an auto worker but not join a union, go south to Tennessee and build Volkswagens. As to negotiating salary and benefits as an individual at the table with a corporation or any business owner, good luck. And good luck with your job security and retirement plans.
It used to be there was a trade-off. If you got a private sector job you got more pay initially but gave up job security. Both public and private sector jobs provided pensions and health care. Now the public sector very often has better pay. Pensions and quality health care have mostly disappeared from the private sector. The balance is gone.
The republic party is right that unions had too much power and helped decimate manufacturing. But the answer should have been more balance instead of eliminating unions. There should have been a way to weaken unions so that they wouldn't destroy their industries with greed. I remember the story several years ago in the New York Times magazine about the airplane maintenance facility in Indianapolis that closed because of union demands. Demands that the employees weren't really interested in. They were happy and just wanted to keep working.
The republic party is right that unions had too much power and helped decimate manufacturing. But the answer should have been more balance instead of eliminating unions. There should have been a way to weaken unions so that they wouldn't destroy their industries with greed. I remember the story several years ago in the New York Times magazine about the airplane maintenance facility in Indianapolis that closed because of union demands. Demands that the employees weren't really interested in. They were happy and just wanted to keep working.
1
Back in 1971 the Communications Workers Of America and IBEW held a nationwide strike against the Bell System. The other states and companies settled with the exception of New York Telephone. The union held those employees out for 7 more months. Managers from Bell companies all over teh country worked and made a fortune in the meantime.
I had gone into the Navy the day the strike started. When I returned in 1975 I noticed that I had six more months seniority than the guys who had origianlly had the same seniority as me. They'd lost seniority while I'd kept mine because I wasn't on strike. Not only that they'd lost so much money that it was estimated it would take 50 years of work to recover it. They had settled for the same options the other companies had. Seven months of lost wages and nothing gained. Many members said that if they could have they would have quit the union.
But they couldn't.
I had gone into the Navy the day the strike started. When I returned in 1975 I noticed that I had six more months seniority than the guys who had origianlly had the same seniority as me. They'd lost seniority while I'd kept mine because I wasn't on strike. Not only that they'd lost so much money that it was estimated it would take 50 years of work to recover it. They had settled for the same options the other companies had. Seven months of lost wages and nothing gained. Many members said that if they could have they would have quit the union.
But they couldn't.
Unfettered capitalism cannot abide a union.
The only way workers advance their interests is when they act collectively and retain the option of withdrawing their services to force a result.
Where workers do not have these rights, unfettered capitalism prevails and all the profits surge to the top while workers' wages, benefits, and working conditions plummet.
The past three decades of the American economy constitute a laboratory that demonstrates these truths. CEO and executive compensation has reached obscene proportions, with those at the top earning several lifetimes' typical wages worth each and every year.
Workers have seen their wages stagnate, indeed go down in real times.Their retirements have been stripped away in favor of 401(k) investments that are at the mercy of volatile financial markets. Their retirement futures are, in effect, gambled on the roulette wheel of the Wall Street casino. Health benefits have declined.
It's not a coincidence that all this has happened while unions faded.
The greatest achievement of the right-wing in this regard is the division of the American working class against itself along religious and ethnic lines, and the demonization of unions among that working class. Non-union workers do not look at union benefits and think "we should organize and get those benefits." Instead, fed by the politics of greed and resentment, they think "how dare they have those benefits; they should be miserable like me."
Where unions lose, workers lose.
The only way workers advance their interests is when they act collectively and retain the option of withdrawing their services to force a result.
Where workers do not have these rights, unfettered capitalism prevails and all the profits surge to the top while workers' wages, benefits, and working conditions plummet.
The past three decades of the American economy constitute a laboratory that demonstrates these truths. CEO and executive compensation has reached obscene proportions, with those at the top earning several lifetimes' typical wages worth each and every year.
Workers have seen their wages stagnate, indeed go down in real times.Their retirements have been stripped away in favor of 401(k) investments that are at the mercy of volatile financial markets. Their retirement futures are, in effect, gambled on the roulette wheel of the Wall Street casino. Health benefits have declined.
It's not a coincidence that all this has happened while unions faded.
The greatest achievement of the right-wing in this regard is the division of the American working class against itself along religious and ethnic lines, and the demonization of unions among that working class. Non-union workers do not look at union benefits and think "we should organize and get those benefits." Instead, fed by the politics of greed and resentment, they think "how dare they have those benefits; they should be miserable like me."
Where unions lose, workers lose.
5
I am a progressive libertarian, and thus support the right to work, the right not to belong to a union. What unions do is take money from tax paying ( which includes renters as landlords pass on their taxes to tenants) public to the higher paid.
We have seen the horrors of public employee unions in these very pages in discussing prison guard and police unions that support unthinkable actions of the members.
Similarly the teachers union supports keeping very bad tenured teachers against the interests of the students and the people.
We have seen the horrors of public employee unions in these very pages in discussing prison guard and police unions that support unthinkable actions of the members.
Similarly the teachers union supports keeping very bad tenured teachers against the interests of the students and the people.
5
What relevance does a Ph.D. have?
1
C.C., who decides who is or isn't a "bad" tenured teacher? Or is what you dislike the "tenured" part? I hope you're not suggesting that students would be better off with inexperienced and/or uncertified teachers at a for-profit charter school, where high turnover, relatively low wages, and yet-to-be-developed teaching and disciplinary skills pretty much guarantee little continuity of a school's culture and identity, not to mention poor or inconsistent outcomes for which no amount of money can compensate a student who's been the victim of a failed experiment, such as Newark. The student will never get that year or so back, even if he or she is 'treated' to a do-over.
I do not believe that "today's conservatives" are opposed to unions. That opposition comes from Republicans, from Corporate Management, from Right-wing "think" tanks, and from general anti-government types.
Not one of these groups contain any true conservatives. If they did they would would be complaining loudly about the lack of principles and selfishness of people who simply want things without paying for them.
Not one of these groups contain any true conservatives. If they did they would would be complaining loudly about the lack of principles and selfishness of people who simply want things without paying for them.
2
I work as a RN, and am a union member. Unionized RNs can advocate for patient safety, without fearing being fired. Hospitals with unionized RNs , are much safer for patients. There are so many more non union jobs in this country. Any wonder, the middle class is in such trouble?
7
Taxing for the good of the many is basic. The government itself takes my money and spends it on many things I don’t want it spent on; including campaign money for politicians I don’t like. To carve out the union that represents me is bias.
2
I belong to a union. I am soooooo grateful and thankful for it.
6
Why can't we have the solution that people who do not want to pay the union fees do not get the benefits obtained through collective bargaining? If individuals do not want to pay for the benefits, then why not let them negotiate on their own and manage their grievances or layoffs by themselves? In other words, why not allow union benefits only to union members and allow employers to do what they wish with free-riders?
2
Employers want weak unions.
The way to get weak unions is to reduce their number.
Reduce their number by providing the benefits of union membership to those who don't pay union dues.
Once they have too few members to pay for proper/good negotiators you crush them, except now it is all of them.
Possibly a few good non union teachers will try to negotiate better pay, but employers don't want to hire good negotiators, they hire people that are good at their job.
The way to get weak unions is to reduce their number.
Reduce their number by providing the benefits of union membership to those who don't pay union dues.
Once they have too few members to pay for proper/good negotiators you crush them, except now it is all of them.
Possibly a few good non union teachers will try to negotiate better pay, but employers don't want to hire good negotiators, they hire people that are good at their job.
Non-union employees don't have to negotiate. Management is going topay them whatever the union people get merely as a means to keeping good loyal employees. Any idea that they would treat the non-union folks differently is inane.
I am a union member in my local education association as well as the Michigan Educational Association. Our UNION dues pay for negotiations, as well as legal fees for defense of our members in lawsuits, due process, etc. Our UNION dues DO NOT PAY for political activity. We have a PAC, which is strictly voluntary, which supports candidates and policies supportive of public education (our union has supported both dems and repubs in the past). There is no set amount people are forced to give, and members can choose not to pay into the PAC at all -- that's why it's called voluntary. What about this doesn't the Supreme Court understand? And I think Friedrichs and the rest of the plaintiffs in this case need to return their pay raises and benefits that the union has won for them on their behalf (even though they are technically not members).
Just keep trying to return all us working people to the 1800's and we will rise up again like we did back then. I'm waiting to see if the SCOTUS can figure out a way to exempt police and firefighter unions from this since they are the only public sector unions that politicians seem to think deserve special treatment (they were both exempted from RTW laws here in Michigan).
Just keep trying to return all us working people to the 1800's and we will rise up again like we did back then. I'm waiting to see if the SCOTUS can figure out a way to exempt police and firefighter unions from this since they are the only public sector unions that politicians seem to think deserve special treatment (they were both exempted from RTW laws here in Michigan).
4
If your union is part of the AFL-CIO you are paying into the funds that support politicians.
Labor unions are the only secondary democratic institution we have. Americans, who talk so much of liberty and freedom, are never less free than when they show up for work in the morning. They may be employers who are enlightened and treat workers well but there are no guarantees. For ordinary workers to have any real say in the circumstances in which they work the only source of real bargaining power is through a well-organized union. There is simply no other way. When the United States helped Germany develop its new post-WWII constitution, workers rights, works councils, etc. were baked into the document. Germany's unions have worked collaboratively with employers and their many workers enjoy good pay and conditions as a result. We should learn from that.
2
America is no longer a middle class country. It has become a country with a thin layer of haves and a large layer of might haves, and don't haves. More and more of us, due to the way jobs are being created, how flat our salaries have been, and the way our "safety net" is, are falling behind. It's not poor planning on the part of those who fall between the cracks. You cannot save enough money to handle medical problems, college, housing, job loss, etc., all at once. It's the fact that the so-called conservatives, along with big business and the uber rich, have managed to buy our legislators thereby corrupting the processes of a functioning democracy.
Welcome to America, land of the Grand Odious Pontificators who have no idea, and don't want any idea, of how the average American is doing: poorly.
Welcome to America, land of the Grand Odious Pontificators who have no idea, and don't want any idea, of how the average American is doing: poorly.
4
Unions are contraptions designed in the days of big manufacturing where thousands of workers could band together as a class and negotiate contracts. One of the few places where thousands of like workers congregate today is in the public sector. That does not mean that public sector Unions are a good idea. I would argue that the liberal approach to Government, namely that Government can be beneficial to people, is directly challenged by the idea that the Government cannot easily get rid of unionized people who are not up to par because of Union rules or where the have lost the sense of the mission for which they joined the public sector in the first place. I do understand the argument for Unions, which is that these are the only forces strong enough to stand up to companies, but this does not apply to public sector unions where fat cats are not involved. As for income inequality, that can be solved by many more direct methods than public sector unionization.
When oligarchs perceive and treat a population over which they wield political and economic power as enemies, they become enemies of that population.
You don't have to unravel particularly complicated historical threads to see what happens next.
You don't have to unravel particularly complicated historical threads to see what happens next.
9
Public unions are a boon to employers(the public) in a few ways. Having to negotiate with a single entity rather than many reduces costs. It also maintains morale, and the likelihood staff will stay on. When two knowledgeable entities sit down, it is more likely it will be to continue the institution, not destroy it. For both it is the way they put food on the table. Public unions have taken cuts to preserve jobs in their ranks, rather than having layoffs.
The main advantage of unions is that they bolster ethical capitalism. Neither side has any strong hold over the other. The idea is to work for a fair shake for all involved. It is a positive sum game rather the "I win, you lose" style taken by too many business owners.
Unions foster recognition that their members's work is valuable. They are not capital to be downgraded to the lowest level. Labor being human is to be separated from the non breathing parts of our economic system.
The main advantage of unions is that they bolster ethical capitalism. Neither side has any strong hold over the other. The idea is to work for a fair shake for all involved. It is a positive sum game rather the "I win, you lose" style taken by too many business owners.
Unions foster recognition that their members's work is valuable. They are not capital to be downgraded to the lowest level. Labor being human is to be separated from the non breathing parts of our economic system.
2
Complaints about teacher's unions are a conservative smoke screen to break unions. Teachers unionized in the first place because local school boards never wanted to look after their teachers with living wages or decent benefits. Workers have no interest in unionizing unless they are being exploited, whether they dig coal under inhumane conditions, make cars as cogs in a giant machine, or serve their stingy and arbitrary masters on school boards. Unions are the result of shameful labor practices; a result, not a cause. I've worked both union and non-union; meat-cutter, iron worker, college instructor, and many more jobs over a 64 year working life in these United States, and I'll choose the union every time. The difference to a worker cannot be explained away, and none, zero, of my employers ever went broke because of union wages. I doubt that any of the ideologues posting here ever worked a day in their lives in a factory under unsafe and hostile conditions bending their backs, much less teaching young people. Come back and spout anti-union rhetoric if you ever have to earn a living with the sweat of your brow and that includes teaching. And if you have and you are anti-union, you are a patsy and you'll learn the hard way that the only thing you have between you and the man is strength in numbers. Otherwise, when it comes right down to it, and notwithstanding the professed good will of management, you're just disposable another piece of machinery.
11
As someone in an industry whose workers never have to worry
much about wages (software development) it's news to me that
you could work in a union shop and not also be a member of
that union. Everything the union does, by definition, advances
its members' interests. What's the problem?
much about wages (software development) it's news to me that
you could work in a union shop and not also be a member of
that union. Everything the union does, by definition, advances
its members' interests. What's the problem?
5
The problem is that not everything a union does advances its members' interests. Unions can become corrupt and bloated at the top--just like everything else. Employees should have the right to decide whether or not to participate.
you assume democracy and income disruption are values held by the far right ideologues on the Court when they are truly the intellectual descendants of those who would rather we had kings and slaves
6
Unions have clearly been a historic force for positive change in American history.
However, like many institutions formed many decades ago, they stagnate and become rooted in bureaucracy and mismanagement. For example, how many leading private companies still exist that were leaders when the AFL-CIO was founded?
Tenure-based hiring/firing policies, the inability to fire incompetent teachers and pay-go pension plans are three obvious areas where unions have failed both their membership and the larger community they serve.
Furthermore, no other nation in the world spends as much as we do on education for sub-par results so it's not an issue of how much we spend (despite what Diane Ravitch says).
However, like many institutions formed many decades ago, they stagnate and become rooted in bureaucracy and mismanagement. For example, how many leading private companies still exist that were leaders when the AFL-CIO was founded?
Tenure-based hiring/firing policies, the inability to fire incompetent teachers and pay-go pension plans are three obvious areas where unions have failed both their membership and the larger community they serve.
Furthermore, no other nation in the world spends as much as we do on education for sub-par results so it's not an issue of how much we spend (despite what Diane Ravitch says).
7
Unions serve their members. Corporations serve their owners and management. None serve the large community. That is why we have government, and why we make them negotiate.
Unions exist for their members, not for everyone else.
You want a better school system? Vote. Run for office. Support someone. Don't expect the union will fix it.
Unions exist for their members, not for everyone else.
You want a better school system? Vote. Run for office. Support someone. Don't expect the union will fix it.
7
"However, like many institutions formed many decades ago, they stagnate and become rooted in bureaucracy and mismanagement."
Actually, what has stagnated are the wages of workers who are not unionized.
Actually, what has stagnated are the wages of workers who are not unionized.
1
Mark I'm sure you are against Citizen United based on your "Corporations serve their owners and management" statement. Corporations serve their stakeholders and those that choose not to invest in the system are fools. You are lucky... Your Union invest in corporation for your retirement. Of course they have set rules to steal from the public when there are unfunded liabilities, but that's another story.
Mr. Kahlenberg cites the unions advancement of democracy. How about the undermining of democracy resulting from the fact that unions and politicians have been on the same side of the bargaining table since the inception of public unions. It's such a tidy little quid pro quo. Politicians fulfill the monetary and benefit wishes of the unions and the unions provide the campaign cash and manpower. Very democratic. In terms of the quality of public education do we really need any discussion? It's deplorable and the union's presence does nothing but perpetuate a terrible system by protecting incompetency and destroying the ability of principles to effectively manage their teachers. For the good of the country we can only hope that the Supreme Court rules in favor of Friedrichs.
6
Your description ignores that there is another side. Without the unions, there Still would be one side providing support to candidates, only one.
9
Do you read history? Are you aware of what it was like before unions? Unions helped enable the 8 hr work day,vacation time,sick pay,equal pay for women etc. Do you really believe that corporations would have done that on their own? Some unions have done things that were bad if not illegal but all of them? Do you have a problem only when union officials pay politicians to steer legislation that benefit the union. I imagine that when companies pay politicians to do the same that's OK with you?
2
I totally disagree with the author when it comes to public sector unions. The onerous rules, the neglect of children in schools only to the betterment of the teachers, their refusal to get rid of incompetent teachers is nothing less than a disgrace. Not to mention the bankrupting of our cities and towns who cannot afford the price that the unions and politicians have placed on our taxpayers (stay tuned for this slow meltdown coming to a town near year). And as a taxpayer, I will be working into my 70's to fund those who could retire at 50 because of this. Talk about inequality!
38
"I will be working into my 70's to fund those who could retire at 50 because of this.'
Many Americans will be working into their 70s, but NOT "because of this." Many will be working because their employers have replaced pensions with 401(k)s, which were never intended for that purpose. Only unions have protected members' pensions, which allow them some retirement security.
Many Americans will be working into their 70s, but NOT "because of this." Many will be working because their employers have replaced pensions with 401(k)s, which were never intended for that purpose. Only unions have protected members' pensions, which allow them some retirement security.
4
"...their refusal to get rid of incompetent teachers is nothing less than a disgrace."
Actually, it's nothing less than a myth.
Case in point: A school system in western Mass. wanted to remove a veteran teacher for incompetence. The union rep didn't argue; he merely showed that the teacher in question had received nothing but excellent evaluations for decades. So the question is: Was that teacher incompetent, or were the administrators?
Actually, it's nothing less than a myth.
Case in point: A school system in western Mass. wanted to remove a veteran teacher for incompetence. The union rep didn't argue; he merely showed that the teacher in question had received nothing but excellent evaluations for decades. So the question is: Was that teacher incompetent, or were the administrators?
2
This decision is not only about teachers but all public employees and their ability to negotiate salary parity with private sector employees that do the same jobs. State employees get lesser pay and private sector employees get additional benefits like 401K matches. In California we were forced to take furlough days but not our work load and now that the recession is over here, we still have not received a salary increase to compensate for the lower pay the governor forced on us. That's why unions are needed. It just the strong taking advantage of the weak otherwise.
5
How can someone not pay their fair share of an organization that sticks up for them? The Supreme Court should call Ms. Friedrichs a freeloader, as the Right is so fond of doing.
16
We need someone to represent individuals and workers against powerful interests. In government, we need elected officials who have not been bought by moneyed interests, and in the workplace we need unions.
But unions shot themselves the foot. Union leaders stopped being negotiators for the workers, and became politicos in their own right, promising the chicken in every pot, selling off union worker support in return for legislation. They are the genesis of how we ended up with Citizens United, a counter balance to the political heft of unions, which ironically no longer existed by the time our Fab Five voted moneyed interests officially into our government.
Public workers are now going to have to fight for their union's relevancy, and convince workers that they are necessary. And they will need to fight a public perception that they are trying to take tax money from everyone to protect even the least capable union worker. It is an uphill battle.
I hope they make headway, because looking at the state of our nation's workers, we need the pre-1960s, pre-organized crime, pre-corrupted unions as much as we needed them when our workers fought - physically and politically - for the right to be represented.
But unions shot themselves the foot. Union leaders stopped being negotiators for the workers, and became politicos in their own right, promising the chicken in every pot, selling off union worker support in return for legislation. They are the genesis of how we ended up with Citizens United, a counter balance to the political heft of unions, which ironically no longer existed by the time our Fab Five voted moneyed interests officially into our government.
Public workers are now going to have to fight for their union's relevancy, and convince workers that they are necessary. And they will need to fight a public perception that they are trying to take tax money from everyone to protect even the least capable union worker. It is an uphill battle.
I hope they make headway, because looking at the state of our nation's workers, we need the pre-1960s, pre-organized crime, pre-corrupted unions as much as we needed them when our workers fought - physically and politically - for the right to be represented.
2
Classic modern GOP attitude...let the other guy fight for my raises and benefits, let the other guy pay for that fight, let the other guy fight for me in the military, let the other guy pay for the land my cow's graze on, etcetera ad nauseum.
19
Classic modern Democratic attitude....let the other guy work and get raises and benefits, then cry "income inequality" and tax and distribute working people's money to people that don't work.
So the poor workers have a choice - be exploited by management, or be exploited by a union. At the end of the day, does it really matter WHO is picking your pocket?
1
This is silly. Whereas not everyone has access to the ranks of management, everyone does have access to union leadership. The vast majority of unions are run by a minority of overworked members who would gladly make way for fresh blood. If you disagree strongly with how the people representing you are doing things, then join and help fix it. (There is a history of this kind of sometimes radical internal reform in the union movement since its inception.)
Americans have been conditioned to favor economic exit over political voice over the past 50 years (see Albert Hirschman, *Exit, Voice, and Loyalty*). We forget that successful democracy is based on engagement, and that if we don't engage then the economic powers that we exit between will do all the engaging for us, to our detriment.
In other words, the choices are "form a union or be exploited by management," whether its the management you suffer now or the management you'll suffer when you switch jobs. And that's the case both within the workplace and outside it, in our increasingly oligarchic polity.
Americans have been conditioned to favor economic exit over political voice over the past 50 years (see Albert Hirschman, *Exit, Voice, and Loyalty*). We forget that successful democracy is based on engagement, and that if we don't engage then the economic powers that we exit between will do all the engaging for us, to our detriment.
In other words, the choices are "form a union or be exploited by management," whether its the management you suffer now or the management you'll suffer when you switch jobs. And that's the case both within the workplace and outside it, in our increasingly oligarchic polity.
4
@jkw
In fact, it does!
In fact, it does!
2
Yes it does. Unions give back in the form of increased wages, pensions, job security and other benefits they negotiate.
2
Just so there is no confusion about who is behind this democracy-destroying lawsuit read this article. As usual it's the Koch brothers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/koch-tied-group-asks-high_b...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/koch-tied-group-asks-high_b...
21
Don't forget ALEC!
4
The abysmal performance of US students as mesaured agasint their peers wordlwide can be laid squarely at the teacher unions feet. In a recent survey the came in 36th, trailing nations such as Estonia and the Slovak Republic. The national consensus, articulated in a New York Times editorial, was that America’s students are falling “further and further behind.” No other country spends more on education then the US, almost $900 billion annually, yet literacy rates have decreased while graduates unprepared for college or the workplace have increased. The facts speak for themselves and no amount of obfuscation by teacher unions can hide the fact that they are primarily responsible for the abysmal performance. Thanks but no thanks, my kids will never be subjected to the public school system, and every parent should have the right by virtue of school choice.
13
No, this can laid at the feet of parents and a society that looks upon intelligent people as oddities, nerds, pencil necked dweebs. We revere the cheaters, liars, super athletes, and celebrities. Just look at how much of the local paper is devoted to sports versus any intellectual achievements. Then look at how much we spend on stadiums, sports fields, and all the merchandising that accompanies any sort of celebrity. Once you're done gawking over that, check out how little we care about intellectual achievements: the GOP is a great example. They don't believe that climate is occurring. They believe that women who get pregnant after being raped weren't truly raped.
4
Actually Lou, the facts speak in the opposite direction since practically of the countries that do better than the US have strong teacher unions.
"It's a totally different situation in Finland. For me, as Minister of Education, our teachers' union has been one of the main partners because we have the same goal: we all want to ensure that the quality of education is good and we are working very much together with the union. Nearly every week we are in discussions with them. They are very powerful in Finland. Nearly all of the teachers are members. I think we don't have big differences in our thinking. They are very good partners for us."
"It's a totally different situation in Finland. For me, as Minister of Education, our teachers' union has been one of the main partners because we have the same goal: we all want to ensure that the quality of education is good and we are working very much together with the union. Nearly every week we are in discussions with them. They are very powerful in Finland. Nearly all of the teachers are members. I think we don't have big differences in our thinking. They are very good partners for us."
What's constantly obscured by this tired line is the extent of the internal disparities in the US. Things are just fine at my daughter's unionized elite urban school, just as they are in many rich suburban districts (these kids do well by world standards), just as they are in many places in the world where teachers are organized (I see you're writing from Europe).
Things are not fine where kids grow up with poverty and violence and attend underfunded institutions. Since when did teachers and teachers' unions become reponsible for this country's staggering inequality? And who came up with the fantasy that education--as opposed to the twentieth century solution of redistributive taxation--will fix this?
Things are not fine where kids grow up with poverty and violence and attend underfunded institutions. Since when did teachers and teachers' unions become reponsible for this country's staggering inequality? And who came up with the fantasy that education--as opposed to the twentieth century solution of redistributive taxation--will fix this?
2
There are no unions in the white collar world of corporations. Management calls all the shots and workers must accept all their decisions regarding raises, health benefits, vacation schedules, etc. The odd employee may decide to fight what he considers to be unfairness or discrimination in a court system but then he will face a battery of corporate lawyers and long delays in that court system during which time he may be unemployed or blacklisted from getting another job. That employee has zero leverage. Leverage is what unions give lone employees. Since corporations are on an endless pursuit for cheap labor, what we have today is the hollowing out of the middle class. Corporate employees have zero leverage. Leverage is what unions give an employee. One can only wonder who is behind the lawsuit of Ms. Friedrichs or if Ms. Friedrichs is just a useful tool for corporations. Back in time when powerful and wealthy manufacturing owners tried to break up strikes for workers protesting for better working conditions they brought in scabs who were willing to work for less. Ms. Friedrichs is in that tradition.
23
The Author argues that the 1st Amendment rights of some must be trampled because human nature will cause so many others to skip paying the union dues. Sorry, that argument does not hold water. Freeloaders are a fact of life, part of human nature as the Author notes.
4
The argument that your first amendment rights are damaged by a requirement that you pay for a service you receive is MUCH more full of holes than the argument that some people will take advantage if told they can legally steal.
15
Freeloaders are a part of life.... Now, there's a modern American sentiment. My generation would have added: "let's add some checks and balances to that life."
1
What is lacking in this opinion piece is that there is and should be a clear distinction between private sector unions, representing employees in for profit private businesses, and public sector unions that represent employees of the either the State, Federal or local governments. The relationship between private sector unions and the employers is based almost entirely on what can be termed "business decisions." Increased wages, benefits, adjust the seniority system are all based on whether cooperation between the employees' union and the employer is a decision that satisfies both parties. If not the union can choose to strike the employer or the employer can choose to lock out, or not employ the workers. The principal impact is on the business, not the larger society.
Public employees have a obligation to perform their jobs in a competent manner for the benefit of society. Public employees are protected by civil service regulations that have been law for most of the 20th Century. Public sector unions exist to serve only the interests of their member public employees and not society. Over the last several years police unions have been vilified in the media because it is alleged that these unions protect brutal police tactics. Teachers' unions are normally not criticized because of their favored status.
The regulation of public employment, including wages, benefits, and conditions of employment should be the exclusive domain of the legislature, city or county council.
Public employees have a obligation to perform their jobs in a competent manner for the benefit of society. Public employees are protected by civil service regulations that have been law for most of the 20th Century. Public sector unions exist to serve only the interests of their member public employees and not society. Over the last several years police unions have been vilified in the media because it is alleged that these unions protect brutal police tactics. Teachers' unions are normally not criticized because of their favored status.
The regulation of public employment, including wages, benefits, and conditions of employment should be the exclusive domain of the legislature, city or county council.
8
"What is lacking in this opinion piece is that there is and should be a clear distinction between private sector unions...."
The GOP makes no such distinction in its war on unions. While public unions are being attacked by GOP-backed cases in the Supreme Court, red states are declaring themselves "right-to-work," which also allows freeloading and weakens unions.
The GOP makes no such distinction in its war on unions. While public unions are being attacked by GOP-backed cases in the Supreme Court, red states are declaring themselves "right-to-work," which also allows freeloading and weakens unions.
4
"The regulation of public employment, including wages, benefits, and conditions of employment should be the exclusive domain of the legislature, city or county council" all of which can be supported by immense contributions from the rich opposed to the welfare of workers.
Seem fair to you?
Seem fair to you?
3
That's an amazing job of rationalization. Perhaps you believe you've drawn a valid distinction and explained why private but not public unions should be allowed. You haven't, though, and the fact that unionized schools are generally better than non-union ones suggests that they really DO work in the best interests of pretty much everyone, not just teachers.
4
This is ultimately a question about the balance of power between corporations and people (the public sector is just a proxy for what the ultimate target is, all socialist, communist unions). As much as the conservatives would like to eliminate all union activities, they use the only tools they have, the courts and legislation to attack the most vulnerable, public sector unions. Conservatives believe (wrongly) in the myth of the fundamental fairness and justice of free, open markets - Smith's invisible hand will guide corporations to do what's right. Smith's hand will squash the powerless unless they are armed with a weapon, and unions are it. This likely move by the SCOTUS is the first step in a unilateral disarming of the people.
16
Sorry Comrade your wrong. This is a question of the 1st amendment rights of individuals. There is no corporation in this equation. I will not presume to tell you your business but remember you always have the right to withdrawal your labor.
To save the unions, we must sever their connection from politics and the political process. It seems everyone understands that unions have the power to sway elections in favor of candidates that may be good for the union, but bad for the city or state. Even the fear of that is enough to doom unions. I understand that the incomprehensible lack of infrastructure repair during our great recession was due to congress's probably legitimate fear that all the new jobs would be union and dues collected from all the new members would support a range of local and national politicians, with the power to sway many elections, at least locally. Republicans will avoid going in an otherwise helpful direction if it is suicide for their party, and democrats should be smart enough to realize this, should stop being so intransigent and work to get unions out of politics, so we can have jobs, new infrastructure and unions too. I understand that one reason Christie stopped work on our desperately needed transit repair in NJ was fear of unions.
Some people have suggested a non political board of some type, or a tax payer referendum look at contracts. Maybe it's as simple as forbidding unions to contribute to candidates or to back candidates, and instead focus on supporting their members day to day.
Until unions
Some people have suggested a non political board of some type, or a tax payer referendum look at contracts. Maybe it's as simple as forbidding unions to contribute to candidates or to back candidates, and instead focus on supporting their members day to day.
Until unions
3
Would you apply the same rules for companies? Would you allow people to support candidates that are good for them?
4
Len, I would not have an opinion about a private company. Let's say someone runs a small business and they donate to democratic candidates ; that's fine. The people who work for the company can donate money to whoever they like. I'd rather not have union dues collected from the employees used to support candidates, but because it is a private business, it is less of a problem.
But government work becomes a problem. Let's say we will spend 5 billion to build a bridge. On all the money paid to labor during this project, a surcharge is collected, used to support democratic candidates only. It's a lot of money. First of all, obviously Republicans will complain. Because Republicans control congress, they may decide that the bridge should not be built at all. That is a problem.
In addition, the unions might slow work, or demand more money. The democrat politicians that the union supports know in the long run, this only helps them and gets them more money. This invites corruption, and tends to make the politicians who support the unions the most corrupt (as I have seen here in NJ)
Make it so the unions can't support candidates, and this problem might be helped. Actually, does anyone have a better idea to fix this?
But government work becomes a problem. Let's say we will spend 5 billion to build a bridge. On all the money paid to labor during this project, a surcharge is collected, used to support democratic candidates only. It's a lot of money. First of all, obviously Republicans will complain. Because Republicans control congress, they may decide that the bridge should not be built at all. That is a problem.
In addition, the unions might slow work, or demand more money. The democrat politicians that the union supports know in the long run, this only helps them and gets them more money. This invites corruption, and tends to make the politicians who support the unions the most corrupt (as I have seen here in NJ)
Make it so the unions can't support candidates, and this problem might be helped. Actually, does anyone have a better idea to fix this?
1
Karen - You comment is too hypothetical. Perhaps the unions will provide well trained workers who will work hard and get the bridge built on time. Perhaps they will blow the whistle on the fact that the Republican governor has given the work to cronies of his (as I have seen in NJ).
You have not convinced me that if Koch industries and friends are allowed to give many times what unions give to support candidates who oppose pollution controls (& this is far from hypothetical), that unions should not be allowed to collect funds from willing workers to support candidates who support paying workers in line with their productivity and safe working conditions.
Perhaps you should try again.
You have not convinced me that if Koch industries and friends are allowed to give many times what unions give to support candidates who oppose pollution controls (& this is far from hypothetical), that unions should not be allowed to collect funds from willing workers to support candidates who support paying workers in line with their productivity and safe working conditions.
Perhaps you should try again.
Being forced to support a union, no matter what the excuse, as a requirement of one's job is akin to supporting a dictatorship. The union movement lost the rest of us when their request for contributions became a tribute. Or protection.
28
You're forced to support all kinds of things as a requirement of your job. The difference between being forced to support the union and being forced to support an overpaid and knuckleheaded manager (yes, that's your money that's going to his/her pay) is that you can join the union and change it.
4
How is this different from being forced to pay taxes? After all if a union is certified that means a majority of workers want it and its benefits. This is the way democracy works.
5
Locksley spews vicious Koch-inspired nonsense.
5
"Union members also staff phone banks and canvass voters door to door, which actually increases civic participation among union members and nonmembers alike." Yes - to vote Democrat; it is just this kind of activity which paints the public service unions as "political" entities and not one's everyday union. The point is not whether unions have served some Americans well; what our democracy - that is, the broadest good for the citizenry - should be focused on is whether they still do. Unfortunately for the public it is resoundingly that they don't.
Of sure - they are great for the members. Witness, for instance, Long Island teachers (where I once resided) regularly earning six figure pay checks coupled with astounding free or near free health and pension benefits. If you, Mr. or Ms. worker in private industry is wondering who actually receives free Cadillac health plans - check out your local schools. Of course to provide all this largess requires monster local property taxes; fail to pay the tax for any reason and watch one's home foreclosed (thousands every year on Long Island) and sold off to the highest bidder.
The homeowner is basically reduced to a serf; and the unions have the sheriffs on their side. There is no equality, no democracy; thanks to the union's vast political powers it's all one-sided in favor of the unions.
Of sure - they are great for the members. Witness, for instance, Long Island teachers (where I once resided) regularly earning six figure pay checks coupled with astounding free or near free health and pension benefits. If you, Mr. or Ms. worker in private industry is wondering who actually receives free Cadillac health plans - check out your local schools. Of course to provide all this largess requires monster local property taxes; fail to pay the tax for any reason and watch one's home foreclosed (thousands every year on Long Island) and sold off to the highest bidder.
The homeowner is basically reduced to a serf; and the unions have the sheriffs on their side. There is no equality, no democracy; thanks to the union's vast political powers it's all one-sided in favor of the unions.
13
Instead of resenting your fellow workers, why don't you support good health benefits and pensions for all? You are going against your own kind, while you support the 1 percent.
9
So who votes in your local school board or city council? Just asking.
Let's look at the bottom line:
"Throughout the nation the average earnings of workers with at least four years of college are now over 50 percent higher than the average earnings of a teacher."
http://www.nea.org/home/12661.htm
"Throughout the nation the average earnings of workers with at least four years of college are now over 50 percent higher than the average earnings of a teacher."
http://www.nea.org/home/12661.htm
2
To give you a stark example of the effect of a union, film productions agree to pay background actors currently $158/8 hour day (not terribly much, considering these are often quite skilled actors who pay union dues and incur costs continued actor training and headshots), much more if the day goes into considerable overtime. To contrast, non-union actors often get paid $64/8, and a bit more for overtime, but no guarantee if that. A star-struck public will sometimes even work for nothing with the chance to see their favorite stars. There is no guarantee if and what non-union actors get fed during the production day. Union actors are guaranteed that they get fed whatever the crew gets fed. There are safety requirements on set, and there is a local SAG-AFTRA representative who can be contacted.
There are other contrasts, but this shows you the direct affect of there being a union. The production company, in order to get union support, agrees to hire a certain number of union actors per production. The rest, often a majority, are non-union.
SAG-AFTRA is not the strongest individual union. That a union actor might only work one day, if at all, on a production, doesn't make it a significant source of income, so that one day's pay isn't huge; but the above does show the difference a union can have on working conditions and pay.
In situations where all employees get the benefits, they owe the applicable union for their salary and benefits.
There are other contrasts, but this shows you the direct affect of there being a union. The production company, in order to get union support, agrees to hire a certain number of union actors per production. The rest, often a majority, are non-union.
SAG-AFTRA is not the strongest individual union. That a union actor might only work one day, if at all, on a production, doesn't make it a significant source of income, so that one day's pay isn't huge; but the above does show the difference a union can have on working conditions and pay.
In situations where all employees get the benefits, they owe the applicable union for their salary and benefits.
8
I hear the name of the Supreme Court Building is being changed to the Koch Justice Center.
23
Well, Patrick, they have Lincoln Center, NYC, and PBS. Why not a chunk of DC real estate before Trump gets it?
Even Democrats, and democratic non-public unions, are turning against the clout and out-sized, unsustainable pay packages that the public employee unions have wrenched from government.
Puerto Rico is bankrupt. Chicago, soon. Illinois next. Then public and private pension funds will issue massive shortfall warnings. Where does this end?
Puerto Rico is bankrupt. Chicago, soon. Illinois next. Then public and private pension funds will issue massive shortfall warnings. Where does this end?
14
But why don't they go after police unions only normal govt. employee unions?
2
It ends in a race to the bottom - low wages, poor working conditions - just set the clock back 100 years.
4
Indeed, the only way forward for the threatened 0.1% is to crush those damn' unions.
2
I believe that contrary to your statement that "Teachers unions are strong champions of American public schooling" teachers unions are interested in the interest of the teachers first and foremost. There is nothing wrong with that but please don't pretend that they are the guardians of education. As Albert Shanker once said "I'll care about students when they start paying dues".
11
In WV, there is a union rule that dictates when school can start and end each year. It does not matter if some districts have a month of snow days, the school year MUST end by that date no matter what because the union does not want to work any longer. Best interests of students??????
6
I would argue that teachers' unions are first and foremost interested in the power of the union and its leaders. Teachers themselves come second. Students and their parents are at best an afterthought.
Albert Shanker may have said that but every teacher I worked with cared deeply for their students. We were tremendously happy when one of our former students did well, and felt we were a small part of it. We were especially happy when a student from a tough situation did well. I saw teachers reach in their own pockets to provide for their students.
We also see teachers put their students, not their children, first when events such as school shootings or natural disasters occur. Then they are heroes.
People like you, who paint all teachers with a broad brush, have no idea whatyou are talking about.
We also see teachers put their students, not their children, first when events such as school shootings or natural disasters occur. Then they are heroes.
People like you, who paint all teachers with a broad brush, have no idea whatyou are talking about.
4
Thank you for reminding us of the key benefits and values unions have brought to counter the relentless march towards oligarchy.
Decreasing the power of unions by sanctifying free riders, which will ultimately kill off unions, would be another blow to the "little guy" and a return to worker exploitation that led to the union movement in the first place.
This court, and has already done significant damage to our body politic through the sometimes insidious judicial reasoning of Roberts--some would call it, "pie in the sky" attitude about the clearly deleterious effects on our operational democracy. A Justice who cavalierly ushered in Citizens United is now poised to further strengthen the hand of the wealthy by weakening one of the few counterbalances against wealth.
This gradual undoing of every element of civic progress in our history will come back to haunt one day, as we further cede citizen power to those with great wealth,
Decreasing the power of unions by sanctifying free riders, which will ultimately kill off unions, would be another blow to the "little guy" and a return to worker exploitation that led to the union movement in the first place.
This court, and has already done significant damage to our body politic through the sometimes insidious judicial reasoning of Roberts--some would call it, "pie in the sky" attitude about the clearly deleterious effects on our operational democracy. A Justice who cavalierly ushered in Citizens United is now poised to further strengthen the hand of the wealthy by weakening one of the few counterbalances against wealth.
This gradual undoing of every element of civic progress in our history will come back to haunt one day, as we further cede citizen power to those with great wealth,
49
What happens when you vote Republican. It is like smoking, the bad effects may show up decades later.
58
Succinct and B R I L L I A N T !!!
3
America deserves the strongest 0.1% moneyed speech and weakest 99.9% silence the $upreme Court can design.
Oligarch$ United !
RIP, America....a nice idea while it lasted.
Oligarch$ United !
RIP, America....a nice idea while it lasted.
112
Freedom of Speech is most fundamental American value. Let's hope the Court restores it.
2
Many public sector workers in NYC are members of the 1% and will elect whichever politician promises to keep them there.
Growing inequality was the goal of weakening unions. It made the rich sick to see the masses with decent wages, benefits, pensions, etc. Only the rich were supposed to have those things.
84
Contrary to the authors unsubstantiated claims and bias, unions have not provided prosperity but rather destroyed it. His claim that teachers union stand for good student outcomes is particularly galling. An intellectually honest appraisal of unions would say that they fight for greater compensation at the cost of the success and quality of the organizations and customers of the organizations that they work for. In the case of schools, their purpose is not to serve the student but their membership's financial interest. The result is a school system that costs taxpayers twice as much post inflation over the last 30 years while our students have fallen further behind their international peers. The adversarial relationship between unions and company success can be seen in the failures of so many American industries from textiles to autos, the results are few jobs. Only when government is a monopoly do unions thrive and there because they cost taxpayers.
27
But what about states with weak or nonexistent unions performing worse academically than states with strong unions?
10
Your opening statement renders the remainder of your post meaningless, since you're arguing from a flawed assumption. Unions enabled working people to create the great American postwar middle class to which conservatives render so much lip service (even as they work overtime to destroy it). Teacher unions simply make it possible for educators to earn fair wages for their work.
4
Both union and non-union Jobs left the US because management will automate or offshore any job to save labor expense. That's their job in capitalism. When you can get the work done for $1.00 a day in Bangladesh by a 12 year old, it covers the cost of transport and you still increase profit, so who cares? There was never a union that wanted to break an industry; it doesn't make sense of you would pause to analyze the outcome for the members. The "failure" of schools has nothing to do with paying the people on the line - teachers - a decent wage with benefits. Unions serve their membership? Duh. Of course; that's their job. My brother made 62 cars an hour for 35 years. Prior to the Japanese scare, he made crappy cars. At the end he made world class cars. This had nothing to do with unions. It was the result of unimaginative, complacent, and arrogant corporate types who almost destroyed the industry. They almost did it again in 2008 when we had to bail them out yet again. Throughout all of it, the guys on the line turned out those 62 cars an hour every hour for 60 hours a week as they had contracted to do. You just don't get it, I suppose because you can't relate to the work. I tried to use an analogy of auto manufacturing for today's schools. Who is really in charge? Local school boards, parents, politicians, and ideological, hand wringing bystanders have found the perfect scapegoat.
4
Here in democratic socialist Austria, unions are ubiquitous. All my employees have a contract based on a "collective contract" (KV). KVs are negotiated between the business chamber of commerce and the worker's chamber (AK). Base salary levels, vacation, etc. are all part of each KV. That costs money, but since almost everyone pays in, the costs are reasonable. Part of the employee taxes I pay each month goes to the AK. Workers can go to the AK if they think they are being treated unfairly.
- Does all this make it more difficult to compete? Yes, but only with countries that don't have these things.
- Does it increase the cost of doing business? Yes, but it can be (and is) argued that it is only an increase over unfair business practices.
- Does it reduce my power over my employees? Yes, and that is the whole point.
I like to think I'm a nice boss, but there are lots of unscrupulous people who will exploit their workers (see Chinese iPhone production, Asian garment workers).
My employees can concentrate on their jobs without fear that they'll never get a raise without a personal negotiation (a skill not everyone has) or get fired from one day to the next. The cost savings to me are also clear. I don't have to have periodic negotiations with every employee. Less fearful employees are more productive. Lower turnover saves training costs. Etc.
Unions are good for everyone except exploitative employers.
Globalization helps mostly the 1%.
- Does all this make it more difficult to compete? Yes, but only with countries that don't have these things.
- Does it increase the cost of doing business? Yes, but it can be (and is) argued that it is only an increase over unfair business practices.
- Does it reduce my power over my employees? Yes, and that is the whole point.
I like to think I'm a nice boss, but there are lots of unscrupulous people who will exploit their workers (see Chinese iPhone production, Asian garment workers).
My employees can concentrate on their jobs without fear that they'll never get a raise without a personal negotiation (a skill not everyone has) or get fired from one day to the next. The cost savings to me are also clear. I don't have to have periodic negotiations with every employee. Less fearful employees are more productive. Lower turnover saves training costs. Etc.
Unions are good for everyone except exploitative employers.
Globalization helps mostly the 1%.
215
Er . . . no . . . Globalization helps mostly the hundreds of millions of impoverished people in places like India, China, and Southeast Asia where life of the poorest has improved hugely.
2
jlalbrecht,
With due respect, your past comment re: globalizations's impact is woefully ignorant.
Global capitalism has resulted in the largest gain in the history of mankind in the reduction of our fellow humans who live in absolute poverty (less than $1 per day). This is an unprecedented rise for the world's least fortunate and it's primarily due to globalization.
As you sit in your Austrian home, I hope you realize that you are part of the world's top 1% and the difference between your standard of living and the average human on this planet is immense. Are you giving back? Or are you asking the top 0.01% to provide money for other top 1% rather than those who truly need it? That's what the Occupy movement should be focused on
With due respect, your past comment re: globalizations's impact is woefully ignorant.
Global capitalism has resulted in the largest gain in the history of mankind in the reduction of our fellow humans who live in absolute poverty (less than $1 per day). This is an unprecedented rise for the world's least fortunate and it's primarily due to globalization.
As you sit in your Austrian home, I hope you realize that you are part of the world's top 1% and the difference between your standard of living and the average human on this planet is immense. Are you giving back? Or are you asking the top 0.01% to provide money for other top 1% rather than those who truly need it? That's what the Occupy movement should be focused on
2
Thanks for that post. Very refreshing. Sadly, America is behind the 8-ball on so many issues. We are probably the only country, in the developed world, that thinks it is OK to impoverish your workers. We currently have a majority in the Congress and Supreme Court who are fully aligned with the interests of the 1%. It is no wonder that wealth disparity is as high as it is. Pretty soon, we will be a Banana Republic, uber-wealthy and majority poor. We may be there already.
4
Unions have kidnapped education from our children with their work rules. They make political contributions on the local level to people who then negotiate their contracts. What could possible be wrong? In Massachusetts, teachers go on strike. The school committee will cave and settle, and all the rest of the unions get an equal benefit. Tenure is an arcane practice that was used to protect free speech. It's 2016, time for a change.
19
Tenure for teachers, and for most college faculty, leads many to move to the anti-union side.
Then please explain why education is invariably better in states (MA), and countries (Finland) with strong teacher unions and terrible in states (MiS) with weak or nonexistent teachers unions. (I don't know of any developed countries with weak teachers unions.)
4
Len, the Times should publish a list of countries with strong teachers unions and their educational rankings, along side a list of US states ranked similarly. Wide variations.
The US is the only developed country that lets states be individual fiefdoms, with the power to decide such crucial matters affecting citizen well being, and even other life and death issues. The 'land of equality' allows 2nd class citizenship acc to geographical location. Other nations value national standards as a right of citizenship. But then they're not afraid of their federal govt.
The US is the only developed country that lets states be individual fiefdoms, with the power to decide such crucial matters affecting citizen well being, and even other life and death issues. The 'land of equality' allows 2nd class citizenship acc to geographical location. Other nations value national standards as a right of citizenship. But then they're not afraid of their federal govt.
According to Chief Justice John Roberts, in his testimony at his confirmation hearing, the role of a Supreme Court Justice is like an umpire calling "balls and strikes".What Roberts disingenuously failed to acknowledge is that umpires have different strike zones. The current Conservative Bloc on the court enforces an anti-worker, anti-labor, pro-business strike zone.This does not bode well for the current California pro union policy.
55
Don, So you prefer judges to be pro-union in line with "current" Progressive "pro union policy". I take it that any judicial decision that furthers such a "current" policy has your full support. Do you see how nonsensical your position is? Why not impose a "The Other Guy Tax" upon successful businesses the proceeds of which would be to financially support all union activity?
12
John, I don't think you realize the importance of teachers unions to the working conditions of all teachers.The ABOOD decision removed political speech from forced deductions I agree with that, but it's a matter of fairness.All should pay their fair share when the negotiation activity benefits that particular person. Being a ,free rider" is simply wrong.
6
If you get the benefits of successful collective bargaining that puts more money in your pocket, shouldn't you help to defray the cost of that benefit?
2
Unions do nothing to support a well-informed and engaged electorate, which is the true foundation of a strong democracy. What they do is protect the economic interests of an elite – in 2013, only 11.3% of U.S. workers belonged to a union. 11.3% who enjoy benefits greater than the vast majority of the whole isn’t a bad definition of an “elite”. Even the 35.3% of public sector workers who belonged to unions in 2013 could be argued to be an elite.
The 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling cited limited its ceding of preference to unions to those activities involved with “collective bargaining over bread-and-butter issues like wages, benefits and working conditions”; but that preference didn’t explicitly extend to political activities supporting candidates who have a greater ideological impact on our governance than that. Yet unions traditionally have engaged in partisan politics seeking precisely that end. If they’re to do that, then they should use resources collected from members who explicitly choose that their contributions be used for patently ideological political purposes.
This entire op-ed begs the basic question by offering as a premise for its argument that how unions proselytize a progressive ideology with members’ coerced money is a good thing. But that’s precisely the question at issue, and I suspect the Court will challenge that assumption. Let the chips fall where they may.
The 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling cited limited its ceding of preference to unions to those activities involved with “collective bargaining over bread-and-butter issues like wages, benefits and working conditions”; but that preference didn’t explicitly extend to political activities supporting candidates who have a greater ideological impact on our governance than that. Yet unions traditionally have engaged in partisan politics seeking precisely that end. If they’re to do that, then they should use resources collected from members who explicitly choose that their contributions be used for patently ideological political purposes.
This entire op-ed begs the basic question by offering as a premise for its argument that how unions proselytize a progressive ideology with members’ coerced money is a good thing. But that’s precisely the question at issue, and I suspect the Court will challenge that assumption. Let the chips fall where they may.
42
Like every special interest, unions look to support politicians who are pro-union and pro-labor. The fact that Republicans have been trying to kill unions for decades speaks volumes. I contribute to an organization called VOTE-COPE to be represented in a lobby, the one and only one that speaks to the interests of public sector employees. These contributions are voluntary. If someone is so vehemently against a single penny of theirs going to these activities, then they can find a teaching job in a non-union school. Thanks to the Republican (and far too many Democrats), there is a burgeoning number to choose from. She might not last there three years without protections and with horrible working conditions, but that is her choice.
43
Yeah, let individuals try bargaining with a large employer, government or private sector and see how that works.
52
Wow, calling union members "elite" because they have better benefits!
The fact is that they have better benefits because they are in a union.
The fact is that they have better benefits because they are in a union.
18
The justices are very glibly characterizing any effort by unions to bargain on behalf of members as a political action, since one actor in the negotiations is the government. This is an absurd reduction. When the government pays people who are doing a non-political function -- the police and fire fighting forces, for example - it acts like a business. And while the the government's is not at heart a business, it has to enter into contracts to effect its goals.
This is not a matter of inherently political action, as is being claimed. It is a matter of fair negotiating power.
This is not a matter of inherently political action, as is being claimed. It is a matter of fair negotiating power.
68
"Fair negotiating power?" The Obama "Fairness Doctrine" is now justifying taking money away from non-union workers to support unions that they oppose.
Unions have to enter into contracts to effectuate its goals? Hardly. Unions support candidates and issues and pay lobbyists and that is where the rub is. A 30 hour work week is a political issue. A pay raise is a political issue. Please see arguments for minimum wage changes.
Unions have to enter into contracts to effectuate its goals? Hardly. Unions support candidates and issues and pay lobbyists and that is where the rub is. A 30 hour work week is a political issue. A pay raise is a political issue. Please see arguments for minimum wage changes.
9
A business negotiating with other people's money (the taxpayers').
The justices are not making the argument that bargaining on behalf of members is a political action, the aggrieved plaintiffs are making that argument.
The plaintiffs who have been identified in the news are all senior teachers. And they are opposed to the seniority rule that says in a layoff the last hired go first.
The plaintiffs who have been identified in the news are all senior teachers. And they are opposed to the seniority rule that says in a layoff the last hired go first.
This pro corporate anti worker Roberts court, is putting the final nail in the coffin of the middle class. People in unions tend to be middle class and also tend to be the only bargaining power workers have. This lawsuit is being paid for by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation out of Milwaukee who has funded Scott Walker, and Koch brothers, who want corporations to control this country and what they pay workers. This article in Politico also mentions Justice Alito who invited this lawsuit. Good article in Politico.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/friedrichs-california-teachers-uni...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/friedrichs-california-teachers-uni...
92
I haven't read the Politico article yet, but if Alito invited this lawsuit, should he recuse himself? He's shown a prior bias in this matter, after all.
7
Really good piece. I have been on both sides of this argument over my life time from childhood on up. Now firmly agree in the doctrine of at least paying for the essential services. She is just a tool. Without unions the asymmetry of the bargaining would destroy the working class that is left. If the "conservatives" through their judges want feudalism they should hope they find for the plaintiff. Let us hope the justices step into the light from the dark side.
69
In a negotiation between a union and political leaders to whom they have made significant political contributions and for whom they have manned phone banks on government time, who represents the taxpayer?
Please tell me, why should members of public sector unions receive full pensions after 20 years of work, then be able to go on to another public sector job to double dip? Why are so municipalities going bankrupt? Because taxes are not high enough on the wealthy residents to fund the pensions of the public sector employees?
Public sector unions are out of control. Time to rein them in.
Public sector unions are out of control. Time to rein them in.
We are talking about a public sector worker, not someone working for an evil corporation. She thinks it's wrong / corrupt for her union to give money to politicians who in turn negotiate her salary. Doesn't that seem corrupt to you too?
If Ms. Friedrichs does not want to pay to support negotiating pay and benefits I can understand that. What I don't understand is that she then still expects to receive the benefits of such negotiations. If she wins her case let her salary and benefits be suspended until she negotiates a new contract on her own. Only fair.
291
I am sure she would be fine with that. Any other objections?
Why must she have a contract at all?
1
Making a citizen choose between her Constitutional rights or suffer a penalty is against the 225+ years formulation of law that is our Constitutional construct in this country. What is at issue here is a law that compels, under the power of the State, a person pay her money or loose her job.
If you like weekends Thank a Union.
If you like child labor laws, the 40 hour workweek, overtime pay, unemployment compensation, Thank a Union.
Never forget, American citizens were shot dead in the streets, like dogs, from Homestead PA to Ludlow and Leadville CO by "private contractors" hired by the 1%, Wobblies were hung from bridges, all over the West, for the right to unionise.
If you like child labor laws, the 40 hour workweek, overtime pay, unemployment compensation, Thank a Union.
Never forget, American citizens were shot dead in the streets, like dogs, from Homestead PA to Ludlow and Leadville CO by "private contractors" hired by the 1%, Wobblies were hung from bridges, all over the West, for the right to unionise.
230
If you like the mafia thank a union; extorting money via no-show jobs, job actions (strikes) and "business agents" e.g. "muscle" to threaten working people and their employers. If you like "closed shops" thank a union. Keeping any competition out of the workplace and keeping the union a "velvet rope" workplace, where you can only get a job if you know someone in the union, pay to play, or did the mob a favor.
4
So true. People need to know the history
1
Your history is wrong.
If you like weekends thank Henry Ford.
If you like child labor laws, the 40 hour workweek, overtime pay, unemployment compensation, thank Henry Ford.
If you like weekends thank Henry Ford.
If you like child labor laws, the 40 hour workweek, overtime pay, unemployment compensation, thank Henry Ford.
1
Wasn't Scalia's position in the Hobby Lobby case that employees who want contraceptive coverage that Hobby Lobby didn't want to provide could just simply find another job that did? How is this any different? If this pawn of the think tanks that cooked up this case and then rushed it through the lower courts wants to opt out of paying for the representation that her union gives her, then she should be required to leave not only the union behind but EVERY BENEFIT the Union gives her. She should no longer be covered by the contract and be forced to negotiate her own contract. Starting from ground zero, she loses her health benefits, her defined benefit pension, sick days, personal days, limits on how many classes she can teach and class size, summer vacation, snow days (if it applies), union representation when she goofs up and is brought before the man and every other thing her union provides all employees for what is a nominal fee. It costs a lot of money to do collective bargaining and those costs in legal fees don't end when the memorandum of agreement is signed. She and all like her should be forced to negotiate these things for themselves. Or, she could find another job in one of a multitude of schools that have no union representation (most charter schools) and then find how badly those teachers are treated on average. She should have no trouble finding a job there...teacher turnover is scary. Good luck!
171
There's no union at the company where I work. There is no contract. We have vacations, healthcare, pension, etc. Its been the same everywhere I have worked. Why would teachers NOT have those things? Employers need to offer those things to get qua!city people.
Well put. If she doesn't like it, she can try to get a job at a private school. There, she can look forward to a lower salary, less benefits, and no job security (since she will, at most, be given a year-to-year contract that can be terminated for any reason at the end of each school year).
The union-bashing most likely from the very folks who would benefit from unions is so distressing. Yet another example of how the right-wing drumbeat of falsehoods and lies (for example, trickle-down economics) has sunken so deep into the collective "thinking" of our country.
The union-bashing most likely from the very folks who would benefit from unions is so distressing. Yet another example of how the right-wing drumbeat of falsehoods and lies (for example, trickle-down economics) has sunken so deep into the collective "thinking" of our country.
Really? Not as far as I've seen. Most companies that I see have slashed pay and benefits since the recession. Unions give them competition so they have to offer those things to attract the same quality as union shops. Get rid of unions and the dam will burst with the few jobs that are left that have what unions gave us in this country.
"Justice Antonin Scalia backed fair share fees, citing the legal duty unions have to represent the interests of nonmembers as well as members"
That legal duty is something that should get more attention and does not. The legal duty of fair representation applies to non-members as well as members. That means that not only are the freeloaders benefiting from membership in the form of negotiated wages and benefits, they can and do demand union representation when they get in trouble. They can demand the union file grievances and take cases to arbitration on their behalf. The union is legally bound to go to the wall for someone who not only doesn't pay dues but who feels they are above membership in the very organization they turn to for help. And if the freeloader feels that his representation wasn't up to snuff, he can sue the union.
Can you imagine the outcry from the right if government mandated that businesses give their services away for free? That is essentially what the freeloaders feel they are entitled to -- getting something for nothing. The Chamber of Commerce is one of the biggest supporters of freeloader legislation; an Owensboro, KY local union responded in kind to the Chamber's request for their annual dues. You can read the correspondence here http://tinyurl.com/hwc3ayq. Oddly, the Chamber didn't seem to think that they should be compelled to provide their services for free; they believed that wouldn't be fair to their other dues-paying members.
That legal duty is something that should get more attention and does not. The legal duty of fair representation applies to non-members as well as members. That means that not only are the freeloaders benefiting from membership in the form of negotiated wages and benefits, they can and do demand union representation when they get in trouble. They can demand the union file grievances and take cases to arbitration on their behalf. The union is legally bound to go to the wall for someone who not only doesn't pay dues but who feels they are above membership in the very organization they turn to for help. And if the freeloader feels that his representation wasn't up to snuff, he can sue the union.
Can you imagine the outcry from the right if government mandated that businesses give their services away for free? That is essentially what the freeloaders feel they are entitled to -- getting something for nothing. The Chamber of Commerce is one of the biggest supporters of freeloader legislation; an Owensboro, KY local union responded in kind to the Chamber's request for their annual dues. You can read the correspondence here http://tinyurl.com/hwc3ayq. Oddly, the Chamber didn't seem to think that they should be compelled to provide their services for free; they believed that wouldn't be fair to their other dues-paying members.
49
Unions are robust and responsive to local needs in right-to-work states. Making government unions respond to the needs of their membership might be just the thing to revitalize them. If the union is providing value, it will be supported by the membership. If they go off on tangents unrelated to the wishes of the membership, like endorsing candidates for President and supporting same-sex marriage, they offend their membership.
The difference between the union paying dues to the chamber of commerce is that if the chamber of commerce takes a position with which the union disagrees, the union can resign their membership without losing their jobs. The same cannot be said of a union member in a closed shop state: paying dues is a condition of employment.
The unions lost all pretense of moral superiority when they started negotiating tiered labor agreements that gave lesser pay and benefits to new hires than senior employees. That injustice is coming home to roost.
The difference between the union paying dues to the chamber of commerce is that if the chamber of commerce takes a position with which the union disagrees, the union can resign their membership without losing their jobs. The same cannot be said of a union member in a closed shop state: paying dues is a condition of employment.
The unions lost all pretense of moral superiority when they started negotiating tiered labor agreements that gave lesser pay and benefits to new hires than senior employees. That injustice is coming home to roost.
4
If unions are so robust in "Right to work" states then why are wages and benefits amount the lowest in the nation?
2
Nobody has to pay dues as a condition of employment. In states that haven't passed "Right to Work" legislation legalizing theft, people have to pay for services they receive.
The fact that that law hasn't entirely killed unions yet isn't a reason to expand it. The government should not legalize freeloading.
The fact that that law hasn't entirely killed unions yet isn't a reason to expand it. The government should not legalize freeloading.
2
An important newspaper like the Times needs a regular op ed columnist discussing what are called ‘labor’ issues, affecting millions of salaried employees in many occupations.
We have much less protections than in the past, when unions helped expand the world’s most secure middle/working class. We see the new Uber economy of contingency workers without guaranteed wages/benefits, h/c..
History shows unions raised salaries and benefits for all employed people, even if their jobs weren’t unionized. Unions helped train a new generation of workers, so they could leave school and be independent, tax paying earners, with the stability for a healthy living standard.
Unions are essential to democracy, since they are a countervailing force against the concentrations of wealth that lead to great imbalance in political power. Our vote is practically meaningless if the super rich control who gets nominated for office.
Our political system is a perfect set up for undermining democracy. After offshoring millions of jobs and raising health/c and education costs beyond affordability for millions, we’re left with little means of redressing grievances.
Now, we need reporting on the various groups aiming to reverse Citizens United which unleashed unlimited political influence on our lawmaking.
The US lags other countries in union membership. Let's compare with Germany and other nations where union reps sit on corporate boards and have input to policy. Let's use their role model.
We have much less protections than in the past, when unions helped expand the world’s most secure middle/working class. We see the new Uber economy of contingency workers without guaranteed wages/benefits, h/c..
History shows unions raised salaries and benefits for all employed people, even if their jobs weren’t unionized. Unions helped train a new generation of workers, so they could leave school and be independent, tax paying earners, with the stability for a healthy living standard.
Unions are essential to democracy, since they are a countervailing force against the concentrations of wealth that lead to great imbalance in political power. Our vote is practically meaningless if the super rich control who gets nominated for office.
Our political system is a perfect set up for undermining democracy. After offshoring millions of jobs and raising health/c and education costs beyond affordability for millions, we’re left with little means of redressing grievances.
Now, we need reporting on the various groups aiming to reverse Citizens United which unleashed unlimited political influence on our lawmaking.
The US lags other countries in union membership. Let's compare with Germany and other nations where union reps sit on corporate boards and have input to policy. Let's use their role model.
63
Employees are now entitled to all those rights by virtue of State Law. I gather you would not support this suit now?
1
Which obviously can be changed when certain interests can spend copious amounts of money. By the by, if statistics are any indication, it isn't labor unions which have those amounts of money.
1
Just so we're clear, if you're a salaried worker the odds are your job was never part of any union contract. Unions represent the "workers"... as in the "hourly workers". Look around your organization and figure out how many / few of those there are. America is now a knowledge economy, not a manufacturing center.
I've worked as a hospital pharmacist for 40 years. About 25 years as a member of a collective bargaining unit and 15 years as an at-will employee in non-union shops. I have several personal observations that might seem paradoxical. Employees in a union shop are more productive. Managers in a union shop are more effective managers. How can that be? When an employee has a contract that is binding on management, the employee feels more secure in the job. Counter-intuitively, that security translates into higher productivity. Managers in a union shop know the limits of their authority and the rights of their authority. It allows them to concentrate on effective operations and that translates into a more dynamic business model.
In my 15 years in non-union shops, I have seen tyrannical managers who embrace the unlimited power of their position to bully their employees on a daily basis and ignore operational needs. The departments are a shambles and the employees become dispirited sheep with no initiative.
In my 15 years in non-union shops, I have seen tyrannical managers who embrace the unlimited power of their position to bully their employees on a daily basis and ignore operational needs. The departments are a shambles and the employees become dispirited sheep with no initiative.
112
Why then do employees overwhelming reject union representation in almost all cases?
John - Because management threatens to move the plant, or fire those engaged in unions activities. Because they are duped by lies from Fox.
From http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/257784-union-elections-are-...
"As U.S. Capitol and Senate cafeteria contract workers, we know this firsthand. Since we started organizing, we’ve been relentlessly harassed and intimidated by our bosses. Managers have threatened to fire us, questioned us about our organizing efforts, cut our hours, changed our schedules, increased our workloads, and ordered us not to speak with union organizers.
In short, managers are illegally creating a hostile work environment to prevent us from joining a union.
If employers feel like they can break the law and retaliate against workers at the seat of the people’s power – the U.S. Capitol and Senate – imagine what’s happening in fast food restaurants and big box retailers in towns far away from where our laws are made and enforced.
We have filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board. But even though the government got the company to post a notice agreeing to stop violating our rights – and even though many U.S. senators are publically supporting us – the anti-union campaign has gotten much worse.?
From http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/257784-union-elections-are-...
"As U.S. Capitol and Senate cafeteria contract workers, we know this firsthand. Since we started organizing, we’ve been relentlessly harassed and intimidated by our bosses. Managers have threatened to fire us, questioned us about our organizing efforts, cut our hours, changed our schedules, increased our workloads, and ordered us not to speak with union organizers.
In short, managers are illegally creating a hostile work environment to prevent us from joining a union.
If employers feel like they can break the law and retaliate against workers at the seat of the people’s power – the U.S. Capitol and Senate – imagine what’s happening in fast food restaurants and big box retailers in towns far away from where our laws are made and enforced.
We have filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board. But even though the government got the company to post a notice agreeing to stop violating our rights – and even though many U.S. senators are publically supporting us – the anti-union campaign has gotten much worse.?
8
If what you say is true, it is contrary to what happens in the rest of the universe.
Pharmacists in hospitals are much more likely to be unionized than in retail pharmacies. Which is why a hospital charges $40 for a Tylenol.
Pharmacists in hospitals are much more likely to be unionized than in retail pharmacies. Which is why a hospital charges $40 for a Tylenol.
1
Having seen up close the arrogant nest-feathering by officials of, say, the UAW, I would never voluntarily pay Union dues. If you think Union execs aren't just as much of the 1 percent as the corporate CEOs, think again. And their concern for the little guy is about on par.
Big Union leadership has about as much in common with Norma Rae as it has with the Easter bunny.
Big Union leadership has about as much in common with Norma Rae as it has with the Easter bunny.
12
But even if union leaders are lining their own nests, aren't they still helping their members get better wages and working conditions? You can't say that about CEOs and other business owners.
Even rich union leaders do help millions of citizens attain decent living standards, whereas where does the excessive CEO compensation go? To a 5th home or yacht, etc?
And of course to higher campaign donations to politicians to further entrench influence over laws in their favor for lower taxes and regulations? It's a vicious cycle.
And of course there's shareholder value to investors coming from underpaying labor wages/benefits.
In our past eras, higher employee wages meant more consumer demand leading to higher corporate profits and a more vibrant economy. That's how it's supposed to work.
And of course to higher campaign donations to politicians to further entrench influence over laws in their favor for lower taxes and regulations? It's a vicious cycle.
And of course there's shareholder value to investors coming from underpaying labor wages/benefits.
In our past eras, higher employee wages meant more consumer demand leading to higher corporate profits and a more vibrant economy. That's how it's supposed to work.
No stare decisis for SCOTUS
No fair play for workers is owed us,
The New Deal once in place
They'd love to erase,
The face of Oppression they've showed us!
No fair play for workers is owed us,
The New Deal once in place
They'd love to erase,
The face of Oppression they've showed us!
37
No stare decisis for SCOTUS
============
Just like in Roe v Wade, amirite?
============
Just like in Roe v Wade, amirite?
Terrific, Larry. Condensed! Perfect for a poster in the next Occupy Wall St street demonstration---if it ever happens.
The Friedrichs case is revealing not only because of the issue to be decided but also because of how it came before the Court. As this piece indicates, a 1977 decision ruled in favor of the unions on the precise issue involved here. When an issue has been decided by the Supreme Court, its holding is binding precedent. Such holdings are seldom challenged -- why bother if there's no chance of winning? That's how it would have gone but for Justice Alito. He dislikes the precedent and he indicated that in previous cases deciding other issues. That sent a message to the right wing think tanks, and along came the Frederichs case. Republicans regularly criticize judicial activism. They also have little fondness for community organizers. Here, Alito, a card-carrying Republican, effectively organized the Republican legal community to change a 38-year old law he doesn't like. What's up with that?
185
What is up with that? The Supreme Court decided to revisit the issue. They can do that and have. Otherwise we would still have slavery.
2
John - But do you think Alito who has clearly made up his mind before reading or hearing a shred of evidence should recuse himself?
2
Fredrich was a child in 1977, should she not fight to defend her Constitutional rights today because she was not present when the injustice was woven into law. Test you theory against slavery, abortion, women right to vote and on and on. The Constitution is a living breathing documents, remember.
2
What the justices do in this matter is secondary to what workers do. If they allow unions to fade further away, workers deserve every kick in the gut they get from the wealthy.
13
@dES
Workers currently under contract are thereby limited as to what and how much they can do in reaction to a negative outcome at the SCOTUS. However, for the 93 percent of private-sector employees and 89 percent of public-sector employees who don't belong to a union, there's the option of a 'spontaneous' general strike, or, as Gandhi referred to such, "A day of prayer and fasting," i.e., a moratorium on productive labor until the courts and bosses come to the realization that somebody's built a dam along the revenue stream.
A famous American labor leader used to say, "Organize, organize , organize!" But to do that, unions will need to educate, educate, educate. Many people -- Rebecca Friedrichs is but one extreme example -- have lost sight of how much they have benefitted from the historic efforts of unions. Currently, they seem to lack a sense of the history and tradition of the struggles of labor organizations against the rich and unscrupulously powerful. (Thankfully, we have the likes of Donald Trump to remind us that we're all earning too much money!)
Workers currently under contract are thereby limited as to what and how much they can do in reaction to a negative outcome at the SCOTUS. However, for the 93 percent of private-sector employees and 89 percent of public-sector employees who don't belong to a union, there's the option of a 'spontaneous' general strike, or, as Gandhi referred to such, "A day of prayer and fasting," i.e., a moratorium on productive labor until the courts and bosses come to the realization that somebody's built a dam along the revenue stream.
A famous American labor leader used to say, "Organize, organize , organize!" But to do that, unions will need to educate, educate, educate. Many people -- Rebecca Friedrichs is but one extreme example -- have lost sight of how much they have benefitted from the historic efforts of unions. Currently, they seem to lack a sense of the history and tradition of the struggles of labor organizations against the rich and unscrupulously powerful. (Thankfully, we have the likes of Donald Trump to remind us that we're all earning too much money!)
5
This is part of an all-out war against labor. The rules of the game are changing and will make the re-emergence of unions that much harder, if not impossible. Look at the lack of unions today in the private sector. Do you think that's an accident? Do you think that's a good thing? Look at middle class wages since the 1970s - how's that working out for all the non-union folk?
3
I am one of the few Americans still lucky enough to belong to a union, a public one. Unions have already been stripped of much of their power, to the tremendous detriment of not just workers who still have unions, but to all workers.
I gladly pay my union dues to ensure there is some entity that stands up to management for fairness. I may still be fired from my job, but not without due process. I may not get much of a raise--though who beyond the 1% is making more every year? I may not get every concession from management that I think is right and reasonable. What I do get is a seat at a table populated by management that is increasingly dismissive of, if not downright hostile to, the value of its employees. I do all this despite knowing that my dues pay for negotiated benefits to be applied across the board--to union members and non-members alike.
Do I wish everyone had the opportunity to join a union, and to pay dues when a union is present? Of course, but further denigrating workers and concentrating all power in management, whether public or private, serves no good purpose, and further tilts an already unequal partnership towards the haves and away from the have nots.
I gladly pay my union dues to ensure there is some entity that stands up to management for fairness. I may still be fired from my job, but not without due process. I may not get much of a raise--though who beyond the 1% is making more every year? I may not get every concession from management that I think is right and reasonable. What I do get is a seat at a table populated by management that is increasingly dismissive of, if not downright hostile to, the value of its employees. I do all this despite knowing that my dues pay for negotiated benefits to be applied across the board--to union members and non-members alike.
Do I wish everyone had the opportunity to join a union, and to pay dues when a union is present? Of course, but further denigrating workers and concentrating all power in management, whether public or private, serves no good purpose, and further tilts an already unequal partnership towards the haves and away from the have nots.
182
Public Unions are notorious for using political clout to influence the employer (elected officials) to cave in to any union demand. Got it?
2
Civil servants cannot be dismissed absent due process whether or not the are unionized: civil service regulations ensure that.
John - And companies do not threaten to move the plant if the workers vote for a unions?
And companies do not spend zillions to elect candidates (think Scott Walker & Koch Industries) to trample on workers' rights?
Frankly I support the right of unions to spend money to elect people who will fight inequality, who will support workers, who are in favor of fair taxation, universal health care, jobs for workers to fix our failing bridges and roads, etc., etc., etc.
Whom do you support?
And companies do not spend zillions to elect candidates (think Scott Walker & Koch Industries) to trample on workers' rights?
Frankly I support the right of unions to spend money to elect people who will fight inequality, who will support workers, who are in favor of fair taxation, universal health care, jobs for workers to fix our failing bridges and roads, etc., etc., etc.
Whom do you support?
9
If something is so great, it should compel people to be part of it on their own, not be forced upon them.
15
Agreed, but see how many vote GOP? And at the encouragement of Fox et al.? As Buffy St. Marie sang: My country, tis of thy people you're dying.
3
That sure sounds nice in theory, but human nature being what is (especially here in America), people regularly try to get something for nothing.
1
i can tell you for a fact that there are indeed people who'll freeload on union work, claiming high-minded libertarian principles but grabbing the bennies and salaries with both flippers and a foot. In fact, I know people who won't live in California because of its socialism--but who will drive in to work, because the salary and benefits and protections are so mch better than at home.
I also know people--and every union I know of has to deal with this--who take the same approach as somebody who doesn't have a mandate to buy health insurance. They join up come negotiations time or when they're in trouble, and bail right after, moaning about the dues.
But mostly, my axe to grind is that even when there's agency fee--you pay about 70% of regular dues, because anything that looks political gets deducted--you still have two outs.
1. You can file, and donate the dues to a charity instead.
2. You can file, and probably get out of paying anything.
These people--and they are supported by right-wing money and lawyers--are objecting to filling out the forms.
But believe me: they get in trouble, they want more pay, and they'll be at the union's door howling faster than Rush called the ACLU when he got arrested for being a junkie.
I also know people--and every union I know of has to deal with this--who take the same approach as somebody who doesn't have a mandate to buy health insurance. They join up come negotiations time or when they're in trouble, and bail right after, moaning about the dues.
But mostly, my axe to grind is that even when there's agency fee--you pay about 70% of regular dues, because anything that looks political gets deducted--you still have two outs.
1. You can file, and donate the dues to a charity instead.
2. You can file, and probably get out of paying anything.
These people--and they are supported by right-wing money and lawyers--are objecting to filling out the forms.
But believe me: they get in trouble, they want more pay, and they'll be at the union's door howling faster than Rush called the ACLU when he got arrested for being a junkie.
213
Agreed. And to your point regarding the non-members getting in trouble, I witnessed that first hand as a leadership member of a small local. We had a good membership level, and consistently, non-members needed a disproportionally high amount of representation for workplace issues. And they never turned down the free help.
41
California is the "Poster Person" for F.D.R.'s strong objections to the very concept of public employee unions in general.
1
So why not a two tier system. Those that benefit from the unions activities pay one low amount, those that want to support political and other activities pay much more.
California is now a one-party Democratic state where the California Teachers Association is the dominant political force. That may be the kind of democracy you like, Mr. Kahlenberg, since it aligns with your political preferences. But Americans expect to see one-party states in places like post-colonial subsaharan Africa, not modern industrial democracies in Europe or North America.
10
This is simple, absolute nonsense. For one thing, if you want to see a California union with serious clout, try the CCPOA.
For another, the years since 2008 have been tough ones for all the California unions. Job cuts like crazy, salary increases, benefits cuts, and Jerry Brown got everybody to agree to increase pension contributions.
If you have a philosophical objection, that's fine by me. But these dopey claims that have nothing to do with reality, not so much.
For another, the years since 2008 have been tough ones for all the California unions. Job cuts like crazy, salary increases, benefits cuts, and Jerry Brown got everybody to agree to increase pension contributions.
If you have a philosophical objection, that's fine by me. But these dopey claims that have nothing to do with reality, not so much.
22
What? Nothing about all the one-party red states in the South? Why am I not surprised.
26
"That may be the kind of democracy you like, Mr. Kahlenberg, since it aligns with your political preferences."
You mean, where the majority of the people vote for the policies they like?
Is the democracy in any Red State is just somehow totally different?
You mean, where the majority of the people vote for the policies they like?
Is the democracy in any Red State is just somehow totally different?
7