As a former Teamster, I say, "Bust A Union." No one should have to pay dues to an organization to which they do not belong. That is robbery or extortion.
2
Few seem to remember that what made America great, for most Americans, was the rise of collective bargaining. It is no coincidence that the decline in union membership and influence is correlated with lagging salaries, loss of retirement security, and declines in access to benefits like health care. The idea that an individuals' skills and experience should guarantee them a degree of prosperity is pure folly when you are up against an oligarchy with jurists who believe that corporations have more rights than citizens.
4
The "conservative" wing of five men with fancy degrees are, in reality, a unified force of right wing political hacks dedicated to making our once great country a playground for the very rich. None of them have the slightest idea what life is like without a decent salary and benefits, nor do they care. They bear witness to everything wrong in our country.
4
Republicans should just repeal NLRA once and for all. They have the numbers to do so and a President that will likely support it.
My union embarrasses me on a daily basis. They have not been compelled to figure out how represent today's worker. There is a great need for collective bargaining and an entity that represents workers but unions are really flailing at this. They are stuck in an old model that worked for factory workers and others jobs requiring minimal education. They have real issues (and I would say outright bad attitude) when dealing with an educated work force. Unions, as they currently exist are essentially zombie entities, propped up by their past achievements. We need something new to rise up from their ashes.
5
Unions are a product of their constituency. Get involved and hold them accountable. Apathetic workers who don't hold the elected union representatives accountable have allowed union leadership to move to extreme POVs and misrepresent the workers. Unions are a necessary good to counter greed, make your union work for you.
3
I am a union officer. I did get involved. I have been the very opposite of an apathetic union member. The leadership above me is useless and they are very likely to every be unseated. My conclusion, much like the 2 party system of gov, it is hopelessly broken and we have to burn it down and start over.
2
Being able to withhold your dues may actually be a very good way of holding your union leadership accountable.
2
Last year the NYT headed the article about the case before the court as 'union busting', whereas this time the headline cites 'mandatory fees to unions'. My my, perhaps we have come a ways in balancing the the news.
4
White working-class voters support Republicans, who pander to them on race, gender and ethnicity, and then stab them in the back economically. Without unions, the real wages of the middle-class have fallen and there is far less job security. The white working-class responds by voting for Trump, who puts Gorsuch on the Supreme Court to rip off the middle-class one more time. The price of racism and bad judgment is income inequality - unfortunately a price we all pay.
6
Why pay for value when it is a "public/collective" benefit? Freeloaders are all over America...we have one as president.
Florida ("furst with the wurst") is one of the states where employees voluntarily join the union if it is the elected collective bargaining agent(a right to scab state). For decades, I worked in the Florida public university system alongside a colleague who refused to join the faculty union, purportedly because his father was beaten up by "union thugs." He paid nothing, except the small incremental cost of a weaker collective force without his membership, while I proudly paid my dues for 35 years. He gladly took his collectively bargained raises, as I did mine.
At one point, he filed a grievance with the union chosen to represent him("we" were legally so obliged). We won the grievance. He took the victory, did not join the union, and later retired still a non-member. As not one of "us," he never did have many friends.
Progressive non-"Right to Work" states and their public employees will be hurt by a ruling in favor of Janus. Our union was still strong (at one point 70%+ membership at our university) without without the support of my colleague and the thousands like him around Florida. What we could have done---for our employment benefits & pay, for students, for the general quality of the public university system---with 100% dues paying membership was only a dream. A "pro-Janus" ruling will make other's goals similarly less achievable.
8
Oh Boo Hoo.
A job is acquired based on merit and that should the only requirement not membership in an organization whose major goals you agree with. It's even more galling when you are required to pay the dues and the stewards won't deal with you because they know your attitude about their union and its goals and take it personally. It is galling to workers who come in and do their jobs and have to told by a union steward to slow down because you're making your coworkers look bad or that force management to obey the contract while encouraging members to ignore the rules.
If the unions are so sure they're what people need prove it and justify the dues.
2
To NY Huguenot: This has nothing to do with job merit. As the writer says, unions work to bring better wages, safety standards, a 40 hour week, pensions and multiple other benefits to workers. It's galling to have a freeloader come in and get the same benefits that the union is working for without paying a penny to contribute to the union that brings this about. Where is your evidence that unions encourage members to ignore the contract or tell members to slow down. I'm a member of a union made up of college faculty and I don't even know what I would be expected to slow down on when teaching students or what rules I would be expected to flaunt. If the unions are so bad, why not poll its members and see if they would rather give up collective bargaining so they could get lower wages, fewer benefits and more dangerous working conditions. I don't think you'd have many people who would prefer except in your dreams.
4
As part of it's background on the issue, the article should note that had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell not blocked the nomination of Scalia's successor to the SC until after the presidential election –– an unprecedented and improper maneuver on his part -- the issue would not be an issue. In other words, this is one of many cases that have been or will be "stolen" by the GOP in addition to the SC seat that they stole.
10
The seat was not stolen. The senate did not give consent to the appointment.
1
Interesting that conservatives see a First Amendment problem with mandatory fees for unions, but no similar problem with corporate political contributions...
8
Perhaps because those corporate contributions are voluntary? The money a corporation takes in and contributes a part of come from customers who voluntarily buy their products (with the possible exception of health insurance companies). No one is mandating that consumers give their money to a corporation, unlike the unions.
If the unions provide a valuable service for their members, they need to do a good job of explaining that to them and then the workers will voluntarily join and pay their dues.
1
Everyone used to know that unions were an assault on the personal freedoms of an employer. Then in the 1900s the socialists took over, took away an employer's right to freely contract with his employees, and dang near killed God's free market. Well, the country's never been the same since. Now that we have so many good, brave Christians on the Supreme Court, this and other ancient injustices can finally be rectified. Frankly, it's about time to reconsider the so-called Bill of Rights, which was not part of the founding father's vision for our great country. Freedom and God bless the USA. Except for them nasty football players.
1
The Constitution would have never been ratified without the Bill of Rights. There is nothing brave about intolerance, it is just ignorant.
1
Dear BM 2020,
There is some truth to what you say, yet they were not made part of the Constitution thus showing their less than full support by the founding fathers and others. Believe it or not, there are jurists, who have friends on the SCOTUS, that believe many of these first ten amendments (and the 14th) are illegitimate based on the founding fathers intent and a historical reading of the Constitution. Right now these revisionists and others have collective bargaining and it's assault on the freedom of contract in their sights, but this will not be the end of their revanchism. First they went after the unions....
I've considered this possibility for some time.
Here is my solution:
The non-payers must negotiate with the employer first.
After the non-payers reach an agreement, the union would have the right to accept that agreement for all members of the union or to negotiate their own agreement.
This way, if the non-payers were rewarded with a sweet agreement, the union would also have it.
If the non-payers wound up with a inferior settlement, the union would then negotiate their own agreement. The non-payers would therefore not benefit from the efforts of the union.
5
Worked as an adjunct at Westchester Community College one semester during which time was forced to contribute dues to the union. As an adjunct received NO benefits but had to pay for what the union was able to negotiate for the full time instructors, who had an amazing array of benefits.
I did confront the HR office regarding this matter. I was told that money from the adjuncts was necessary to support the work of the union to the benefit of those who were members which did not include part timers. Outrageous!
4
I taught at WCC last fall, and was a member of the union. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the union did not include part-timers. The problem you are describing, however, affects many teacher unions, including the PSC, the CUNY union to which I now belong. The contracts are great for the full timers, but crummy for the part-timers. CUNY now has a so-called three-year adjunct contract that is actually a road to oblivion for many experienced adjuncts, who are fired if not given such a contract.
Adjuncts do much better at private institutions, where they can not merely organize, but also go on strike. The Taylor laws in New York prevent the WCC and PSC members, as well as SUNY teachers, from striking. For that reason, probably while you were at WCC, the county executive was able to stall and turn down contracts that would have benefited both full and part-timers. CUNY teachers worked without a contract for six years before the present contract, which will expire this year, was ratified.
Strong unions - those with money, members, and the ability to strike – do better for all workers. CUNY adjuncts are now agitating for a $7000 per course base pay. That would mean for most adjuncts a grand total of $28,000 in salary per year. The is pushing back, because they don't think that number is realistic. Yet other adjuncts – at private colleges- have won living wages by threatening to strike. Empowered labor is the only way to ensure a fair deal for workers.
3
I taught at WCC last fall, and was a member of the union. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the union did not include part-timers. The problem you are describing, however, affects many teacher unions, including the PSC, the CUNY union to which I now belong. The contracts are great for the full timers, but crummy for the part-timers. CUNY now has a so-called three-year adjunct contract that is actually a road to oblivion for many experienced adjuncts, who are fired if not given such a contract.
Adjuncts do much better at private institutions, where they can not merely organize, but also go on strike. The Taylor laws in New York prevent the WCC and PSC members, as well as SUNY teachers, from striking. For that reason, probably while you were at WCC, the county executive was able to stall and turn down contracts that would have benefited both full and part-timers. CUNY teachers worked without a contract for six years before the present contract, which will expire this year, was ratified.
Strong unions - those with money, members, and the ability to strike – do better for all workers. CUNY adjuncts are now agitating for a $7000 per course base pay. That would mean for most adjuncts a grand total of $28,000 in salary per year. The union is pushing back, because they don't think that number is realistic. Yet other adjuncts – at private colleges- have won living wages by threatening to strike. Empowered labor is the only way to ensure a fair deal for workers.
1
One thing that always troubled me about unions was how highly paid their leadership can be. The Office of Labor Management Standards shows the compensation of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees top ten union leaders ranges from $351,939 to $219,571. I cannot help but wonder if the majority of their members are compensated this well.
2
Leaders of national unions earning $350K to $220K. Gol dang it!
The people they work for -- the bosses who run cities and towns -- earn at least as much. In my small NC county of 250,000 people, the outgoing county manager earned $290,000; her sisters who are on the county payroll earned $120,000 and $75,000, and her son, in a made-up job (he quit after his mother went under federal investigation) earned $125,000. None of them is a "union member" of AFSCME, because we're a hire-at-will state. But to earn a quarter of a million to manage a county is fine; however, JCB, you think that same amount to manage a nationwide organization with several million members is "way too high."
I wonder: are you one of those low-income, low-education workers who vote for Republicans? Sounds like it.
The wage gap between SEIU members and their leadership is even bigger. It mostly represents laborers and food workers.
A 2015 International Monetary Fund study found that developed countries with high union membership have greater income equality. The collective bargaining performed by unions encourages higher wages and better benefits. That's the good side. The bad side is that individual locals can be corrupt and unfair. That doesn't mean that unions are corrupt and unfair, only that the individuals running that particular local are corrupt and unfair. This case is obviously an attempt to weaken the unions and reduce the power of workers. Mix's comment about freeing public sector workers from being forced to subsidize unions rings hallow. Without unions, how are these workers going to be guaranteed decent wages, working conditions, and benefits? Please don't suggest that they should trust the honesty and generosity of politicians.
3
Your first sentence has an implied statement that income equality is a goal to be striven for. I do not necessarily agree. A worker who works harder or smarter deserves, in my opinion, more pay than one of average or below average performance. Most union activity has the effect, whether designed or not, of negating this principle.
The economic case for the fair share payments is very strong -- basically, the Tragedy of the Commons argument: employees who don't pay dues still benefit from the contracts that the union negotiates. The incentives are for individuals to freeload, which ultimately kills the union.
That, of course, is what is really going on. Unions impede the ability of the very rich to grab an ever-larger share of the economic pie, and so, since the 1980s, they have been under assault.
3
You are correct, the 'commons' argument does apply, but unions neglect their own responsibility for the workers. They should guarantee performance, manage and pay for all off time, and supervise the workers. Unions are basically leaches, in that they add no value to the enterprise. If workers harm the business or customers, the union will say - don't look at us. I would give unions wide powers over their members, if they were run more like a normal supplier or vendor. When a vendor fails to deliver, they are replaced. It should be the same with a union.
1
An earlier court ruling made it a requirement that unions pay members in advance their share of any political activity. That was years ago. The court will leave untouched a requirement that unions represent those who refuse to pay for the service of representation (the "free riders"). In most states people do not have to join the union, but must pay the "fair share" (proportional cost) of the required duty to provide equal representation and due process to members and nonmembers alike.
In thirty-seven years of representing professionals I never asked or wanted to know who was a member of the association, but in the most difficult of cases it was invariably a person wanting to pay less by not being a being (they would invariably bring it up with comments like "if you help me keep my job I will join") a member.
Having union representation is not really about making more money, it is about the dignity of knowing you cannot be pushed around by an arbitrary bureaucrat, and have some say in overall terms and conditions of employment. The employer is still the boss, and people must do what they are paid for.
2
Union's are private associations - not governmental entities. We can not as free citizens be forced to support and be defacto members of organizations we do not voluntarily choose to join. Why can they not fairly compete for members like every other private association and organization. They want conscription of these reluctant "members",
Yet you seem to have no problem with the fact that an organization can "be forced to support" the beneficiaries of the union's work and expertise in negotiations. All those non-members get the exact same benefits as members, without paying dues. Yet if they worked in a right-to-work state without unions, they would have lower wages, salaries, medical coverage, retirement benefits, and job security. Apparently those leeches are willing to take everything they can from the union that represents them, but truly resent it when the union that represents them asks for something in return.
Down in Texas wages in the private an public sector are among the lowest in the nation; the education and medical coverage rates are among the lowest; the gap between the wealthy and the working class is among the highest; life expectancy is in the lower half of all states.
You as a "free citizen" are NOT forced to support a union; only those who work in businesses or organizations that are represented by a union are expected to join and participate.
Unions gave us -- and YOU -- the 40-hour work week, public kindergartens, company-provided health care, weekends, pensions, sick leave, and more benefits that you take for granted. I have to wonder what you'd do if you were stripped of all of them, just before you're ready to retire. Whine and moan -- and then go out and vote again for union-busting Republicans.
So sad.
1
reedroid1 - I would take issue with your core contention. I would have no problem is a union contract was allowed to affect only those workers who were members of the union, leaving the others to negotiate their own pay rate, working conditions, or the like. It would be an interesting experiment to see how that panned out; I suspect that the more productive workers would opt to negotiate on their own but that is only one possible scenario.
The problem here is that there seems to be no middle ground. In a non-union workplace if you violate a company rule you can be summarily fired without recourse. In a union job, especially it seems in public service, violate a rule and most often it results in a minor inconvenience. Even major infractions (drug or alcohol use on the job, inappropriate contact with a child, physically abusing someone under your care or a member of the public) will result in years long hearings, arbitrations, trials, and union delays and obfuscations- all the while the bad actor is at full pay. This results in many employers keeping bad employees rather than attempting to fire them (witness the NYC Board of Ed rubber room) or years of litigation at public expense.
It has often been said that the unions spend 95% of their time dealing with problems caused by 5% of their members. This means that the other 95% or so of good employees are paying dues to keep alive an organization that makes sure the bad apples in their profession remain 'in the barrel' so to speak. The negotiated wages and benefits aside, the pendulum has swung too far in favor of public employee unions who have become, in many cases, a shadow government within the government agency which employs them.
5
The Board of Ed "rubber room" is not a result of the union. It is a result of managerial incompetence. It is well documented that some of the teachers sent there are perfectly competent but refused to kow tow to principals who refused to follow the rules. And in the cases where there is good reason to fire a teacher, the cases go on and on because BOE management is totally incompetent in putting together a case. I say this as someone who spent some time at the BOE Inspector-General's office.
1
There is a dichotomy, two views, of compulsory payments to unions by non-members. Union members pay but not without reservations (are we really getting what we pay for) while those who are non-members pay with resignation and deep anger. That anger however is tempered by the actual benefits of pay-raises, additional holidays, rules against being summarily dismissed, and other financial and employment security issues. Health care is a major benefit of paying union dues.
My former wife was a dues paying member of a teacher's union for about 40 years. Unexplainably she too resented making dues payments but she willingly accepted the benefits. She never went to a union meeting and never voted for or against union issues. When contract negotiations took place she and other union members couldn't wait to learn what thye would gain (later, they looked to see what they would not lose) and what the new pay grades would look like. After years of increasing benefits when the teachers had to contribute to their health care costs the resentment was directed not to the health care system and its steadily increasing costs but towards the union who they viewed as having failed them. Compulsory dues paying teachers too felt as though the union betrayed them and was weak. Neither members or non-members dues payers ever directed their venom at others who are part and parcel of increased costs of education. Ending compulsory union dues will wreck unions, split teachers and divide communities.
3
I am proud to belong to a fantastic government union (Professional Engineers in California Government). So much so that I was the President up to 2 years ago. Bargaining & contract enforcement are the main focal points but the reality is that the majority of our time & resourcing is spent promoting our professions and the state agencies we work for. Local leaders are given guidance on building positive relationships with state management. They are also encouraged to develop programs or activities to build unity & for our members to feel the sense of community every organization should have. We sponsor, judge & participate in the larger local science & engineering fairs in California. We fund special programs (in conjunction with our state agencies and feds) to promote STEM fields as early as elementary school. Even when it comes to politics, we endorsed 6 Republican politicians running for re-election (state legislature) in 2016. They recognize the value state (and other gov't) employees provide California. We created an organization that is highly respected and influential in state, federal and local government. Of course this happens because of good relationships with politicians (both R & D), agency management, educators and our local communities. This with a 30% to 40% membership that is either registered Republican or has conservative leanings. Today's unions have evolved and recognize the potential to do good not just for our members but for the public as well.
2
Then if they are doing that much good for their members, there should be no problem convincing the workers to WILLINGLY join and pay their dues. If there is a problem and things are as rosy as you say, the only thing needed is a good informational campaign by the union.
I don't like many of the things that our government does. Can I not pay income taxes until I am satisfied with what it is doing?
9
This makes a lot of sense. sure, the non-members benefit from the occasional pay raise but listen to Wisconsin. The day the teachers got a chance whether to write those checks, the unions' bank balances took a dive.
3
Every person who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union should pay their fair share for those efforts, they shouldn't be forced to subsidize organized labors left wing agenda
4
True and those who do not should not be forced to pay.
I'm a liberal and i agree with you
1
"he does not agree with its positions and should not be forced to pay fees to support its work" -- I do not agree with Trump administration's positions, but must pay taxes to support its work.
3
This is just a back door attempt to make unions illegal. Just goes to show you cannot bargain in good faith with the businessmen. Never could do it peacefully.
22
Do you mean to imply that no one would join a union if they did not have to? If that is the case, then there is a bigger problem here.
And so what will happen if non-members are left out of the contracts?
Paid much less than their union co-workers, they'll hustle to get in the unions.
15
No, though that would make perfect sense. Instead, non-dues paying employees get a free ride in terms of the collective bargaining contracts that the union negotiates.....until the union is busted, that is.
9
They want it both ways, unions are required by law to represent all of those in the membership category and all are covered by contracts--it would be illegal to negotiate a contract that would exclude non members from the benefits--that's why it is proper to require non-members to pay for services that they get. Only if the laws were changed to prevent free riding by excluding non-members from benefits would your scenario take place--of course it would serve the scabs right if that happened.
Not necc. true Mark. If non dues paying workers did not get the contract wages and other benefits, mgt. would simply take care of them.
They would essence be part of mgt. in practice although not in theory.
I saw it in my company with members who resigned from the union. They were taken care of.
It is a delicate balance between union and mgt. It should not be mandatory to have a union but once a union is voted in, all workers should contribute to pay dues or something similar whether they like the union or not. They can protest by resigning from the union or leaving the company.
It is very similar to becoming an American. Once you make the decision you cannot stop paying taxes.
1
... and what Bernie Sanders, Susan Sarandon and the youth who claimed it would be better Trump than Hillary if no Sanders... i wonder what do they say now...
8
Any individual who went off in a huff and didn't vote for Hillary Clinton is fully responsible for the current regime. But didn't Bernie campaign for Clinton after he lost the nomination? Didn't he warn his supporters that a Trump presidency would be the worst possible outcome? This case is just one more piece of brutal evidence, as if we needed more, that elections matter, from the top of your head to the tip of your toes. Anyone who doesn't see that, anyone who says "there's no difference," is just stubbornly blind.
15
Bernie Sanders endorsed Clinton and emphatically pleaded for others to vote for her.
4
But, Ellen, we all knew Bernie's heart really wasn't in it, and his supporters didn't give a whit what happened. They were so bitter that they thought Hillary losing was a big joke.
I'm not giving anything to the Berniebots; they were as bad as the Trumpsters. To heck with them.
Conservative groups "find" these freeloaders and financially support them during their cases. Janus indeed!
No wonder wages remain stubbornly suppressed!
11
Wages are suppressed because there is no completion for skilled jobs. The union jobs like electricians, carpenters, plumbers, etc have been taken over by immigrants will to work for a lower wage. And, the US has stopped training people for these jobs by pushing our kids toward college.
1
What's the value of any service organization that can't attract enough voluntary payments based on the value it provides? As the saying goes: "The worth of a thing is what it will bring," If you believe in compulsory union dues then you have to believe the ends justify the means.
8
Compulsory so there are no freeloaders. Folks have been trying to get something for nothing since the beginning of time.
14
You don't understand unions, do you. If a union negotiates wages up from $12 to $15/hour for housekeepers at a hotel, all of the housekeepers get that higher wage, not just the ones who paid dues. Mr. Janus is not arguing that he should be paid less than union members. He's opting in to the union benefits, but opting out of the cost to get those benefits. In other words, a freeloader.
29
Freeloaders? Maybe we can apply that same logic to those on welfare who are perfectly capable of some type of work.
1
Thank goodness the Court will revisit this. I was forced to pay dues to a corrupt teachers union which for 20 years took positions against my desires and my interests. How can that be fair? And during all that time, the employees were never once given the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted this union to represent us! In fact I was never allowed to vote in any union ballot, including on contract issues which directly affected me - because I refused to join - despite having to pay dues. Totally ridiculous and unfair!!! At one point, merit pay was instituted against union wishes - so the union sabotaged it by stacking the merit pay committees and voting to give everybody the same, including those who were doing such a poor job that they should have been fired - if the union wasn't protecting them!
8
Did you complain about the salary and benefits that were in the collective bargaining agreement for you?
16
Hey Bob, you forgot to mention the seniority based layoffs that many public sector union contracts contain. Perhaps you can explain to me how an enthusiastic teacher, who was laid off due to seniority based policy of LIFO, is benefiting from the collective bargaining agreement.
3
To the best of my knowledge, our salary scale was below non-union comparables. Benefits were overly generous and almost bankrupted California. For example a California professor who was hired at age 45 and retired at age 50 was given health insurance for his family for life, plus a small pension. It didn't matter if I complained or didn't complain - although I did complain. As a non-member, the corrupt union didn't pay any attention to my input - other than to take the money I was forced to pay them and spend it working against my wishes. If you are fair minded, you must admit this is morally wrong, pure and simple. Hopefully it will change soon.
1
So begins the "Gorsuch dividend." So much for Roberts's stare decisis and "settled law."
9
If you want to know how Gorsuch will vote , he recently voted against a worker and for his employer.
The man left his truck to avoid literally freezing to death, and his employer fired him. The employee didn't think this was fair.
Gorsuch had no problem siding with the boss.
15
America is becoming a Russian like society.
Dominated by oligarchs and Putin, the same is to be compared to the 1% and the Grifter, aka The Liar in Chief.
The Republican Supreme Court will deliver what is asked of their leaders of government.
Erosion of rights, leveling the playing field to make people all the same. Minimum wages for all, mandatory church every Sunday and sermons given by Roy Moore. And lots more.
Be afraid, very afraid...
11
Shaking
1
As an afro-American, I know that unions were championed both by Washington & Lincoln.
Unions do their patriotic duty by funneling their contributions 99% to liberals,
For this reason every worker in America should be forced to pay ubion dues, even if they vote for racist Trump.
This is the Democrat way!
"Unions do their patriotic duty by funneling their contributions 99% to liberals,"....
Actually in NYS our legislators quiver when the New York State United Teacher's union brings bus loads of teachers from The Bronx, Manhattan and other districts and drops them off atThe Capital...because they are afraid of their voting blocks and not receiving political contributions and endorsements, so we don't evaluate teachers for competency in NY and haven't during the entire Cuomo administration. Explain to me how that is good for the students and the taxpayers of NewYork State?
Then, to further appease the unions the legislature in New York State made union dues deductible as itemized deductions on the NYS tax return, which is interesting because some of these dues payments support lobbying efforts that include political contributions so now in NYS your political contributions, if paid through your union dues, are deductible! Thanks Andrew Cuomo!
2
The Corporations have been chipping away at unions since their beginning ; the supremes will probably put another nail in the coffin. The tendency for corporations towards raw capitalism is not surprising at all and now with the present administration in place it is very likely . Tragic , not totally in love with unions but they are a necessary evil , especially in the age of arbitration clause agreements being written into service contracts , it seems the little man is being left with no recourse .
4
White union workers in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania voted and put Trump in office and now they get their thanks. Trump is going to be the death of Unions in the U.S. They were blinded by fear and sold a bill of goods by a hate mongering, corporate rich guy in Trump. Trump is against workers rights, equality in pay and collective bargaining. He believes in right to work, which in and of itself is ant-union. How any union worker cast a vote for Trump is beyond belief. Well folks here is a look at the future: workers rights and safety trampled and corporations doing as they please at the expense of the American worker.
19
Don't forget another fun treat in store for workers: lower wages!
6
Public sector employees are paid far more than private sector, and the Democrats do not care. They put this in motion.
4
There's a reason why public sector employees earn more. They banded together to work for the common good. When your boss pays you less than your coworker who does the same job and doesn't have to tell you the reason, you'll be singing a different tune.
5
That is a myth pushed by the Republican party and businesses in an attempt to demonize the Unions and by association, the voting members of those unions. I have been both a private and public sector worker - I can tell you without a doubt you are wrong.
8
This is absolutely untrue, not to mention many public sector jobs have no private sector equivalent.
7
It couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.
2
Gorsuch will of course vote against unions. He couldn't care one iota about workers.He was the only judge among seven who sided with a company in the "frozen trucker" case, in which a truck driver abandoned his broken down truck during a blizzard, after trying in vain to get the company to send someone to help. If he had stayed with the truck he could have died. Yet Gorsuch voted with the company who fired the man. This is the man that conservatives applauded, the man that we in the United States are destined to have deciding cases like for decades, which brings to to ask why in the world are supreme court justices appointed for life?
If anything needs to be changed about Washington, it is that. These men and women are not kings and queens, although this life time appointment makes them comparable to royal lineage. Especially after what the McConnell did to Obama and extremely qualified and moderate Merrick Garland, it's apparent that what the founding fathers intended has been permanently corrupted.
It should be replaced with a system in which no justice serves more than 10 years, with appointment falling in the middle of presidential terms. If someone happens to die before hand, some system could be enacted to prevent another McConnellism. Why should any one judge be able to so strongly determine the future of our country, long after the president who nominated him or her is gone? I'm sure that is not what the founding fathers intended.
10
It's not "the insatiable demand of the unions" that causes states and corporations to run into financial difficulties, but that's what those insistent ridding their workplaces of worker protections would have the public believe. And it's far easier to portray teachers - perhaps the most respected, and underpaid, of professions - as money grubbing because their pay is derived from taxes - money for highways, bridges, roads, sewers, clean water, clean air, police protection, firefighter operations, air traffic control, radio spectrum management, public schools and colleges, parks, printing and management of money, etc. - which many conservative politicians have railed against for decades.
This case is yet another example of corporate interests bankrupt in all but name thanks to the insatiable demand of the unions and their lackeys, the Democrats they bribe with their political contributions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/politics/supreme-court-will-hear-c...
2
I look forward to the court's ruling so hopefully I can be freed from paying over $500 a year to support a union that campaigns for things I don't support. It's un-American. If the unions were campaigning for far-right issues & candidates you liberals would have a different take on this.
8
Better wages and better benefits are things you don't support? Were the working conditions of the beginning of the twentieth century more to your liking?
10
Indeed...this way you can rely on your employers good graces and generosity for things like wage increases, reasonable health coverage and job protections. Good luck!
3
Remember, your union's political actions' funding legally cannot come from union dues. The unions have PACs that you voluntarily contribute to separately. I'm retired, but I still contribute an extra amount every month from my pension check for PAC purposes.
Btw, that extra $500 you won't be paying means you'll soon be a a free rider, a freeloader, which is just as bad as a scab. I'm sure your fellow dues-paying members will treat you in an "appropriate" manner.
Enjoy your new relationship with what used to be your friends.
all you union people who voted for trump, I hope your happy now.
2
We are.
2
Teacher unions, in my humble opinion, are one of the reasons our educational system is failing. They support tenure which often rewards longevity versus quality. And then when districts try to get rid of bad teachers, they use our dues to pay to defend them in court. Why would a young person choose to teach and put all their energy into a job when they know their pay won't reflect their performance and they will be the first ones laid off while other teachers who "phone it in" will be retained. Unions are part of the problem because they have been absolutely unwilling to compromise on any tenure-related reforms to improve the education of our children.
10
Your humble opinion is uninformed. Check the statistics, the best statewide school systems are in those states that have strong unions. Are their abuses that should be corrected? Of course there are. But show me any economic sector that is perfect.
8
Well the"Bob" reply is absolutely wrong in NYS as the NYSUT crowd has successfully stalled any accountability regarding performance and testing in NY and the agreed upon plan will not be actually implemented until 2021 so any incompetent lazy teacher ( admittedly a small percentage ) is safe til 2022!
1
I agree that unions protect workers. But I too objected to being forced to join a union whose activities I found disgraceful. My union fought to save the jobs of employees who were sleeping in their cars during their shifts, stealing, and consistently absent. My union fought to prevent me from getting a promotion that would have moved me to a non-union position.
There is no denying that, in their early days, unions had a huge positive impact on fair wages and worker safety. But many are now pursuing indefensible causes just to maintain their power. They need to clean up their acts and be reasonable.
That said, it is not feasible to have represented and non-represented workers in the same job. People who refuse to pay dues will still benefit from collective bargaining. Not fair. If you accept a position in a union shop, you need to contribute. There will be actions taken you don't like. That's life. You have to look at the big picture. Corporations, big institutions do NOT have worker's best interest at heart.
11
My union embarrasses me on a daily basis. They have not been compelled to figure out how represent today's worker. There is a great need for collective bargaining and an entity that represents workers but unions are really flailing at this. They are stuck in an old model that worked for factory workers and others jobs requiring minimal education. They have real issues (and I would say outright bad attitude) when dealing with an educated work force. Unions, as they currently exist are essentially zombie entities, propped up by their past achievements. We need something new to rise up from their ashes.
1
If the court rules that employees are able to opt-out of paying union dues, I certainly hope that the unions will no longer extend benefits to non-union members. In other words, if you don't want to pay union dues, then you are free to negotiate your own pay increases and benefits with your employer on an individual basis.
The problem is that these employees want all the benefits of belonging to a union, i.e collective bargaining, negotiated pay increases, legal support when filing a grievance against your employer, and pension plans, but they don't want to pay for it. If you don't want to pay your fair share of dues, then feel free to negotiate your own salary, your own benefits package, sick time, vacation time, and pension plan.
10
I'd much rather negotiate for myself than be tossed in with a bunch of mediocre clock watchers.
5
If you could get the Union to back out their lobbying and non contract negotiating costs from the dues the unions might have an argument... but they don't want to break it out for their members who might object to the largess that the union leadership dedicates to themselves!
1
Does anyone doubt Gorsuch's vote? It's what he's there for, for heaven's sake. To all my friends on Staten Island--all you firefighters, cops, teachers, plumbers, carpenters,etc.--do you seriously imagine the city will continue to pay you the very comfortable pay packages they do if you vote to not have a union represent you? This assumes that, as a corollary, the city will split you into two groups of union and non-union and pay you differently. I strongly suspect that, given the opportunity, they definitely will. Stay tuned.
5
Maybe the city wont go broke , You are fear mongering plumbers, carpenters are private unions and are not public unions get your facts straight union lackey.
You are showing your degree of uninformed nonsense
1
I never understood why, if a union provides benefits, negotiates contracts, and represents workers in disputes, they must do so for non-members as well. If a non-member pays for those services, OK. But if not they shouldn't be entitled to them. It's akin to eating in a restaurant and then leaving without paying the bill.
If the court rules against public sector unions, the unions should refuse to service or include those non-payers in their negotiations. If there are legal reasons why they must also represent non-payers unions should then challenge it in court.
6
You do not understand the core of the problem. The right wing of the court is not interested on the members that don't want to pay dues but on allowing it so to weak the financial condition of unions and therefore their organizational strength.
2
Unions provide in their collective bargaining agreements great salaries, health care, retirement benefits, better working conditions and this lawsuit wants the non-members of these unions to reap the benefits of this collective bargaining agreement without contributing to the unions that protects them as workers. This is another attempt of the republicans and special corporate interest groups to weaken Unions across America. Look at the history of Unionism in America and see the rise of the middle class. The break up of of Unions by corporate interests and republican legislation in Congress and State Houses and you will see the lowering of swages for the middle class and the increase in corporate salaries and profits on the back of the American Worker.
It is a sad day in America when we forget how far the American workers came in wages and benefits and conditions only to be beat back for corporate profits. This has been a republican goal for the last 30 years, ask yourself if you are a middle class worker and vote republican why you continue to vote against your own interest?
8
Even if Abood gets overturned, unions will still be around. It's just that they will now be forced to prove their worth to their members (and potential members). Employers, including government, will be highly motivated to provide good, fair conditions, pay and benefits to their employees for fear of pushing them to the collective bargaining table. Think of this, after Abood gets overturned, employers can go forward and implement work rules and pay scales based on individual performance rather than union-negotiated rules (mostly seniority). If employers choose to exploit the powerless workers (the leftist/union narrative), the employees will simply join the union and force the employer to improve conditions. I contend that this will incentivize employers to provide good working conditions and fair permanence/reward plans for employees.
Overall, I think this will reward the ambitious, effective employees (think younger, motivated teachers for example) over the complacent, ineffective employees. This is not a bad thing.
8
well stated
1
How about this: an employer says he'll pay you an extra $5/hour if you leave the union. You take the money. So do your co-workers. Now the union is gone--no members are left. Suddenly the employer says, jeez, money's tight, I have to reduce your wages by $7/hour. The union is destroyed. You can't rejoin it. Good luck with that plan.
3
This is the end result that started with Reagan's firing of the Air Traffic Controllers. Union dues cannot be used for political purposes, that's why members are asked to contribute to COPE funds, which are used for that purpose. I'm sure that the most activist court in history will find a way to say that the act of collective bargaining is somehow a political act in and of itself. Overturning the Abood precedent- no problem for the "strict constructionists" who lie about their belief in precedent at their confirmation hearings. The weakening of unions, especially teachers' unions, is a Republican dream that is about to come true. The oligarchs are in full control. Elections do have consequences and the makeup of the federal courts will be the most long lasting and damaging. For those living in New York, this potential ruling is a prime reason to vote NO on the issue of a Constitutional Convention, an event that will be ruled by the moneyed interests that will surely gut any labor, environment, education and civil rights sections and clauses that are now protected.
9
I speak from my position as a retired teacher and a one time union officer in my local school district. We need strong unions if we want good schools. States that have passed anti union "right to work" laws are not the best states for schools. Schools without unions frequently spend thousands less on their classrooms and it shows. "members of teachers’ unions are 16 percentage points more likely to have advanced degrees – which increase the quality and skills of the employee. In addition, union employees earn 22 percent more than non-members in educational occupations. Union teachers also work 14 percent more hours per week than nonunion teachers. - National Center for Educational Statistics
People who do not want to pay union dues should refuse to accept union benefits like the salaries, health care and retirement packages that the workers before and around them support.
The impact of a decision to allow workers to refuse to pay fees will be a weakened economy with a greater gap between top and bottom pay as the middle class sinks into poverty.
14
We rank 33 rd in the world in math skills , 22nd in reading comprehension in the world. As expected your rhetoric is not backed up with facts. You are cherrypicking which is extremely popular with you former union heads. Explain our world rankings oh wise on
This is the educator's fault? How many parents refuse to work with their children at home due to long working hours, single parent homes, drug and alcohol abuse or feeling the it's the school's responsibility. Are teachers responsible for students coming to school hungry, needing more sleep. instability in the home or being homeless?
I knew how to read before I entered kindergarten due to my parents working with me at home. Today so many more children come to school vastly unprepared. Is this the teacher's fault too?
This is not about the rights of corporations vs. the rights of unions, or the 1% vs. the 99%. The case is about the legal rights of individuals to refuse to associate with a union. Closed shop rules force individuals to practice solidarity with a union that they may wish to have no association with. The question is whether an employee can be forced to support a union that he does not wish to support.
If the court finds that this association cannot be forced on an employee, it would be wise for states to discontinue the practice of applying the terms of union contracts to other employees who are not a part of the union. Those who choose not to associate should not enjoy the benefits of union membership if they choose to reject the costs.
For all of the gnashing of teeth about union rights and so on, isn't the real issue here that when public employees have been given an option, many, often a large majority, choose not to be a part of a union? Many workers find unions as exploitive and unaccountable as the employer that the union is supposed to be protecting the worker from. Workers deserve the right to not join a union.
7
Well said. If unions actually saw their dues payer as a customer, they would start treating them differently. Here is New York, I've been told by some teachers that their local unions will start doing surveys and asking for their opinions, in anticipation Janus prevailing. Funny how choice makes an organization more responsive to their members!
So if the Court ruled against the unions, they would be free to negotiate a two tiered contract with higher pay for union members?
And no protection for non-members in discipline matters, or even a provision prohibiting hearings and an opportunity to offer a defense?
4
that's correct you will be paid according to your skills not according to your tenure , I don't see that as a problem . But I am sure your fellow union members can't handle that you might actually have to teach and not indoctrinate . I am sure this wont get published in the times . You know, unions and all
1
And if there were a two-tiered scheme, what sort of folks would opt to work under the union? The folks who know they can't compete on their abilities.
2
Or the folks who know they can't compete with the boss's son, daughter, nephew, cousin, etc.
1
I wish Mr. Janus all the best should he ever have to go against management in any kind of negotiation or grievance procedure.
With all the bad rap unions get, it's easy to overlook their core responsibility of protecting members through the negotiation of equitable contracts, defending against unfair labor practices, and adjudicating grievances. These tasks often involve hiring specialized attorneys and other experts to go up against sophisticated and well-entrenched management interests, which have no problem engaging in a legal war of attrition (which could last years). This union duty also means navigating bureaucracies, such as state labor commissions and federal entities like the NLRB, as well as the filing of ruling appeals.
One worker is just as vulnerable as 100. That worker (whether he realizes it or not) needs organized, adequate representation -- and that takes money. A lot of it. At the very least, all employees shouid be willing to contribute to a legal defense fund so that the resources will be there. If a worker is not willing to contribute, the union should be under no obligation to represent him. You can't have it both ways: Refuse to pay but still expect to reap the benefits, especially in this climate where union support is dwindling. As a former member, it saddens me to see this weakening of unions from within as we continue our slow march backward to the sweatshop era.
5
The unstated goal is to remove the union's power of political participation. Of the top ten political contributors, unions are the only one representing workers. The other nine are business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce.
Remember this the next time politicians say they are concerned with the middle class. Were it not for unions, the middle class would not have become a reality.
5
We need more unions and stronger ones. Those who think differently should look up the history of unions, and they will see why. Unions are being undermined as exemplified by Scott Walker in Wisconsin. If Americans want to keep earning poverty wages, keep voting against unions.
7
Unions were great back in the day , but now you have the nlrb what do you need unions for? Oh that's right democratic donations , silly me
1
What's the NLRB going to do for your wages? Look how low wages are; they're not even up to a real cost of living. Union jobs have an effect on wages, pushing them up. Democrats? They're no longer the party of the working class. There isn't one. Maybe the Green Party or Bernie. Republicans will beat the working man down into the coal stained ground. Big business wants cheap labor. Maybe you won't mind working for slave wages. Get rid of unions, get rid of minimum wage and US workers are earning in par with people in India and Bangladesh.
Unions in this country are de facto arms of the Democratic Party and workers should not be forced to support them if they do not want to. It is very hard to believe that most unions can separate their labor activities from their political activities.
Nobody should be forced to join or pay into a union if they do not want to.
9
Unions can be indispensable to the protection of low-income workers and persons employed in dangerous industries (like mining), but add very little value (relative to their costs) when they become lumbering and entrenched (and usually ineffective) advocates for middle-class and professional employees. The fact that the only sector of the economy in which unions have a significant presence anymore is that of government -– where most employees are firmly middle-class and generally have at least some college -- tells the story of an idea that, for better or worse, may be approaching its expiration date.
11
Or, it tells the story that unions helped them attain and maintain middle class status. Since consensus seems to be that manufacturing jobs are gone for good, we need unions in service sector and clerical jobs more than ever!
5
Lonely Centrist: You have it exactly backwards. The fact that govt. employees are both Union members and firmly in the middle class shows us that we need to expand Unions. The decline of Unions has mirrored the growth of inequality.
More Union members equals more middle class workers. Without the Unions govt. employees would slide quickly out of the middle class.
6
Why do your think they're middle class? It's their unions.
2
I'm OK with "right to work" laws whether for public- or private-sector, as long as there would be a concomitant "right to represent" law.
Unions should be able to choose to bargain ONLY for workers who were members before an agreement is signed. The employer could treat non-members any way they liked.
Multiple unions should be allowed for the same type of worker; this would give workers more say over the quality of their representation.
If this is currently illegal it should be legalized.
Would employers find this too complicated? Too bad.
8
"Unions should be able to choose to bargain ONLY for workers who were members before an agreement is signed. The employer could treat non-members any way they liked."
That won't work. Employers would give non-union employees better pay and working conditions, effectively punishing workers for joining unions. That would kill the union. Then there would be no union at all and employers could treat workers any way they like.
1
There are many companies that have union and non-union workers. No complications unless the company wouldn't bargain or union wouldn't respect non-union employees
1
You might want to look up etymology of "union". "Uni", as in one.
2
Gorsuch was installed on the court to weaken unions (among other reasons), which also would weaken all workers' rights across the board.
Another instance of how elections matter. Hillary would have never picked this man for the court.
27
It would have already been approved if Justice Scalia had lived for another month. Gorsuch, thankfully, can vote to end this corrupt practice.
1
What's corrupt is having a union negotiate for you without paying it fees.
and if non members are exempt from fees for union representation (which by law cannot include electoral expenditures), they will still have a right to demand individual representation when they are disciplined. This can cost 100’s of thousands of dollars in the most expensive cases and is an additional benefit to the superior pay and benefits a union contract always brings. What other industry is forced to provide services to those who refuse to pay?
15
Union does not provide legal representation to non-union employees.
3
There should be no Public sector unions.
1
There is never an end to the attacks on the middle class by big business interests. They cheated Obama out of his pick and changed the senate rules to insure they got their illegitimate hardliner conservative SCOTUS pick. Now they want to use that pick to do more lasting damage to the middle class. The courts dealt with this issue years ago but the big money just can't accept any power but their own. The few people who supposedly are upset about paying a small amount of their wages to the union to negotiate a contract for them are imbeciles. Do they think that they will fare better as an individual negotiating a contract? What fools. There is no issue of free speech here this is simply an attack on the unions who have been keeping big business from exploiting workers to make the maximum profit ever since the coal mine days. There has to be a change in this country soon or there is going to be serious trouble from average Americans who have had enough.
8
Why have so many workers rejected unionization? Answer, they despise corruption.
1
Once unions are gone it is over for the US working class then it will be everyone getting picked off by the corporations. That is when the working class will lose all control and have no rights at all.
18
Gorsuch is for anything that strengthens owners and hurts workers, so a ruling against unions is assured in this case.
10
Since we are the "owners" in this case, all is well. Besides the NYTimes should have started with the fact the ruling was about to be made to end this practice but, unfortunately, Justice Scalia passed away.
If you insist on union protections and assistance, you should be obligated to pay for it. Otherwise you're a leech.
17
Exactly scott. Love those freedom loving, hard working conservatives.
Let the union members fight for better conditions and higher pay, striking if needed and the non union conservative workers get a free ride.
To any conservative, anti union reader out there who sees this, don't ask for what you want, you may get it.
If unions are in essence destroyed and they are close to it now, mgt. will no longer fear them and be tempted to go back to standards of the 1930s or worse.
4
Why don't the unions bill anyone who directly uses their resources.
1
Unfortunately unions rotted out from within.
Corruption is what did many of them in.
Wonder how much Mr. Janus is getting paid off by anti-unionists?
Teachers are leaving Wisconsin in droves. Legislators are trying to change laws because of it. (Although they would not admit it). They are promoting easing requirements for teacher life time licenses. They are trying to allow teachers who are not credentialed to teach, such as if they have worked in manufacturing, they can teach it.
Also not to mention testing data decreased. Wisconsin used to be one of the highest credentialed and educated states.
Walker was so eager to throw teachers and unions under the bus, this is what we have left.
The kids are the ones who suffer, not Walker and his ilk.
20
And all the rest of us suffer too, with a less educated citizenry that is more vulnerable to the allure of the shiny distractions and empty promises of the right.
3
Like it or not, unions protect workers. These very institutions are not in it for "the money", unlike our corporations which abound here in the US. They oversee working conditions, increase wages, promote workers' qualities of life. As with my own father, a teamster, they help send kids to college, keep roofs over heads, buy clothes to wear, and good food to eat on a daily basis.
The powers-that-be, mainly the Republican Party, from a president to Congress and on down, have done a marvelous job in spinning the reality of unions. Why? Well, how else will they hold onto their jobs. They are in the back pockets of those for-profit corporations with persistent and relentless lobbying, who right now happen to be winning a war against a labor force. Our Supreme Court will most likely hammer in that final nail to the coffin. It will be the death of what was so much a way of life in the 20th Century. For those of us who are still living from that time and for our kids who are studying US history, it was a time when most of our parents had no choice but to belong to unions. And it worked. They could afford their own homes and send their kids to college. It was a good thing.
13
Kathy. Why have workers in droves rejected union representation? Too stupid?
5
Yes, some are very ignorant. Others have working conditions that make the unions unnecessary. And others have been covertly threatened with losing their jobs if they as much talk of unions.
1
The public sector Unions have killed public attitudes towards Unions in general. The vast majority of people in this country see their State and Local taxes, mainly property taxes, going up to support highly paid and very expensive benefits for Public sector Unions. Public sector Pensions are poison to local budgets and thereby taxation coast to coast. Watching Wisconsin turn anti-union is all the proof anyone needs.
11
In the next decade NY will be short 80,00o teachers. Attack them will will accelerate the process and result in hiring less competent teachers.
Warren is stating propaganda from NYSUT. Here in Westchester, 800 people apply for an elementary position.
The idea that workers protected by a union contract should be able to skip the dues but still receive the benefits is insane. Workers who do this should not receive contract benefits. The decline of Unions in this country has mirrored the growth of income inequality. With the help of Trump and the GOP, the 1% continue to subjugate the working man. Yet somehow they do not seem to realize what is being done to them and continue to vote for their own destruction.
21
Unions can bargain for their members. Period.
Companies can treat their non-union workers as they see fit. Period.
4
American workers are very, very slow learners who have to consistently re read the lessons their predecessors learned. The wealthy among us did not amass their fortunes because they are the most generous of our citizenry.
The real rub of course is our Supreme Court Justices who in theory, if not practice, are members of a deliberative body which approaches each case with an open mind.
The nine Justices should remember they serve justice and represent all the people.
3
Agree. And the freedom of choice is sacrosanct.
1
Kicking unions in the teeth while they're already down-how nice.
The American worker is doomed for eternity. No more rights.
Get back to the salt mines.
8
Very bright and self serving workers are rejecting unionization. Why?
1
This is just another chapter in the far-rights efforts to destroy unions. I've worked in union and non-union shops. I'll pick a union shop everything because the wages, benefits, worker safety and respect for workers is far higher in a union shop. The quality of the work and the output were also higher in a union shop. Mark Janus is a hypocrite and freeloader who expects to get the wages and benefits fought for by the union without having to pay his fair share of the costs expended by the union of securing those benefits.
56
It boggles my mind that in this age of massive income inequality you have lower-middle-class and lower-class people who are firmly against unions. Do you trust corporations (I know this is a government employee case, but this comment is also meant to more broadly address "right to work" laws and workers voting against joining unions) to have a worker's best interest in mind? Their only concern is paying you the bare minimum that won't make you quit and wringing as much work out of you as possible.
Our view of capitalism in this country is sick, sick, sick.
58
A union is just another corporation. I'll take my chances figuring out what's best for me on my own.
4
Divide and conquer, right? It strikes me as so sad that in the face of seeing some of the few remaining unions,which happen to be public sector ones, that people on the outside of the union are encouraged to feel they are being ripped off. How much better off instead if they were not so manipulated and found encouragement to unionize themselves and thus raise themselves up to what they perceive the unionized are getting.
5
Accusing workers who reject unionization as having a sick view of capitalism may not be the a sound strategy if you are wanting them to listen to the union perspective.
2
"“This case is yet another example of corporate interests using their power and influence to launch a political attack on working people and rig the rules of the economy in their own favor,” Lee Saunders, the president of the union in the case, said in a statement.
Except, in this case, the "corporate interest" is the state of Illinois and its taxpayers.
And what better example of the impact of public sector unions than Illinois, bankrupt in all but name thanks to the insatiable demand of the unions and their lackeys, the Democrats they bribe with their political contributions.
12
Illinois? Isn't that the place where the last two or three governors have all ended up in prison? Not exactly sure how unions are responsible for the mess that state is in, at least not all on their own.
5
So Donald Trump, GE, McCargill, Halliburton, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, etc., can thieve all they want while you blame unions. Without unions there would be a seven day, twelve hour workday for pennies, and that is for the 8 to 10 year old children. Just check the 1800s.
This Janus person is a free loader. Without the union he would be making pennies or less, and more open for graft.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
2
"”We are now one step closer,” he said in a statement, “to freeing over five million public sector teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other employees from the injustice of being forced to subsidize a union as a condition of working for their own government.”
Guess what? Lots of non-union jobs out there. If you don't want to support a union, go to a non-union shop. This is like the argument made by conservatives when the Hobby Lobby case came down. "Don't like it? Find another job." That should apply here as well. The transparency of the effort to kill unions, who typically support Democratic candidates, is incredible. Republicans support monopolistic rule over this country as long as it is they themselves who are monopolizing and manipulation and profiting off our lives. Don't like what the union is doing? Then don't pay the dues but don't expect they will represent you in collective bargaining. You're on your own, Jack. Good luck with that. This is a continuation of the Republican-backed corporate effort to turn the working class and middle class into nothing more than serfs in their feudal state. Keep them starving and keep them desperate and watch the profits roll in. True deplorables...and Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch will do the bidding of their masters. One can only hope that Roberts or Kennedy will save the day because stare decicis mean nothing to Republicans if they can use "originalism" to twist the Constitution to create their dystopia.
46
"...unions, who typically support Democratic candidates..." This may be true in public sector unions like teachers where Democratic politicians have a quid-pro-quo with their union members to ignore performance in exchange for votes. However, in the private sector, it's more common for the union leadership to support Democrats, which the rank and file dues paying members are more likely to vote Republican. See Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
2
There should be no Government, Public sector, unions.
2
As a former public school teacher, where was my "quid pro quo" when more frequent testing and the Common Core were shoved down our throats and our job ratings were tied to student performance? I guess I forgot to look for it.
Unions have been a force against income inequality. Globalization without an expansion of collective bargaining and the greater reduction of collective bargaining in the US will only further exacerbate the inequity. One of the challenges against unions are the workers themselves. In the absence of overt abuse, individuals do not see the advantages of unions. What they now see is the pay taken out of their checks and the protection of workers who are less qualified, as nearly every individual has self image of being John Gault.
22
Please.... unions are only interested in themselves. Higher wages for their members equals the higher the union dues. That's about the extent for which they care about income inequality.
3
Don't agree. The push for the rise in the liveable wage is led by unions. You argue about self-intetest. That is the historical argument made by Adam Smith and forever ingrained in economic theory. But if you are right explain historically the origin of the 8 hour day, overtime pay, health and safety standards, social security, family leave, and medicare. These standards of life apply to all workers and they were championed by a labor movement. That's not selfish, that is right.
6
Brian: Union dues are a tiny fraction of the decent salaries that Unions have negotiated for their membership. Unions exist to serve their membership, not to collect dues. The decline of union membership has exactly mirrored the growth of inequality of income in this country.
6