RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue...

RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

servantforuse -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 4:11:00 PM)
That is their CHOICE. You should not have to join a union to get or keep your job.

Musicmystery -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 4:13:08 PM)
That would put management in the position of negotiating with collective bargaining AND with each individual employee. And, management could bring pressure to bear on individuals worried about their jobs in a way they can't if only the union is the bargaining unit.

servantforuse -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 4:22:37 PM)
Again, isn't it up to the employees if they want to be put in that position. ? Many employees could thrive and make even more money if union rules were not holding them back.

Sanity -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 5:15:07 PM)
Hello DETROIT

BamaD -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 5:23:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse The 'left' is all for freedom of choice, except for choosing to join a union. Wrong, they are for freedom of choice, unless they disagree with the choice. Your choice to drink large sodas in New York Your choice not to pay for someone else to get an abortion Your choice to smoke (unless it is pot) Your choice to own a firearm and the list goes on

DomKen -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 5:23:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Again, isn't it up to the employees if they want to be put in that position. ? Many employees could thrive and make even more money if union rules were not holding them back. Statistics show you are wrong. Unionized jobs pay more and have better benefits. The decline in the middle class tracks very closely with the decline in unionization.

BamaD -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 5:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Again, isn't it up to the employees if they want to be put in that position. ? Many employees could thrive and make even more money if union rules were not holding them back. Statistics show you are wrong. Unionized jobs pay more and have better benefits. The decline in the middle class tracks very closely with the decline in unionization. Before I went into the service I worked in a non union plant. My father in law was a big Union guy. Over that two year period he made about a dollar and a half an hour more than I did. Problem was that over that period he was on strike for better than six months and had been on strike for a year before that. That extra dollar and a half (at that time about 30%) more than I did meant I made a lot more than he did.

servantforuse -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 5:32:21 PM)
Scott Walker was elected governor of Wisconsin and again in a recall election. He gave public employees the choice to pay union dues or not. They chose not to do so. He will be elected again in November .

DomKen -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 5:35:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Scott Walker was elected governor of Wisconsin and again in a recall election. He gave public employees the choice to pay union dues or not. They chose not to do so. He will be elected again in November . You mean the guy who had to engage in a criminal scheme to win the recall? He'll be lucky to not be indicted by then.

DomKen -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 5:37:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Again, isn't it up to the employees if they want to be put in that position. ? Many employees could thrive and make even more money if union rules were not holding them back. Statistics show you are wrong. Unionized jobs pay more and have better benefits. The decline in the middle class tracks very closely with the decline in unionization. Before I went into the service I worked in a non union plant. My father in law was a big Union guy. Over that two year period he made about a dollar and a half an hour more than I did. Problem was that over that period he was on strike for better than six months and had been on strike for a year before that. That extra dollar and a half (at that time about 30%) more than I did meant I made a lot more than he did. That seems very unlikely. What union went on strike without a strike fund? And was it his fault or the union's fault that the employer refused to negotiate in good faith? And that does not change those numbers I cited above.

servantforuse -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 5:51:29 PM)
There was no scheme. There will be no indictment, much to the dismay of Wisconsin liberals.

BamaD -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 6:07:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Again, isn't it up to the employees if they want to be put in that position. ? Many employees could thrive and make even more money if union rules were not holding them back. Statistics show you are wrong. Unionized jobs pay more and have better benefits. The decline in the middle class tracks very closely with the decline in unionization. Before I went into the service I worked in a non union plant. My father in law was a big Union guy. Over that two year period he made about a dollar and a half an hour more than I did. Problem was that over that period he was on strike for better than six months and had been on strike for a year before that. That extra dollar and a half (at that time about 30%) more than I did meant I made a lot more than he did. That seems very unlikely. What union went on strike without a strike fund? And was it his fault or the union's fault that the employer refused to negotiate in good faith? And that does not change those numbers I cited above. One strike fund ran out a long time before the strike. The first Union had a deal then demanded that the strikers be paid for the time they were on strike. And this according to the pro union father in law. On the second job he had been working there less than a month. In case you are unaware strike funds don't pay much. Seems unlikely = doesn't fit your world view

BamaD -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 6:21:08 PM)
FR What seems to be lost in this conversation is that the woman was being required to pay the union dues to receive the medicare checks so she could CARE FOR HER OWN SON. He was the only person she was caring for so the union could have cone nothing for her but get in the way. It wasn't a matter of keeping her job, it was a matter of CARING FOR HER OWN SON.

Musicmystery -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 7:35:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Again, isn't it up to the employees if they want to be put in that position. ? Many employees could thrive and make even more money if union rules were not holding them back. Mere speculation, and ignores the dangers I mentioned.

Raiikun -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 8:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse You are right about that. They don't care if you join or not. They just want the union dues . And the workers that don't want to pay the dues just want the union wages. And they want the union benefits. And they want the union backing if there is a labor dispute for being wrongfully fired, etc. But they want all that without having to pay to get it. They expect a free ride. Kinda sounds like what the people on the right say about welfare isn't it? Then there are those like myself who don't want to pay the union dues; would rather negotiate my own benefits, have no desire for union backing in case of a labor dispute (and have actually argued one myself and won). That said, IMO people should have the right to group together to bargain collectively if they wish, and should have the right to avoid those like the plague if they wish, regardless of their occupation.

DomKen -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 9:01:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR What seems to be lost in this conversation is that the woman was being required to pay the union dues to receive the medicare checks so she could CARE FOR HER OWN SON. He was the only person she was caring for so the union could have cone nothing for her but get in the way. It wasn't a matter of keeping her job, it was a matter of CARING FOR HER OWN SON. Those checks come from a third party company that pays her as a home health worker. She will now get paid less because SEIU can no longer afford to negotiate on behalf of those workers.

DomKen -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 9:04:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse You are right about that. They don't care if you join or not. They just want the union dues . And the workers that don't want to pay the dues just want the union wages. And they want the union benefits. And they want the union backing if there is a labor dispute for being wrongfully fired, etc. But they want all that without having to pay to get it. They expect a free ride. Kinda sounds like what the people on the right say about welfare isn't it? Then there are those like myself who don't want to pay the union dues; would rather negotiate my own benefits, have no desire for union backing in case of a labor dispute (and have actually argued one myself and won). That said, IMO people should have the right to group together to bargain collectively if they wish, and should have the right to avoid those like the plague if they wish, regardless of their occupation. How do you think you came to be able to work a job where you could do so? If the answer doesn't include the fact that union members fought and died then you are deluded.

BamaD -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 9:23:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR What seems to be lost in this conversation is that the woman was being required to pay the union dues to receive the medicare checks so she could CARE FOR HER OWN SON. He was the only person she was caring for so the union could have cone nothing for her but get in the way. It wasn't a matter of keeping her job, it was a matter of CARING FOR HER OWN SON. Those checks come from a third party company that pays her as a home health worker. She will now get paid less because SEIU can no longer afford to negotiate on behalf of those workers. That "third party company" was the government, IL had put the union requirement on medicaid checks So you are as accurate as usual.

DomKen -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 10:47:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR What seems to be lost in this conversation is that the woman was being required to pay the union dues to receive the medicare checks so she could CARE FOR HER OWN SON. He was the only person she was caring for so the union could have cone nothing for her but get in the way. It wasn't a matter of keeping her job, it was a matter of CARING FOR HER OWN SON. Those checks come from a third party company that pays her as a home health worker. She will now get paid less because SEIU can no longer afford to negotiate on behalf of those workers. That "third party company" was the government, IL had put the union requirement on medicaid checks So you are as accurate as usual. The state pays contractors who then pay their employees. This women works for one of those contractors. SEIU will no longer represent her. She should enjoy making substantially less. She said so in several interviews today.

BitYakin -> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... (6/30/2014 11:41:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR What seems to be lost in this conversation is that the woman was being required to pay the union dues to receive the medicare checks so she could CARE FOR HER OWN SON. He was the only person she was caring for so the union could have cone nothing for her but get in the way. It wasn't a matter of keeping her job, it was a matter of CARING FOR HER OWN SON. Those checks come from a third party company that pays her as a home health worker. She will now get paid less because SEIU can no longer afford to negotiate on behalf of those workers. That "third party company" was the government, IL had put the union requirement on medicaid checks So you are as accurate as usual. The state pays contractors who then pay their employees. This women works for one of those contractors. SEIU will no longer represent her. She should enjoy making substantially less. She said so in several interviews today. according to an article by CBS, she was already receiving substantially less http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-private-contractors-not-obligated-to-pay-public-union-fees/ The Illinois home-care workers in this case are not technically public employees -- they are private home-care workers employed in a Medicaid-funded system. Alito wrote that the personal assistants in this case are "much different" than full-fledged public employees. The Illinois legislature, he noted, has taken pains to specify that personal assistants are public employees for one purpose only: collective bargaining. "Consistent with this scheme, under which personal assistants are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, Illinois withholds from personal assistants most of the rights and benefits enjoyed by full fledged state employees," Alito wrote. "As we have noted already, state law explicitly excludes personal assistants from statutory retirement and health insurance benefits." apparently the UNION wasn't representing her very well BEFORE...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875