Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 4:11:00 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		That is their CHOICE. You should not have to join a union to get or keep your job.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 4:13:08 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 4:22:37 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 5:15:07 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline 		Hello DETROIT

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 5:23:24 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 5:23:49 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 5:31:30 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 5:32:21 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		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 .

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 5:35:04 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 5:37:50 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 5:51:29 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		There was no scheme. There will be no indictment, much to the dismay of Wisconsin liberals.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 6:07:02 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 6:21:08 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 6/30/2014 6:22:15 PM >

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 7:35:20 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 8:11:49 PM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to igor2003)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 9:01:21 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 9:04:47 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 9:23:10 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 10:47:26 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... - 6/30/2014 11:41:21 PM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline
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...

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: US Supreme Court rules on Labor Issue... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094