Wow, the Supreme Court just ruled that public servants don't have to join their respective unions against their will. That dries up the union contributions to political parties -- a huge percentage of which goes to the Democratic Party and their candidates. For good or ill, depending on your view, this is huge.
[Premium Post] Devastating news for Democrats -- who have relied on these forced contributions (against union members' wills) for years. Now they have to earn donations, just like the other side. The Democrat political machine is breaking down beneath our very eyes. GOOD DAY
Actually, it was a ruling that now allows workers to join or not join a union based on their free choice. Often, public servants are forced to contribute to candidates they vehemently oppose. Now, I understand both sides of the argument. Union members who WANT to be union members believe the non-union members will get a "free ride" on benefits for which the union has bargained. That is a valid argument for the union position. However, IMO I believe the freedom of choice is more important. On the plus side, unions will have to consult with their membership and contribute money to campaigns based on individual mandate. This has not happened yet, but IMO it is the logical consequence.
I always thought it was wrong to force people to pay dues to a union simply because they worked somewhere. I'm fine with unions, but they should be completely voluntary.
Tje last permanent job i had whad a union and it was optional to join Edit: the dues in question went specifically to Collective bargaining
Devastating. How many public sector employees will want to continue giving these shakedown operations money voluntarily, now that they no longer have to. Not very many. Watch and see.
I think it isn't wrong to force people to pay towards the union. That union got the people the working conditions, salaries, and benefits they have. If they work in that place the union has helped them. Why should they get the benefits, salary, etc. that other people worked so hard far? It would be fair if only union workers got the pay raises, benefits, time-off, etc. and those that don't pay toward the union could do without those things. So there might be a way for it to be fair.
This ruling has been expected. I do not disagree with the ruling. Unions or those that represent workers will have to find another way to get funding without forcing employees to pay that do not want to.
public sector unions in general are ethically questionable there is no adversarial bargaining, it's two parties negotiating with someone else's money; namely, the taxpayer
Non-union workers have to negotiate for themselves. You definitely can't have people benefiting without paying in, it just doesn't make sense.
Took longer than I expected actually. Only open question for this country's future: 1920, 1820, ... or 1520?
yes im sure people wiil start dying in factories again and working mandatory sixty hour weeks. Im not anti union but all they are there for nowadays is wages. I joined the union at a job and was unfairly let go, had paid dues but they could not do anything because i was still in a first few months probationary period. Fine im over it but the union at Atlantic Coffee Solutions the company, did negotiate salary right into running the company out of business. A year later the company announced it was closing doors. I made a financial employee meeting in the short time there and the company was telling workers they needed to cut wages. On the Obama auto bailouts, all GMC's debt for instance was in pensions and healthcare costs to retired workers. Houston"s fire fighters pension was gonna run Houston into bankruptcy. GMC didn't owe any money to banks.
A little overdramatic, don't you think? Public sector unions getting a kick in the pants is not going to send us back to Upton Sinclair's Jungle.
