Supreme Court to Take Up Challenges to Union Practices
Source: NY Times
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Labor leaders and businesses are closely watching a Supreme Court case to be argued this Wednesday that involves a popular strategy used by unions to successfully organize hundreds of thousands of workers.
That strategy widely deployed by the Service Employees International Union and the Unite Here hotel workers union involves pressuring an employer into signing a so-called neutrality agreement in which the employer promises not to oppose a unionization drive. By some estimates, more than half of the recent successful unionization campaigns involve such agreements, which sometimes allow union organizers onto company property to talk with workers.
Benjamin Sachs, a professor of labor law at Harvard Law School, said the case before the Supreme Court was potentially the most significant labor case in a generation.
Professor Sachs said that if the court ruled against labor, it could significantly hobble efforts by private sector unions to organize workers. He added that the other big labor case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this session could have a significant impact on public sector unions. In that case, a home-care worker has asked the court to rule that the state of Illinois violated her First Amendment rights by requiring her to pay fair share fees, much like dues, to a union she did not support.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/supreme-court-to-take-up-challenges-to-union-practices.html?partner=EXCITE&ei=5043&_r=0
benld74
(9,904 posts)loves to truck out and pretend mom and pops will be the ones who are hurt if it is allowed to continue. But I agree the most significant labor case in a generation statement wholeheartedly.
christx30
(6,241 posts)she shouldn't have to pay into it. I don't think it's that outragous of a request.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)is one of the biggest tactics to bust a union. Why should I have money from my pay go for my insurance when I'm covered by my wifes.... Put that money in my check.
She reaps the benefits of the union agreement. Your thought and beliefs brings workers rights back a hundred years.
It's called a whole we are a group with a goal.
christx30
(6,241 posts)voluntarily come together to force changes. Less overtime, better pay and and working conditions. It is not a "you must do this or you are not allowed to work here" thing. I do support that. But the second you make it mandatory, you'll find me supporting the person that wants to leave. You try to force me into anything, you're going to get my middle finger in response. Be worthy of my time and money, and I'll gladly join.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)If you work at a Union shop, you join the Union. The Union provides job security, protection and compensation. It only works if everyone is on board. Freeloaders aren't welcome. If they don't want to belong in a union, they need to find a non-union shop to work.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)justgamma
(3,665 posts)She reaps all the benefits of belonging to the Union without contributing. The Union, by law, must protect her rights and fight for her if she is unfairly treated. If the Union must fight for her, then she should contribute.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)And that's all yo are is a scab..
warrant46
(2,205 posts)After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab.
A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue.
Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.
When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out.
No man (or woman) has a right to scab so long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in, or a rope long enough to hang his body with.
Judas was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his master, he had character enough to hang himself. A scab has not.
Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
Judas sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver.
Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commission in the British army.
The scab sells his birthright, country, his wife, his children and his fellowmen for an unfulfilled promise from his employer.
Esau was a traitor to himself; Judas was a traitor to his God; Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country.
A scab is a traitor to his God, his country, his family and his class.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)If she doesn't want to pay Union Dues, then she shouldn't get the benefits of the Union, this includes her salary.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)former9thward
(31,981 posts)Interesting...
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)former9thward
(31,981 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)It's as simple as that.
Because of the Union contracts, the company can fire any employee who fails to pay union dues. Those fees are required of all employees in union jobs.
How is that violent?
You've decided that "move her out" implies violence. I am not clear how you concluded that. It's actually quite an innocuous term. For example:
* My parents helped "move me out" 20-25 years ago. We had no problems with violence at all.
* I got in my car and "moved it out" of the garage. I may have sworn a little, but I was going to work.
* I was leaving my bedroom and tripped on some shoes. I moved them out of the way. No one was harmed.
* And as Billy Joel once sang, "If that's moving up than 'I'm moving out.'"
Violence isn't required when you have contracts, laws, and procedures.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Did you not want to move out but your parents pushed you out? Do you compare cars and shoes with humans? Weird on so many levels.
Companies are not required to fire people not paying union dues -- Especially the example cited in the OP. It is telling the poster I replied to never replied but you stepped in to defend them.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)-> I wanted to move out. No violence was required. Cars, shoes, and humans are all nouns. The English language is allows for nouns to be interchanged in sentences. I provided many examples of "move her out" and similar phrases did not have violent connotations.
-> The companies are required to fire people not paying union dues in a State that is not "right-to-work." The example cited in the OP was an undecided court case were the person said she shouldn't have to pay dues because of what appears to be a dubious First Amendment claim. Here is the only actual paragraph in the article that mentions "dues:"
In that case, a home-care worker has asked the court to rule that the state of Illinois violated her First Amendment rights by requiring her to pay fair share fees, much like dues, to a union she did not support.
The article is actually about a case before the SCOTUS that:
involves pressuring an employer into signing a so-called neutrality agreement in which the employer promises not to oppose a unionization drive.
-> Why is it telling that the other poster hasn't responded? Juxtaposed last post on DU (at the time I am posting this) was Sun Nov 10, 2013, 11:10 PM. It's Tuesday. Your response to Juxtaposed was posted on Monday. What is telling is what seems to be your assumption of guilt.
-> I "stepped in to defend them"* because you inexplicably decided that "move her out" inherently implied violence. I found that assessment to be flawed and responded accordingly.
* I prefer "stepped in to correct you." You were the one ascribing an implication violence to a phrase--a phrase which I am unable to make sound violent. Perhaps you can give an example.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)However you would not get far in an English class trying to compare them, (I know, I know, you got straight 'A's in English and are a professor somewhere teaching it. Spare us).
The poster clearly meant to physically force her from the job. That is why they did not reply. The poster did not say the company should remove her, the poster said the employees were to do it. The employees can't fire anyone they can only assault her or commit some other illegal act to get rid of her.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)...that we should assume that every post you don't respond to is subject to the interpretation of anyone who replies?
If juxtaposed replies in this sub-thread tomorrow, is it too late? Is there some unwritten statute of limitations?
It's odd that you ask me to spare you from something I haven't said and wasn't planning to say. I'm currently an IT professional. While I excelled at numerous topics, math and science were my main interests. I had a Union job for 4.5 years before I moved into a management job. I maintained my Union membership despite no longer having a job requiring union membership. I did so to keep to keep my seniority date (mostly as insurance that I never ended up needing.) I left that job, and am now employed (in a non union job) by my State.
If you think that unions do not have procedures beyond violence, you are horribly mistaken. I can only assume from your assertion to the contrary that I am a little better versed in the topic.
Finally, can you please give me an example of a sentence or paragraph where "move her out" or a close variant clearly implies violence? Use literary sources, periodicals, plays, or make one up yourself. I've provided numerous examples where the phrase "move her out" or a close variant clearly does not imply violence. It's your turn.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)that if she does not earn her pay for the employer, she can find another job.
It is a condition of her work, nothing outrageous about it.
This is just divide-and-rule tactics being used to attack unions and workers, to keep wages low.
Omaha Steve
(99,584 posts)I doubt it.
http://www.aflcio.org/Learn-About-Unions/What-Unions-Do/The-Union-Difference
Union members earn better wages and benefits than workers who arent union members. On average, union workers wages are 27 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts.
Unionized workers are 60 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions.
More than 85 percent of union workers have jobs that provide health insurance benefits, but only 54 percent of nonunion workers do. Unions help employers create a more stable, productive workforcewhere workers have a say in improving their jobs.
Unions help bring workers out of poverty and into the middle class. In fact, in states where workers dont have union rights, workers incomes are lower.
See related topics:
Nonunion Workers Pay Lower
Better Pensions, Health Care
Wages Higher with Union Rights
StoneCarver
(249 posts)He just doesn't know what it is to be in a Union. I didn't, but I caught on fast. I'm always embarrassed by what I said and did when I was younger. He'll come along nicely, I'm sure. Just keep interacting with people on DU.
christx30
(6,241 posts)for great employers that take care of their workers. I have kick ass insurance. My supervisor emails me and gives me tasks like "hey, Chris. I need for you to take these two online courses by Friday so I can give you the merit raise at the same time as the cost of living raise". As long I hit some reasonable metrics, I get a monthly bonus. All in Texas. All without a union.
I understand that there are shitty employers out there. I've worked a for a few. But I would never join a union. And I would support anyone that wants to leave one. Maybe she doesn't like or trust the union leadership. Or feels the demands are over the top. Maybe she doesn't feel the benefits she gets are worth the dues she pays. There are tons of reasons why she might not want to be in the union. But that should be yo to her. Her continued employment, benefits and pay should be between her and her employer, and not her coworker.
If you want me, sell me on it. Describe the benefits. But if I say no, back off. Understand that there are people that don't want to get involved. I just want to work.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)I awoke one morning in San Antonio and clicked on the teevee in my hotel room. Shortly thereafter, I learned that fully one-third of Texans are uninsured. Gov. Goodhair's refusal to participate in the Medicaid expansion will not help matters.
Oh yes, in San Antonio, America's eighth-largest city, that number rises to more than half. All in Texas. All without unions.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
Scuba
(53,475 posts)The PTB are hell-bent on crushing any political opposition, and that starts with unions.
mtasselin
(666 posts)If a person does not want to pay union dues, then they should not get any benefits from that contract. That person should be paid the prevailing rate for non-union companies in that area and I am pretty sure when she see's the difference in benefits she will come running back pleading for them to take her dues.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)If not, work out your own deal with management and don't participate in any benefits that the union negotiates.
bobGandolf
(871 posts)These are bad. With the court the way it is I fear both of these cases might go in businesses favor. I'm particularly worried about the the one involving public sector unions.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,566 posts)discuss the home care worker who doesn't want to be in a union, I'd like to talk about this sentence;
'That strategy widely deployed by the Service Employees International Union and the Unite Here hotel workers union involves pressuring an employer into signing a so-called neutrality agreement in which the employer promises not to oppose a unionization drive.
When is the last time a business caved to 'pressure' from a union that did not yet represent that businesses employees?
I can't think of any. It seems to me the writer revealed his bias. People should have a right to decide to join or not join, when the union is trying to organize. The only way to truly let that happen is for the business to let the organizers in. Once the majority of the workers have decided to accept a union, then all workers are entitled to representation as well as higher wages and better benefits. Higher wages and better benefits which no business has ever, or hardly ever, given willingly to its workers.