Court split over dues for unions.

[MarAzul]

All but surely over turned if Scalia had survived.

Can some one please explain the thinking here. Why do liberals think this is good to allow unions to force workers to contribute to political activity they do not support?

Is it simply good for liberal or Progressive causes in the long run so screw the workers?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct..._puCigc0Wo4waDYSA&sig2=1AQgFSrxFL7d7hzkBIma-w

 

[barfo]

All but surely over turned if Scalia had survived.

Can some one please explain the thinking here. Why do liberals think this is good to allow unions to force workers to contribute to political activity they do not support?

Is it simply good for liberal or Progressive causes in the long run so screw the workers?

It's a bit like saying, why do I have to pay taxes for roads in Coos County? I don't want to drive there (very often). Why do I have to pay taxes for schools? I don't have kids in school.
Etc.

Unions negotiate on behalf of all employees. Even those that don't understand the benefit they get from that.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Unions negotiate on behalf of all employees, whether they want it or not.

The "whether they want it or not" part is the issue.

The unions effectively strongarm republicans into donating to democratic party politicians. That's not very american.

 

[barfo]

Unions negotiate on behalf of all employees, whether they want it or not.

The "whether they want it or not" part is the issue.

Yes, that's correct. Just like Obama is everyone's president right now, whether you want him to be or not. Because more of us voted for him than voted for Romney.

Similarly, a union represents all the workers, because at some point, a majority of the workers voted the union in.

The unions effectively strongarm republicans into donating to democratic party politicians. That's not very american.

It's not very american that Republican politicians don't represent working people's interests. If they did, they'd get the union donations.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, that's correct. Just like Obama is everyone's president right now, whether you want him to be or not. Because more of us voted for him than voted for Romney.

Similarly, a union represents all the workers, because at some point, a majority of the workers voted the union in.



It's not very american that Republican politicians don't represent working people's interests. If they did, they'd get the union donations.

barfo

They do represent working people's interests and they do get union member's votes. Those members forced to donate part of their wages to democrats is unamerican.

The union is not the government. You have 1st amendment freedom of association which means you have the right to NOT associate - that would mean be in the union, have the union bargain for you, etc.

I do favor unions, but not any sort that is government employees or ones that force anyone to be a member for any reason. That is, collective bargaining - the union can bargain for whatever wage and benefits it can get out of management for its members. Those not members have to negotiate their own wage, and there's no requirement that this wage be union scale (can be less).

 

[MarAzul]

Unions negotiate on behalf of all employees

Yes barfo, I get that. And I don't agree that this is always a benefit to all employees. Equal out comes is not a benefit for all. However, that is not the issue, the issue is the political side.
Any Union that will waste funds supporting Hillary Clinton, or Kate Brown has nothing to do with any negotiations on behalf of any employee. Forcing anyone to support this association is contrary to the American way. Nothing is the Constitution supports this idea. We have four justices that can read but turn a blind eye instead.

Perhaps you can explain the benefit of have justices turn the blind eye on the Constitution?
What do you like about this obvious sham?

 

[barfo]

Yes barfo, I get that. And I don't agree that this is always a benefit to all employees. Equal out comes is not a benefit for all.

Of course. Sometimes what's best for the group isn't best for the individual. That's the way it goes.

However, that is not the issue, the issue is the political side.
Any Union that will waste funds supporting Hillary Clinton, or Kate Brown has nothing to do with any negotiations on behalf of any employee.

Why do you think they do it, then?

Forcing anyone to support this association is contrary to the American way. Nothing is the Constitution supports this idea. We have four justices that can read but turn a blind eye instead.

Perhaps you can explain the benefit of have justices turn the blind eye on the Constitution?
What do you like about this obvious sham?

Pretty sure all 8 justices have read the constitution pretty carefully.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Pretty sure all 8 justices have read the constitution pretty carefully

Me too.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I'm not sure how it works for private sector unions, but public employee unions have the option once a year to apply for a refund from their unions of a certain percentage of their annual dues that are considered to have been used for political activities. It is not an insignificant refund. So....any public employee who makes an effort to pay attention can opt out of "political contributions" and quit their bitching. Those in the peanut gallery who don't pay union dues don't have a dog in the fight and should shut the f**k up. Public employees don't have the option to opt out of paying those who negotiate on their behalf for wages, benefits, etc. Which is as it should be. Why should they get something for nothing? If an employee has a problem paying union dues, then they have the option of finding a non Union job. Unfortunately, unions are a necessary evil. This is underlined by the efforts of big business to stamp them out. The argument that everyone should negotiate on their own behalf ignores the fact that not everyone is created equal. This would be a far shittier world than it already is if it wasn't for the existence of unions. And that is a very sad commentary on humanity in general.

 

[oldfisherman]

Only had one experience with a union, and did not like it.

I was hired by a company for a summer job with the goal of making enough to pay for a year of college. They needed short term help to cover vacations.

Before the company offered me the job, I had to agree to join the union, or the company could not hire me, a closed shop. So I joined the steelworkers union for the summer.

First day on the job the union shop steward has me in a private meeting. This was before I started to work for the day. He explains what types of work I can and can not do. Then he tells me to work slowly, as slowly as I can, so more people would get hired and more union dues would be collected.

The union shop steward was also running a numbers racket in the plant. So there was a mob connection to this union.

Results, I made it through the summer fine. I was making 95% of the hourly wage as guys that had worked there for 20 years were making, which did not seam fair. But the company did not do so well. A couple of years later, the company closed down completely, and all their jobs were picked up by a foreign country.


Personally, I believe unions are good when it comes to negotiating and protecting workers over safety issues. But that is where their influence should end. People should be able to negotiate their own wages based on how much of an impact they make for their employer, just like basketball players do. Using union dues for political reasons is just wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not sure how it works for private sector unions, but public employee unions have the option once a year to apply for a refund from their unions of a certain percentage of their annual dues that are considered to have been used for political activities. It is not an insignificant refund. So....any public employee who makes an effort to pay attention can opt out of "political contributions" and quit their bitching. Those in the peanut gallery who don't pay union dues don't have a dog in the fight and should shut the f**k up. Public employees don't have the option to opt out of paying those who negotiate on their behalf for wages, benefits, etc. Which is as it should be. Why should they get something for nothing? If an employee has a problem paying union dues, then they have the option of finding a non Union job. Unfortunately, unions are a necessary evil. This is underlined by the efforts of big business to stamp them out. The argument that everyone should negotiate on their own behalf ignores the fact that not everyone is created equal. This would be a far shittier world than it already is if it wasn't for the existence of unions. And that is a very sad commentary on humanity in general.

Campaign donations should be opt in. Opt out is an impediment to exercising your political rights.

The same contribution rules placed on corporations should apply to unions.

 

[barfo]

The same contribution rules placed on corporations should apply to unions.

Are you saying that is currently not the case? If so, in what way?

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Are you saying that is currently not the case? If so, in what way?

barfo

Can your employer mandate that a portion of your salary is deducted by the company to be used for political purposes? I don't believe so.

 

[Denny Crane]

Corporations don't dock employees' paychecks to pay for political donations.

 

[Denny Crane]

Can your employer mandate that a portion of your salary is deducted by the company to be used for political purposes? I don't believe so.

What he said.

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course. Sometimes what's best for the group isn't best for the individual. That's the way it goes.
barfo

SMH.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-torture-exclusive-idUSKCN0WW0Y3

 

[barfo]

SMH.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-torture-exclusive-idUSKCN0WW0Y3

Sometimes what the group thinks is best for the group isn't best for the group. But that's a different topic.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Can your employer mandate that a portion of your salary is deducted by the company to be used for political purposes? I don't believe so.

I don't believe so either but that's not responsive to the question. Denny said "The same contribution rules placed on corporations should apply to unions."

You are addressing how the union gets the money used to make the contribution, not the rules on making contributions.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Sometimes what the group thinks is best for the group isn't best for the group. But that's a different topic.

barfo

SMH

But this time you're right if workers voting to force everyone to be in the union isn't best for the group.

Democracy is overrated. Majority can be tyrannical. That's why we have a constitution and a republic.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't believe so either but that's not responsive to the question. Denny said "The same contribution rules placed on corporations should apply to unions."

You are addressing how the union gets the money used to make the contribution, not the rules on making contributions.

barfo

SMH.

What an awful dodge.

 

[barfo]

SMH.

What an awful dodge.

I'm not dodging anything. You said one thing and then when I challenged it you changed the subject. I agree with you that unions, but not corporations, can use payroll deductions for political purposes. If you weren't trying to say that contribution rules for unions and corporations are different, then you need to brush up on your communication skills.

barfo

 

[barfo]

SMH

But this time you're right if workers voting to force everyone to be in the union isn't best for the group.

Democracy is overrated. Majority can be tyrannical. That's why we have a constitution and a republic.

Of course you are right here about the potential tyranny of the majority. Using a portion of union dues for political purposes isn't exactly what that phrase implies, however.

If you keep SMH-ing so much, your head is going to fall off.

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'm not dodging anything. You said one thing and then when I challenged it you changed the subject. I agree with you that unions, but not corporations, can use payroll deductions for political purposes. If you weren't trying to say that contribution rules for unions and corporations are different, then you need to brush up on your communication skills.

barfo

I understood him perfectly, based on the context of the comment. Within the same post, preceding the line you quoted, he said, "Campaign donations should be opt in. Opt out is an impediment to exercising your political rights." Clearly, he was talking about and concerned with an individuals' contributions to an organization.

Inability to apply context on your part does not equate to communication failure on his part. (SMH...)

 

[barfo]

I understood him perfectly, based on the context of the comment. Within the same post, preceding the line you quoted, he said, "Campaign donations should be opt in. Opt out is an impediment to exercising your political rights." Clearly, he was talking about and concerned with an individuals' contributions to an organization.

Inability to apply context on your part does not equate to communication failure on his part. (SMH...)

In that case, the line I quoted was kind of silly. What would the proposal be? That corporations can collect dues from employees to use for political donations? Or that unions can't make political donations at all since they have no source of funds other than dues?

SMH.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not dodging anything. You said one thing and then when I challenged it you changed the subject. I agree with you that unions, but not corporations, can use payroll deductions for political purposes. If you weren't trying to say that contribution rules for unions and corporations are different, then you need to brush up on your communication skills.

barfo

I did no such thing. Others who read YOUR post came to the same conclusion I did.

Imagine if Hobby Lobby deducted money for political purposes from employee paychecks. You'd whine about it good.

However, if union members or Hobby Lobby employees want to voluntarily pool their money for political purposes, that's legit under the 1st amendment, but not by your idea of campaign finance reform (better known as assault on the 1st amendment).

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course you are right here about the potential tyranny of the majority. Using a portion of union dues for political purposes isn't exactly what that phrase implies, however.

If you keep SMH-ing so much, your head is going to fall off.

barfo

It is tyranny of the majority and outright theft.

The number of my SMH posts is related to the mind numbing content of many of your posts.

 

[barfo]

I did no such thing. Others who read YOUR post came to the same conclusion I did.

Imagine if Hobby Lobby deducted money for political purposes from employee paychecks. You'd whine about it good.

They do. They use money for political purposes instead of paying it to their employees. Same thing, different mechanism.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

They do. They use money for political purposes instead of paying it to their employees. Same thing, different mechanism.

barfo

There is no payroll deduction. The company might spend money customers pay for their products. A corporation spends on behalf of its shareholders at its own expense. If you don't like what the corporation does, boycott them or don't buy their stock.

Another SMH post. Seriously.

 

[barfo]

There is no payroll deduction.

Right, that's what I meant by "different mechanism".

The company might spend money customers pay for their products. A corporation spends on behalf of its shareholders at its own expense.

Right, that's what I meant by "different mechanism".

If you don't like what the corporation does, boycott them or don't buy their stock.

Uh, ok. Thanks for the tip.

Another SMH post. Seriously.

Likewise, I'm sure.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Quid pro quo. Something else unions can do that corporations cannot.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-essential-politics-20160329-story.html

"Raise the minimum wage because we did (and will) take from unwilling employee paychecks to help get you elected."