When it hears Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, the Supreme Court will decide whether public-sector unionism violates the First Amendment rights of workers who refuse to join unions. The case will be one of America’s most consequential for government labor–management relations. If the Court rules for the plaintiffs, state and local government workers in 22 states will no longer have to subsidize organized labor as a condition of employment; instead, they will be free to choose the organizations to which to contribute money, or to contribute not at all. Janus thus affords the Court an opportunity to reinstate workers’ rights to free speech and association, and to restore some political balance by preventing public-employee unions from using money forcibly pried from workers opposed to or unenthusiastic about their agenda. https://www.city-journal.org/html/judgment-day-public-unions-15646.html SCOTUS may overturn the old moldy Abood v. Detroit Federation of Teachers. Twenty-eight U.S. states have set their workers free, making sure that employees in unionized workplaces cannot be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment, or pay union fees. Twenty-two states still have their workers shackled. It is these states that that the Janus ruling will affect, if Abood is overturned, they will no longer be able to force public workers to join a private union members or pay the union fees.
The day will have to come when the unions and workers tell the government and courts "know what? We don't organize for you, so screw you. We're organizing. "
Public sector unions were doomed the day Trump won office. This will lower income of union members, a prime goal of Republicans for a generation.
For the record no one is forced to join a union or pay union dues. Unions are mandated to represent everyone in a union shop, and everyone is required to pay for that representation. Right to Work, applied to anything else, would be called socialism
I agree with FDR there is no place for unions in the public sector, financed by tax dollars. OTOH, there is a place for unions in the private sector, unless you equate a business owner or corporation with an all powerful king, and his servants, slaves. With no voice. There has been a war on unions for years by the neoliberal philosophy, the same philosophy which puts business above even a nation and her citizens. The same philosophy which destroyed what our founders put into place to create a strong and independent america with protection from slave labor coming from other nations. On the other side, some unions have exploited their power and became a destructive force, but not all unions did this. Other nations, successful nations like germany have unions and it works out just fine. So, it is how unions operate that can present problems, but good unions represent their workers and do good by them, while not destroying the business which feeds the workers. It is a matter of intelligent balance. Right to work states are those states which are generally Red, and anti worker, but very pro business, to a fault. Unions played a key role in creating history's largest middle class. But bad, corrupt unions are as bad as corrupt corporations and politicians. Unions in today's rush to the bottom wages are needed more than ever. But a corporation cannot max out profits with unions. And a reasonable profit under neoliberalism is no longer acceptable. One of the things which may have save capitalism during the great depression was the insistence of FDR that business especially big business accept a reasonable profit, instead of trying to max it out on the backs of powerless workers. And workers for most of our history have been powerless and are today closer to that than before the rise of unions. With all of this said, I am against public sector unions. At one time having a gov't job was not the highest paid job that a well educated person could get, but the retirement benefits made up for it. And so what drew people into working for gov't was first, job security, which is important, but no longer exists in america unless you are in particular fields, like being a medical doctor, which cannot be offshored to slave labor. Another factor is as I said the great retirement offered by gov't to its workers. Today any federal gov't job insures you a middle class life, and above the lower middle class lifestyle. Where I can recall when gov't jobs paid only a lower middle class lifestyle but with a much better retirement income. I can still recall when a gov't worker would tell you they were in it for the retirement benefits, while having job security, and they would never be poor, or working poor. It is very hard to fire a gov't worker these days. Almost takes an act of congress to do it. And so we get stuck with people who would never make it in the private sector. Insuring that we don't always have the best people working for the People. But then again, what gov't worker sees himself as a public servant. The few times I have had to interact with them, I did not get this opinion or feeling at all from them. I felt like I was talking not to someone working for the People, but someone who lorded over the People, quite gleefully at times. How about you?
You feel the same way about families that have people in the military, putting their lives on the line? In place of the cowards who would never put their own miserable life on the line for others? I bet you also think taxation is theft? lol But I have found that such people are those like we see who are genetically inclined to be poor, and who want something for nothing. To the people who equate taxation with theft, are just people who want something for nothing. They want to be defended, as long as they are not taxed to provide it. They want nice level well maintained hiways, so they can get to their vacation spot, but do not want to pay for it. In fact, they want all of the things that taxation and modern civilization provides, but if they have to pay for it they equate it to theft. Yes, they have lots in common with those at the bottom who are healthy, and fit, but want others to support them so they can escape work, and spend their time in leisure. Of course, like those parasites on the bottom, they would never admit it. Instead they will start using ideological arguments to cover up for the reality of what they actually are. Parasites, or people who would love being a parasite. Money for nothing and the chicks for free.
Interesting rant, but I think you'll find most people are not opposed to taxes that go towards the general good (like defense and infrastructure) -- the opposition is to seeing tax money wasted on inefficient government and/or seeing the taxpayer funded welfare system abused so that our tax money is essentially paying for other people to be lazy and irresponsible.
We both work for a union that will be effected. They expect 17% to go the freeloader route immediately
So you cant say for sure and base it on fear. Perhaps unions should not be so blatantly political and this would not be an issue.
I'm scratching my head understanding how reducing union members by making it optional affects peoples continued employment.
Sure I can: 17% of our members are fee payers. This ruling will immediately reduce what they pay to 0. Of course unionsxare political. They support candidates who support unions. No more political than the NRA.
Unions pay better. We've both worked private sector before. It'll be hard now as people see a union on your resume and that turns off non union private sector jobs.
It'll be the 1930's all over again where people who wanted a union will have to do what they have to in order to organize and be recognized, but I don't think the anti-union crowd will get their way with total elimination of unions. Most people of any intelligence want to have rights in the workplace so I think unions will be around long past when we are gone. If things get bad enough where the employees have nothing left to lose, then they'll organize.
And imagine the outrage if people were forced to pay to support the NRA.... So union pay wasn't really merit-based like it is in the private sector?
Are you suggesting that unions cant exist unless they spend a massive amount on politics and lobbying almost all of which goes ( of course) to things you support?
