Union Representation

[indago]

Alana Semuels wrote for The Atlantic 8 January 2016:
----------------------------------------------------
“There is a huge sector of the U.S. labor movement that is now going to potentially experience a dramatic change if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff,” said Kent Wong, the director of the UCLA Labor Center. The case concerns a teacher in California, Rebecca Friedrichs, who has sued the California Teachers Association, arguing that being required to pay a fee to the union violates her First Amendment rights. Friedrichs is not a member of the union, but, like many other public employees, is required to pay a so-called agency fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining and other negotiations with the school district — union activities that all teachers, even non-union teachers like Friedrichs, benefit from in the form of higher salaries and better benefits.
----------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/friedrichs-labor/423129/)

There was a situation awhile back where some individuals, who did not pay union dues or fees, but were represented by the union, had filed a grievance against an employer through the union, and were sent a bill for the costs of representation: lawyers fees, travel expenses, etc.

[fj1200]

I believe it was the Beck decision that allowed a refund for dues allocated to political activities. It doesn't apply to what she's asking for and she's unlikely to win IMO.

[indago]

Journalist Adam Liptak wrote for The New York Times 18 January 2016:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...arguments in a major challenge to public unions illuminated a gap in the Supreme Court’s treatment of capital and labor. The court has long allowed workers to refuse to finance unions’ political activities. But shareholders have no comparable right to refuse to pay for corporate political speech. ...“If this court chooses to grant additional First Amendment rights to union nonmembers,” the brief said, “it will only further increase the extent to which they enjoy greater rights than do corporate shareholders.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us/politics/supreme-court-public-unions-corporations.html?ref=todayspaper)

It gets curiouser, and curiouser...

[Drummond]

I believe it was the Beck decision that allowed a refund for dues allocated to political activities. It doesn't apply to what she's asking for and she's unlikely to win IMO.

Wishful thinking, there, FJ .. ?:rolleyes: As if I need to ask !

This argument ...


... union activities that all teachers, even non-union teachers like Friedrichs, benefit from in the form of higher salaries and better benefits.
... is one that has long since been used, over here in the UK, to argue that the only totally 'fair' industrial relations climate is one where a Closed Shop operates. That's to say, if you want to work in a particular place, for a particular employer, then Union membership is mandatory, Union fees ditto, and if a strike is called, it MUST be obeyed by ALL.

FJ, Union tyranny is fought for from the flimsiest of excuses. It's all about grabbing maximum power, keeping it, wielding it whenever possible, regardless of consequences. Margaret Thatcher was staunchly, unwaveringly, opposed to any such Union arrangement, and she outlawed them on her watch.

Take care, FJ, not to follow a line of reasoning that lends itself to the very opposite of what Margaret herself would've tolerated.

.. Unless you're a Leftie, of course .... :rolleyes:

[Perianne]

Wishful thinking, there, FJ .. ?:rolleyes: As if I need to ask !

This argument ...


... is one that has long since been used, over here in the UK, to argue that the only totally 'fair' industrial relations climate is one where a Closed Shop operates. That's to say, if you want to work in a particular place, for a particular employer, then Union membership is mandatory, Union fees ditto, and if a strike is called, it MUST be obeyed by ALL.

FJ, Union tyranny is fought for from the flimsiest of excuses. It's all about grabbing maximum power, keeping it, wielding it whenever possible, regardless of consequences. Margaret Thatcher was staunchly, unwaveringly, opposed to any such Union arrangement, and she outlawed them on her watch.

Take care, FJ, not to follow a line of reasoning that lends itself to the very opposite of what Margaret herself would've tolerated.

.. Unless you're a Leftie, of course .... :rolleyes:

I think it is clear that he is a closeted leftie. He probably doesn't even realize it himself.

[Drummond]

I think it is clear that he is a closeted leftie. He probably doesn't even realize it himself.

Oh, he does. Claiming to be 'the Ultimate Thatcherite' and the 'One True Thatcherite' was repeatedly proved to be nonsense. He persisted nonetheless with all that rubbish.

FJ wants terrorists to have 'human rights'. Now, I fully expect him to argue for Union rights as well (.. as for whether he wants terrorists to have Union rights ... maybe if they fail to achieve a set bombing quota, and don't get the ultimate promise of 72 virgins maintained, they would go on strike ?? :rolleyes:).

FJ is invited to prove me wrong (on the pro-Union rights issue !) ... !

[fj1200]

Wishful thinking, there, FJ .. ?:rolleyes: As if I need to ask !

It's kind of hard to have a discussion with you when you're as dumb as a post. :) Every assumption you make is wrong. Point out where I have ever argued for a closed shop.

[fj1200]

I think it is clear that he is a closeted leftie. He probably doesn't even realize it himself.

When a known racist thinks I'm a leftie I just consider the source. :)

[Drummond]

It's kind of hard to have a discussion with you when you're as dumb as a post. :) Every assumption you make is wrong. Point out where I have ever argued for a closed shop.

Not exactly the point, is it ? My point was (& is) that your thinking can lead to support of one.

All that's needed is for you to make it clear what you really think. For example .. are you willing to say that you'd NEVER support such a thing ? For another example ... if you do, will you be being totally truthful ?

Try some honesty. Go on, FJ. You can do it ...:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

When a known racist thinks I'm a leftie I just consider the source. :)

To which of your Leftie comrades do you refer ?

[Perianne]

When a known racist thinks I'm a leftie I just consider the source. :)

If you are speaking of me, I treat all people according to their character. It just so happens that some people have better character than others.

[fj1200]

Not exactly the point, is it ? My point was (& is) that your thinking can lead to support of one.

This is why you're a fool. You made up a whole post based on something I didn't say.


To which of your Leftie comrades do you refer ?

She's your pal, not mine.


If you are speaking of me, I treat all people according to their character. It just so happens that some people have better character than others.

I can post your words again if you like. Of course then there's all your other posts that shouldn't be repeated.

[aboutime]

fj. Someday. When you grow up and stop sounding like a spoiled, little brat. Maybe you will become something more than the person who must always use the Liberal Techniques of Name-calling to improve your self-opinion?