SCOTUS: Public union can't make nonmembers pay fees

[edporch]

Workers should have the option of not joining a union, but they should be excluded from any collective bargaining agreement involving that union.

This, because it allows an individual worker to get the best deal on pay and benefits.

For example, if I owned a business and there were some workers who were really good, productive and highly skilled that I didn't want to lose, I'd be happy to negotiate with them as individuals, and pay them more than the standard worker who just shows up to work for a paycheck.

These above average workers would benefit from negotiating their own wage package with a company that really values them.

 

[jamil]

That's one of the goals of unions though--to eliminate competition. At least in industrial unions, my experience has been they prefer to drag the competition down to their level rather than do what it takes to beat them.

That’s exactly right.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Mark levin’s comment was pretty plain

”you can’t force someone to pay a third party for the opportunity to work somewhere”

 

[Libertarian01]

Mark levin’s comment was pretty plain

”you can’t force someone to pay a third party for the opportunity to work somewhere”

So does this mean we can do away with ALL professional licensing fees? You know, the $300 you have to pay to get licensed as a medical doctor in Indiana? Or the fees required for testing as a CPA? What about continuing education for insurance agents, bail bondsmen, etc etc etc.

Can I just get my degree and hang out my shingle as a lawyer or do I need to pay someone? And if I can, what about the CLE that is required for having my shingle?

It's kind of funny but, blue collar = union = bad; white collar = association/federation/affiliation = good.

How did we come to this?

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So does this mean we can do away with ALL professional licensing fees? You know, the $300 you have to pay to get licensed as a medical doctor in Indiana? Or the fees required for testing as a CPA? What about continuing education for insurance agents, bail bondsmen, etc etc etc.

Can I just get my degree and hang out my shingle as a lawyer or do I need to pay someone? And if I can, what about the CLE that is required for having my shingle?

It's kind of funny but, blue collar = union = bad; white collar = association/federation/affiliation = good.

How did we come to this?

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

I think many would be all for removing government mandated licensing requirements. I support volunteer licensing as groups can join together and establish qualifications and what not that can be used as a marketing leverage. But I'm ok if a person wants to open a business and not have a government mandated piece of paper. Let the buyer beware and don't turn to the taxpayer if your unlicensed doctor/lawyer/CPA/hair dresser fails you somehow.

 

[EMDX6043]

Mark levin’s comment was pretty plain

”you can’t force someone to pay a third party for the opportunity to [STRIKE]work[/STRIKE] live somewhere”

So we'll be doing away with property taxes, HOA fees, income taxes...etc?

 

[Libertarian01]

I think many would be all for removing government mandated licensing requirements. I support volunteer licensing as groups can join together and establish qualifications and what not that can be used as a marketing leverage. But I'm ok if a person wants to open a business and not have a government mandated piece of paper. Let the buyer beware and don't turn to the taxpayer if your unlicensed doctor/lawyer/CPA/hair dresser fails you somehow.

I don't disagree with getting a "license" from the State (at least not 100%), but what I object to is the State not providing ALL of the infrastructure so that you aren't "forced to pay a third party" for the opportunity to practice your profession. Note I am not entirely disagreeing with you 100% either, but the licensing requirement discussion would need to be very in depth and best in person, or at least a thread of its own. The fact is white collar workers (lawyers, medical doctors, accountants, bailbondsmen, etc etc) do belong to unions, they just call them a different name.

So we'll be doing away with property taxes, HOA fees, income taxes...etc?

I don't mind the idea of taxes by the State, as the State does provide infrastructure for all citizens. However, you are spot on with HOA and other nonsense that isn't provided by the government. To my thinking as long as the State requires it that is one thing, but outside of that I have issues.
----

Note that the only real problem I have now is employees benefiting from the unions collective bargaining WITHOUT paying for it. If you can't force an employee to pay a union (which I agree with 100%) then the door should swing both ways and the union should not provide a service to employees for which they are not being reimbursed. The law ought to force employers to then negotiate individually with every single employee that is not a member of the union to determine their pay and benefits. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

I don't disagree with getting a "license" from the State (at least not 100%), but what I object to is the State not providing ALL of the infrastructure so that you aren't "forced to pay a third party" for the opportunity to practice your profession. Note I am not entirely disagreeing with you 100% either, but the licensing requirement discussion would need to be very in depth and best in person, or at least a thread of its own. The fact is white collar workers (lawyers, medical doctors, accountants, bailbondsmen, etc etc) do belong to unions, they just call them a different name....

To whom do I pay dues and what political candidates and causes do they support with those dues?

Who controls the negotiation of my wages?

Who controls the negotiation of my benefits?

Who makes sure that seniority trumps merit in my profession?

etc., etc., etc.

 

[EMDX6043]

Doug, very well said.

I take exception to the "forced" dues argument. Was it not made clear during the job application and interview process? It was made perfectly clear to me when I hired out that it's a "closed shop", and I agreed to fully support the Organization that is responsible for negotiating my wage, benefits, disciplinary policy, vacation, etc. I received a significant pay raise going from a non-union to Unionized carrier...even with the required dues. I consider it a worthwhile investment.

If someone doesn't want to pay union dues (I approve of the Janus decision, for the record), aren't they free to submit an application with an alternate employer that does coincide with said applicant's personal philosophy?

I also agree: no dues, no representation, and you're free to negotiate and represent yourself in all employment matters. Look how well that worked out in Epic Systems v. Lewis.

 

[Libertarian01]

To whom do I pay dues and what political candidates and causes do they support with those dues?

Who controls the negotiation of my wages?

Who controls the negotiation of my benefits?

Who makes sure that seniority trumps merit in my profession?

etc., etc., etc.

You will note that I did not include any of the issues that you have. I narrowly tailored my attack at paying a third party (ie. NOT the state) for the ability to practice your profession.

Are you saying that ALL continuing education is FREELY provided by the State of Indiana or are you compelled to use a third party?

I may be wrong here and if so I stand corrected, but... Link: https://www.theindianalawyer.com/ar...for-failure-to-pay-fees-meet-cle-requirements

As some attorneys had licenses suspended for failure to pay for CE is that NOT being forced to pay a third party in order to practice your profession?

Regards,

Doug

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug, very well said.

I take exception to the "forced" dues argument. Was it not made clear during the job application and interview process? It was made perfectly clear to me when I hired out that it's a "closed shop", and I agreed to fully support the Organization that is responsible for negotiating my wage, benefits, disciplinary policy, vacation, etc. I received a significant pay raise going from a non-union to Unionized carrier...even with the required dues. I consider it a worthwhile investment.

If someone doesn't want to pay union dues (I approve of the Janus decision, for the record), aren't they free to submit an application with an alternate employer that does coincide with said applicant's personal philosophy?

I also agree: no dues, no representation, and you're free to negotiate and represent yourself in all employment matters. Look how well that worked out in Epic Systems v. Lewis.

You have opened a serious can of worms with this. Should a third party (ie. the union) be able to compel a business to only hire people that will be forced to join the union? What if, instead, it was forced to join the Democratic party, or the Republican party, or become a dues paying member of the Brady Campaign. After all, a good employer wants to stop violence, right?

What if that employer is the only employer within 50 miles? Should a person be forced to chose between joining a union for their job OR leaving the community?

At the same time, a business going into a shopping center will often demand that the shopping center does not rent to a competitor. For example, if a barber shop considers moving into a small shopping strip they may demand that the shopping strip does not rent to any other barbers or hair stylists. If that strip is near my I am being forced to spend money to the gas station (a third party) to drive farther to get my hair cut if I don't like that barber shop.

This argument, I believe, has merit on both sides of the case. One is that no one should be forced to join a union to get a job, but the other is that the business owner(s) and the union already agreed to this setup. When Volkswagen was trying to build a new factory in the US the local government down south worked heavily to push the union out. Yet, Volkswagen WANTED a union. Yes, go figure, a German company that deals with massive unions all over Germany wanted a union as it makes things easier on them. Above board negotiations, cooperation between the union and company in Germany, both working toward the same goals. Volkswagen wasn't against the union, they wanted it.

All that said is the the company willingly working with a union, as Volkswagen wanted, or an employer who hates the union being compelled against their will to put more people into the union just to get the job done.

100 years ago we screwed ourselves in this country, in a way. It became industrialist versus worker instead of industrialist partnering with worker. Ever since its gotten tribal, us or them, when it should be us and them.

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

...One is that no one should be forced to join a union to get a job, but the other is that the business owner(s) and the union already agreed to this setup...

...and if there was no federal law forcing the business owner to allow for organization, would it happen? Is the business owner really agreeing to "this setup" or are they agreeing to terms, having been forced to accept that they have no freedom not to.

 

[EMDX6043]

I know, I know...

All I can say from my experience as a member (and Official) is that we are focused on one thing only and as a whole don't get involved in political matters or other topics. We exist to administer and protect our CBA, which is why members pay dues. It's not a bully pulpit, which is what I think a large part of what the public sector unions turned into.

I also agree, an "us AND them" teamwork-type attitude is what we strive for. It ain't perfect, but not much in this life is. I want my employer to do well.

You have opened a serious can of worms with this. Should a third party (ie. the union) be able to compel a business to only hire people that will be forced to join the union? What if, instead, it was forced to join the Democratic party, or the Republican party, or become a dues paying member of the Brady Campaign. After all, a good employer wants to stop violence, right?

What if that employer is the only employer within 50 miles? Should a person be forced to chose between joining a union for their job OR leaving the community?

At the same time, a business going into a shopping center will often demand that the shopping center does not rent to a competitor. For example, if a barber shop considers moving into a small shopping strip they may demand that the shopping strip does not rent to any other barbers or hair stylists. If that strip is near my I am being forced to spend money to the gas station (a third party) to drive farther to get my hair cut if I don't like that barber shop.

This argument, I believe, has merit on both sides of the case. One is that no one should be forced to join a union to get a job, but the other is that the business owner(s) and the union already agreed to this setup. When Volkswagen was trying to build a new factory in the US the local government down south worked heavily to push the union out. Yet, Volkswagen WANTED a union. Yes, go figure, a German company that deals with massive unions all over Germany wanted a union as it makes things easier on them. Above board negotiations, cooperation between the union and company in Germany, both working toward the same goals. Volkswagen wasn't against the union, they wanted it.

All that said is the the company willingly working with a union, as Volkswagen wanted, or an employer who hates the union being compelled against their will to put more people into the union just to get the job done.

100 years ago we screwed ourselves in this country, in a way. It became industrialist versus worker instead of industrialist partnering with worker. Ever since its gotten tribal, us or them, when it should be us and them.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

I think many would be all for removing government mandated licensing requirements. I support volunteer licensing as groups can join together and establish qualifications and what not that can be used as a marketing leverage. But I'm ok if a person wants to open a business and not have a government mandated piece of paper. Let the buyer beware and don't turn to the taxpayer if your unlicensed doctor/lawyer/CPA/hair dresser fails you somehow.

That would be better. But I know what it would become. It'd become just like the industry certifications that associations mob-shame companies into spending $$$ to have, which they implement in ways just to say they have it, but really haven't done anything to make a practical difference. Back in the day (a few employers ago) our management spent a weekend hatching up bull**** documentation and processes no one followed, to help make us "Compliant" for some industry certification before an audit. I was actually surprised we didn't fail. Kinda seemed more like dues money companies had to pay to get to play in the market. Didn't matter if you were compliant. As long as you paid the dues for certification.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's kind of funny but, blue collar = union = bad; white collar = association/federation/affiliation = good.

How did we come to this?

Relatively easily. Two pronged attack of "go to college or you'll end up digging ditches" and the associated presumption it's morally superior to avoid manual labor combined with big business interests masquerading as conservative social causes.

You see in here quite a bit. A union shop goes under, the union killed it. A non-union shop goes under...mystery. A union shop goes overseas, the union killed it. A non-union shop goes overseas...mystery. Union shop puts out a bad product...well, you get the idea. Note you seldom, if ever, see any threads here where management and/or investors killed a business. I didn't see any mention of Toys R Us going bankrupt. Non-union shop, so not as interesting as Hostess going under. But Toys R Us was dragged under by a leveraged buyout putting about $500 million in debt on the books at a time when there's no way to get the needed margins to pay that back out of retail. But "job creators", you know.

 

[jamil]

Relatively easily. Two pronged attack of "go to college or you'll end up digging ditches" and the associated presumption it's morally superior to avoid manual labor combined with big business interests masquerading as conservative social causes.

You see in here quite a bit. A union shop goes under, the union killed it. A non-union shop goes under...mystery. A union shop goes overseas, the union killed it. A non-union shop goes overseas...mystery. Union shop puts out a bad product...well, you get the idea. Note you seldom, if ever, see any threads here where management and/or investors killed a business. I didn't see any mention of Toys R Us going bankrupt. Non-union shop, so not as interesting as Hostess going under. But Toys R Us was dragged under by a leveraged buyout putting about $500 million in debt on the books at a time when there's no way to get the needed margins to pay that back out of retail. But "job creators", you know.

It's a bit more than that. At least for me. I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-crony union. I'd be a lot more in favor of unions if everyone had the freedom of association the constitution implies. Why just one union for an industry in the same business? Why shouldn't unions compete for members? Why should individuals HAVE to join unions? Why should negotiated benefits for union members HAVE to be applied to everyone? Why should non-union members have to pay fees? Oops. They don't anymore. 1 down, many to go before unions are sane.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That would be better. But I know what it would become. It'd become just like the industry certifications that associations mob-shame companies into spending $$$ to have, which they implement in ways just to say they have it, but really haven't done anything to make a practical difference. Back in the day (a few employers ago) our management spent a weekend hatching up bull**** documentation and processes no one followed, to help make us "Compliant" for some industry certification before an audit. I was actually surprised we didn't fail. Kinda seemed more like dues money companies had to pay to get to play in the market. Didn't matter if you were compliant. As long as you paid the dues for certification.

Talking about ISO-9000 or 14000 compliant? Yeah, I've seen that road traveled. It's one thing to be a farce. It's another to be a government mandated, under threat of loss of liberty and treasure, farce.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's a bit more than that. At least for me. I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-crony union. I'd be a lot more in favor of unions if everyone had the freedom of association the constitution implies. Why just one union for an industry in the same business? Why shouldn't unions compete for members? Why should individuals HAVE to join unions? Why should negotiated benefits for union members HAVE to be applied to everyone? Why should non-union members have to pay fees? Oops. They don't anymore. 1 down, many to go before unions are sane.

Unions aren't built for competition. Onve they've achieved certain goals, they're built to maintain the status quo.

 

[jamil]

Unions aren't built for competition. Onve they've achieved certain goals, they're built to maintain the status quo.

Right. It lends to corruption. They'd not have as much road for corruption if they had to compete for members.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Right. It lends to corruption. They'd not have as much road for corruption if they had to compete for members.

Ya know, on reflection they are competing for members....and they're losing. If employees and employers really saw value in associating with a union, membership would be rising instead of steady decline.