Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The union argument against ending forced government union dues

  1. #1
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,458
    Thanks
    3873

    From
    AK

    The union argument against ending forced government union dues

    AFSCME filed its brief with the Supreme Court for Janus v. AFSCME. It can be found here.

    The basics:

    Right To Work laws do one thing, and one thing only, which is outlaw union security clauses. Union security clauses are optional clauses in collective bargaining agreements whereby employers agree they will fire employees who are not in good standing with the union. This is the mechanism by which unions force financial core dues on financial core members. Its only enforcement mechanism is employers' voluntary willingness to fire employees the union orders it to fire. More than half of the states have already outlawed these clauses. In the remaining (non-RTW) states, these clauses are optional (permissive subjects of bargaining, not mandatory subjects of bargaining). Janus argues forced dues are political speech because government unions, by virtue of negotiating against government regarding public sector employment and compensation, are engaging in political speech, thereby forcing people to contribute to speech with which they may not agree. The intent of this case is to overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and thereby outlaw union security clauses in all public sector bargaining agreements nationwide.

    A few of the most amazing, insane union arguments against, per the brief linked above:

    Nearly half the States have relied on Abood in their labor-relations systems.
    States have not "relied" on this. Unions inflexibly demand it, and states roll over. State employers and their political subdivisions have zero reliance on union security clause for their "labor-relations systems." It serves only the unions.

    Currently, 22 States permit fair-share fees for public employees
    States do not "permit fair share fees." This is dishonest language. States that have not passed Right To Work laws allow employers to agree to clauses that implicitly require the employer to fire bargaining unit employees when directed by the union, as the enforcement mechanism for the collection of financial core dues.

    Overruling Abood would remove this issue from the people and their elected representatives and override their policy judgments about managing public workforces.
    Union Security clauses are not a public sector "policy judgment." They are an inflexible demand of all unions wherever permitted, and public employers so happen to just roll over and give it to them.

    Petitioner asks this Court to upend the collective-bargaining systems of many States – in a jurisdictionally flawed case without any record – based on numerous unsupported and inaccurate factual assertions. For example, petitioner claims all collective bargaining is inherently political and employees choose not to join unions because they object to the union’s collective-bargaining positions. Those assertions are false.
    Complete bullshit. 1) The union security clause is not a "collective bargaining system," so this in no way "upends the system." It's just a clause that the union demands be in every contract whereby the employer will fire whoever the union tells it to fire. 2) Unions bargaining with government over public sector employment policies is indisputably political. It directly affects and creates government policy, which is political. It cannot be simply declared that this is "false." 3) It is absurd to declare "false" that some employees choose not to join unions because they object to the union's collective bargaining positions, because of course some do. Many, in fact.

    That's just through page 2 of this thing.

    If the Court doesn't overturn Abood, I'm moving to a Right To Work state within the next 1-2 years, for sure.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 12th January 2018 at 06:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Established Member Bronwyn's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    6,607
    Thanks
    1711

    From
    CA
    Unions had there purpose at one time. Now they are nothing but political arms and should be disbanded.

Similar Threads

  1. Labor union forced to disband
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11th January 2018, 07:59 AM
  2. Former union Prez: Time to end forced union dues
    By Neomalthusian in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 24th August 2017, 12:19 PM
  3. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 15th June 2017, 05:33 PM
  4. A pro Union guy on my FB...
    By Sparta in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 15th December 2015, 05:53 PM
  5. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 30th July 2012, 08:44 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed