SCOTUS Decision on Union Dues

Florida Ex-pat

I am openly biased on this one as I was a county employee that was forced to pay union dues and have my dues used to advocate for many issues that I did not support and that did not seem relevant to workplace issues.  I am no longer in that situation but I am glad that others will have the opportunity to opt out.  If given the opportunity I would join a class action lawsuit to get money returned retroactively for having to fund support of issues that I did not agree with, and I hate class action lawsuits.   How do you feel or how does this affect you?

treemanjohn

No effect on me but it was a common sense decision. 

Big Battery

public sector unions should be outlawed..

Tarponator

As a libertarian at heart, I tend to err on the side of individual rights.  In this case, the right of the employee not to participate in unions or pay their dues, and I agree with the supreme court in its ruling (at least in how I understand it from reporting, as I've not read the ruling in its entirety yet).

For what it's worth, this issue does not directly affect me at all.

Florida Ex-pat

A survey by the AFSCME — the union Janus would have to pay into — found that if agency fees were no longer mandatory, 15 percent of employees would stop paying them, while 35 percent would continue to pay. The balance of workers were "on the fence."

I guess the union is worried about the "on the fence" members.  I just can't see how it is justified that you have to pay for representation by a union.  It kills meritocracy at the lower levels and thus many incentives to go above and beyond in the hopes of pay increases or recognition.  Our bargaining unit (Union) employees get a raise every 2 years as long as their evaluations are satisfactory or above and I cannot give anyone a meritorious promotion of any kind. 

Tarponator

Well, that last part seems rather backwards. 

I can understand mandated raises (although I would prefer to have them tied at least in part to business performance), but you really can't promote a union member?

Are they really relegated to the same job with no upwards mobility?

Tarponator

Well, that last part seems rather backwards. 

I can understand mandated raises (although I would prefer to have them tied at least in part to business performance), but you really can't promote a union member?

Are they really relegated to the same job with no upwards mobility?  You can't give an overperforming employee a bigger raise based on performance?

dragon bait

Tarponator said:

Well, that last part seems rather backwards. 

I can understand mandated raises (although I would prefer to have them tied at least in part to business performance), but you really can't promote a union member?

Are they really relegated to the same job with no upwards mobility?

I was a Union Iron worker for many a year and was often received pay over Scale

pottydoc

dragon bait said:

Tarponator said:

Well, that last part seems rather backwards. 

I can understand mandated raises (although I would prefer to have them tied at least in part to business performance), but you really can't promote a union member?

Are they really relegated to the same job with no upwards mobility?

I was a Union Iron worker for many a year and was often received pay over Scale

Maybe so, but there's also a bunch of union workers making less money than others just because of being on the job less time. Today's unions are all about the Union itself, and don't give a crap about their members. It's bs that a worker gets paid pretty much only on how long he's worked in a particular position, and not by his abilities, and work ethic. Unions protect mediocre workers at the expense of good ones. 

pottydoc

Tarponator said:

Well, that last part seems rather backwards. 

I can understand mandated raises (although I would prefer to have them tied at least in part to business performance), but you really can't promote a union member?

Are they really relegated to the same job with no upwards mobility?  You can't give an overperforming employee a bigger raise based on performance?

Quoted only because Mike liked it so much he posted it three times.

mplspug

There are good and bad unions.  I'm not against them in theory.  I have a problem when people are forced to do anything.  Also when they are forced to pay dues to an entity that will defend the seemingly undefendable (workers who should be fired like sleeping on the job or drug use).  And yes, unions usually mean you are rewarded for length of employment, not how good you do your job.

Gary S

I was in a public union but we were not required to join. I joined because they were the ones who negotiated for me at the bargaining table. I never begrudged the 1% and later it dropped to     1/2% of my pay. There were people who didn't join but majority did.

Big Battery

Gary S said:

I was in a public union but we were not required to join. I joined because they were the ones who negotiated for me at the bargaining table. I never begrudged the 1% and later it dropped to     1/2% of my pay. There were people who didn't join but majority did.

Public employee unions don't negotiate... you have to have an adversarial relationship in order for negotiations to actually occur.  They are a complete conflict of interest.

mustang190

Why should government workers be unionized? 
 Who represents the taxpayer at those negotiations?
 When I was in the Air Force I had to work with on occasions with those civil service workers. We called them seagulls for a reason!

mplspug

Hey governments have budgets...







....buwahahaha I couldn't resist

Tarponator

pottydoc said:

Tarponator said:

Well, that last part seems rather backwards. 

I can understand mandated raises (although I would prefer to have them tied at least in part to business performance), but you really can't promote a union member?

Are they really relegated to the same job with no upwards mobility?  You can't give an overperforming employee a bigger raise based on performance?

Quoted only because Mike liked it so much he posted it three times.

I did like it, but i only posted it twice. 

I would very much like an answer to my question.  I'm still confused by Ex-pat's observations.

Do any of you know?

backyardhockey

Illinois govt workers are used as vote getters by the political bosses who then give raises and pension bumps. It’s madness and the #1 reason Illinois is in a death spiral. I believe the population has dropped 4 years in a row

Parkerboy

Many trade union members not only pay monthly dues but also pay "working dues" when on a union job. It is not unheard of for the working dues to be as much as 4 1/2% of gross wages in these dues. In addition the dues will be withheld from each member's weekly pay.

Florida Ex-pat

Tarponator said:

Well, that last part seems rather backwards. 

I can understand mandated raises (although I would prefer to have them tied at least in part to business performance), but you really can't promote a union member?

Are they really relegated to the same job with no upwards mobility?  You can't give an overperforming employee a bigger raise based on performance?

Yes.  You can move them into a position but their pay scale level remains the same.

Tarponator

Compensation drives behavior.  That's a really poor construct.

Thanks for the response, Ex-Pat, and I hope you enjoy your weekend...Mike

sailfish2

And on another SCOTUS note........

sailfish2

Nevermind, can't get the pic to post.

treemanjohn

sailfish2 said:

Nevermind, can't get the pic to post.

wahoowacker01

In 1979 I worked at Sperry Vickers a union shop. Everything was on standards. I remember having a hydraulic part to deburr. The standard was 6 or 7 an hour. I was doing 40 or more an hour. The union guys were giving me fits to slow down. I could see right there I would never be Sperry’s Union employee of the month. That was my first and only taste of a union shop

Parkerboy

In the building trades the wages do not vary except by job classification, a journeyman makes X dollars regardless of performance. Apprentices pay is also set in that all 1st yr make the same, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th each also have a set dollar amount.

Generally speaking a contractor calls the local union hall who sends journeymen and apprentices and there is a ratio of journeymen to apprentices. Some contractors have a realtionship with the local union officals who will assign workers by name.

Gary S

Big Battery said:

Gary S said:

I was in a public union but we were not required to join. I joined because they were the ones who negotiated for me at the bargaining table. I never begrudged the 1% and later it dropped to     1/2% of my pay. There were people who didn't join but majority did.

Public employee unions don't negotiate... you have to have an adversarial relationship in order for negotiations to actually occur.  They are a complete conflict of interest.

 Well what were we doing sitting down at the big table with management on one side and employees on the other side? 
 And I guess the teachers in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Kentucky didn't hear there was no negotiations because they were public employees. Maybe someone should call New York and let them know about this.
 And if you think there is no adversarial relationship between management and employees in the public section then you are misinformed.