Posted on 02/28/2019 9:42:21 AM PST by buckalfa
That’s not arbitrary and it’s not ‘free labor’. It’s just business. If paying dues to the union and salaries to the union bosses make sense then the members will pay it. If it doesn’t make sense, then the workers shouldn’t pay it and the bosses have to figure out another way to get paid.
It’s like the owner of an overpriced coffee house complaining he doesn’t have enough income to cover his overhead... what, force the neighborhood residents to stop in once every two weeks?
The judge seems to think the union is a government entity.
When the county plows your street, your paying through tax for which you have no opt out.
This ruling is saying if I plow your street, then you owe me, because you benefited.
The quick argument against this ruling is that unions are active in publicly influencing elections, where the public (supposedly) benefits without paying for the union efforts.
In most unions, it’s a select group of members doing the collective bargaining, not union employees.
No she didn’t - she pulled a Roberts and claimed that forced union dues were like a tax, therefore legal, therefore unions established in conpanies could demand recompense.
On top of that she ordered the law blocked and dragged her heels through 2 elections to get a more favorable electoral climate to give her ruling.
There’s NOTHING in the Virginia law OR constitution that supports her arguments or her actions.
She’s a disgrace to those robes.
Yes that’s the way I understood it. But I thought those select members got paid for it, some kind of stipend - or better, a cushy supervisory role over the other members to mediate small disputes with management.
All I was saying is, a union should be like any other business. If it provides value the members will sign up and pay. If the members don’t find value, they should be free to quit the union. In either case it is up to the union and the delegates to demonstrate their worth.
The judge is right - you cannot take private property and force an organization to lend its use to others without compensation.
No one is forced to join a union. But if you do, if you have to pay dues for the protection and benefits it provides you.
Its not fair dues-paying members should have to subsidize free loaders.
So called right to work laws are invidious on their face.
Joining a union should not be a condition of employment. If a bunch of people want to get together and present themselves as a group for wages etc. Fine let’em do it. However if that same company offers me a job (I am not a union member!) and I negotiate my own conditions of employment I should be allowed to do that. Even if I am and later quit and then negotiate my conditions of employment I should be allowed to that. Unions should not be able to block nonunion employment. If the union had any use other then to make the “no-work” union bosses rich and allow some to exercise their inner thug then it could make a case to attract membership. Offer me something positive that makes me want to join don’t just threaten me!
What your arguing for is coercive form of wage slavery!
Now you have gone and made me use an online dictionary to look up the meaning of the word invidious.
As to your post, it shows there is a conservative philosophy conflict between the freedom of choice (right to work) versus a union being able to protect its intellectual property (negotiated contract benefits). I am afraid though you will find condemnation of your point of view as FR holds Hillary in more esteem than organized labor.
You’re arguing whether or not her decision was correct. That has nothing to do with my point.
That's absurd - the very definitiin of a union shop is that all employees must join the union or get fired. And if you choose not to be a member of the union, you shouldn't be required to pay it money.
No - I’m saying she didn’t cite the Virginia constitution or Virginia law - directly responding to your point.
I suppose that you gotta know what you are doing when you break a leg, or throw acid in someone’s face to blind them. Perhaps there is a science or art to it.
Nothing in the National Labor Relations Act requires a union to represent all employees. In fact, "members-only" representations and contracts are perfectly legal. A union can bargain for a contract on behalf of its membership, and leave all non-union employees free to bargain for themselves.
It is the union's choice to not do that, and to force themselves to be accepted as the "exclusive representative" of all employees in the defined unit. Union's choose to certify as "exclusive representatives" because it forces a company to bargain with them. But they are perfectly free, if they choose, to represent only their own members.
In other words, the supposed "free rider" problem of which unions complain is one of their own deliberate making. They then use the exclusive representation label on which they insisted to claim that others are "free-riding" on them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.