Court split over dues for unions.

All but surely over turned if Scalia had survived.

Can some one please explain the thinking here. Why do liberals think this is good to allow unions to force workers to contribute to political activity they do not support?

Is it simply good for liberal or Progressive causes in the long run so screw the workers?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct..._puCigc0Wo4waDYSA&sig2=1AQgFSrxFL7d7hzkBIma-w

 

Yes barfo, I get that. And I don't agree that this is always a benefit to all employees. Equal out comes is not a benefit for all. However, that is not the issue, the issue is the political side.
Any Union that will waste funds supporting Hillary Clinton, or Kate Brown has nothing to do with any negotiations on behalf of any employee. Forcing anyone to support this association is contrary to the American way. Nothing is the Constitution supports this idea. We have four justices that can read but turn a blind eye instead.

Perhaps you can explain the benefit of have justices turn the blind eye on the Constitution?
What do you like about this obvious sham?

 

Me too.

 

I'm not sure how it works for private sector unions, but public employee unions have the option once a year to apply for a refund from their unions of a certain percentage of their annual dues that are considered to have been used for political activities. It is not an insignificant refund. So....any public employee who makes an effort to pay attention can opt out of "political contributions" and quit their bitching. Those in the peanut gallery who don't pay union dues don't have a dog in the fight and should shut the f**k up. Public employees don't have the option to opt out of paying those who negotiate on their behalf for wages, benefits, etc. Which is as it should be. Why should they get something for nothing? If an employee has a problem paying union dues, then they have the option of finding a non Union job. Unfortunately, unions are a necessary evil. This is underlined by the efforts of big business to stamp them out. The argument that everyone should negotiate on their own behalf ignores the fact that not everyone is created equal. This would be a far shittier world than it already is if it wasn't for the existence of unions. And that is a very sad commentary on humanity in general.

 

Only had one experience with a union, and did not like it.

I was hired by a company for a summer job with the goal of making enough to pay for a year of college. They needed short term help to cover vacations.

Before the company offered me the job, I had to agree to join the union, or the company could not hire me, a closed shop. So I joined the steelworkers union for the summer.

First day on the job the union shop steward has me in a private meeting. This was before I started to work for the day. He explains what types of work I can and can not do. Then he tells me to work slowly, as slowly as I can, so more people would get hired and more union dues would be collected.

The union shop steward was also running a numbers racket in the plant. So there was a mob connection to this union.

Results, I made it through the summer fine. I was making 95% of the hourly wage as guys that had worked there for 20 years were making, which did not seam fair. But the company did not do so well. A couple of years later, the company closed down completely, and all their jobs were picked up by a foreign country.


Personally, I believe unions are good when it comes to negotiating and protecting workers over safety issues. But that is where their influence should end. People should be able to negotiate their own wages based on how much of an impact they make for their employer, just like basketball players do. Using union dues for political reasons is just wrong.