I agree. 100% Anyone who takes a job where a union has negotiated a living wage and doesn't want to contribute to union dues is no better than an intestinal parasite. Those who knowingly would do so are the same people who go on and on, whining about those on welfare or food stamps.
As far as paying or not for the political activities of the union based on whether you agree with the union's political stance - by that same logic the portion of our taxes that go to congressional and presidential salaries should stay in our pockets if we don't agree with the policies inflicted on us by either the legislative branch or the executive branch.
The trouble I foresee with that is, I think business owners will take the longview on these sorts of things because what would necessarily stop them from giving employees who don't join the union better wages and benefits until the union is finally broken after which management can claw back those goodies under threat of termination?
The president of my small public employees' union has the office across from mine, and we chatted about this. He's understandably frustrated by and concerned about this ruling. He can point to a dozen of our coworkers who wouldn't have their jobs today if it wasn't for our union defending them. He's concerned that our employer won't allow the union to talk to new employees at orientation about the importance of joining the union.
But he didn't vote for Hillary because she's a snake and the DNC done Bernie wrong, and this is all the Democrats' fault, so they ought to own it and fix it. And learn how to engage libertarians like him, because they know what's best.
I'm saying that "If no aspect of their job" has to conform to anything the dues-paying member gets..." that's accomplished with a two-tier compensation system, and the holdouts get their own deals with the management.
Which means they'll be very good at being toadies for management.
On other words, exactly what the "salaried" people get today.
All you're saying is "we get bennies, you don't." It doesn't fix the scenario, because this alternative exists and historically had been used to break unions.
Unions are not allowed to donate dues to individual candidates or a political party. Is that what you mean by "tether", Einstein? Is that a legal term of art?
... I have been on both sides - Union employee and Management serf. Having walked a picket line for nearly a year before Corporate Might offered a "settlement" that effectively got rid of us and smashed our Union, I have to say - without a unified voice, the worker is always ripe to be taken advantage of. Management knows this. In fact, they depend on it. Walmart, among others, would rather close a profitable outlet than let their employees unionize. They know that in desperate times, there is always someone willing to work an hour longer for a dollar less. Worker Unions are the only thing that will check (fight back against?) the rapacious exploitation of the ruling class.
Thank you Robyn for this amazing article! It makes me feel better to see there are still intelligent objective people contributing their views to the world.
I'm not sure I understand your scenario, unless you're saying the general employee population is too stupid to join a union unless they're forced to? I mean, I thought I was pretty straightforward: Join a union, get the bennies. Don't wanna join? Fine, don't get the same job conditions the union bargained for on behalf of its paying members.
Suppose your proposal were implemented. How does it not pre-sort the very best, most skilled and loyal management flunkies from the general employee population?
I could verbalize this as follows:"The job is what the boss says it is, including the bit about 'moving bodies.' In fact, HR just floated a cost-saving idea to make all job descriptions 'Additional duties as assigned.'" --anonymous managers everywhere
I can be a petty, vindictive person at times, and this decision makes me want unions to go back to court to rule that if employees don't have to pay "fair share" dues any more, that no aspect of their job has to conform to anything the dues-paying union members' jobs get. Fuck their free ride. Pay up or GTFO.
But hey, Hamilton Nolan is very very very happy over at Gawker because the Progressive Revolution is practically guaranteed now! So you guys go fight, and then he'll stand atop the pile of bodies and declare victory! https://splinternews.com/th...
I'm very glad for my vibrant health, because at present that's what I have going for me. I come from a union family, and one of my deepest regrets is that I never got to join a union myself. Now, I'm facing life as an elder in poverty.
I have especial loathing for the ones online who say, "Bernie was robbed and Hillary's a crook but I held my nose and voted for her." because 90 percent of them are fucking lying.
I agree. 100% Anyone who takes a job where a union has negotiated a living wage and doesn't want to contribute to union dues is no better than an intestinal parasite. Those who knowingly would do so are the same people who go on and on, whining about those on welfare or food stamps.
As far as paying or not for the political activities of the union based on whether you agree with the union's political stance - by that same logic the portion of our taxes that go to congressional and presidential salaries should stay in our pockets if we don't agree with the policies inflicted on us by either the legislative branch or the executive branch.
I've seen his/her posts on other sites and I have no doubt that he/she is not a liberal but is a troll.
The trouble I foresee with that is, I think business owners will take the longview on these sorts of things because what would necessarily stop them from giving employees who don't join the union better wages and benefits until the union is finally broken after which management can claw back those goodies under threat of termination?
The president of my small public employees' union has the office across from mine, and we chatted about this. He's understandably frustrated by and concerned about this ruling. He can point to a dozen of our coworkers who wouldn't have their jobs today if it wasn't for our union defending them. He's concerned that our employer won't allow the union to talk to new employees at orientation about the importance of joining the union.
But he didn't vote for Hillary because she's a snake and the DNC done Bernie wrong, and this is all the Democrats' fault, so they ought to own it and fix it. And learn how to engage libertarians like him, because they know what's best.
I'm saying that "If no aspect of their job" has to conform to anything the dues-paying member gets..." that's accomplished with a two-tier compensation system, and the holdouts get their own deals with the management.
Which means they'll be very good at being toadies for management.
On other words, exactly what the "salaried" people get today.
All you're saying is "we get bennies, you don't." It doesn't fix the scenario, because this alternative exists and historically had been used to break unions.
Have a good day.
I guess Mitch McConnell has now thoroughly humiliated Steve Bannon, who could only aspire to suck his own dick.
Unions are not allowed to donate dues to individual candidates or a political party. Is that what you mean by "tether", Einstein? Is that a legal term of art?
... I have been on both sides - Union employee and Management serf. Having walked a picket line for nearly a year before Corporate Might offered a "settlement" that effectively got rid of us and smashed our Union, I have to say - without a unified voice, the worker is always ripe to be taken advantage of. Management knows this. In fact, they depend on it. Walmart, among others, would rather close a profitable outlet than let their employees unionize. They know that in desperate times, there is always someone willing to work an hour longer for a dollar less. Worker Unions are the only thing that will check (fight back against?) the rapacious exploitation of the ruling class.
Thank you Robyn for this amazing article! It makes me feel better to see there are still intelligent objective people contributing their views to the world.
I'm not sure I understand your scenario, unless you're saying the general employee population is too stupid to join a union unless they're forced to? I mean, I thought I was pretty straightforward: Join a union, get the bennies. Don't wanna join? Fine, don't get the same job conditions the union bargained for on behalf of its paying members.
Come sit by me. I do have a question.
Suppose your proposal were implemented. How does it not pre-sort the very best, most skilled and loyal management flunkies from the general employee population?
I could verbalize this as follows:"The job is what the boss says it is, including the bit about 'moving bodies.' In fact, HR just floated a cost-saving idea to make all job descriptions 'Additional duties as assigned.'" --anonymous managers everywhere
I can be a petty, vindictive person at times, and this decision makes me want unions to go back to court to rule that if employees don't have to pay "fair share" dues any more, that no aspect of their job has to conform to anything the dues-paying union members' jobs get. Fuck their free ride. Pay up or GTFO.
But hey, Hamilton Nolan is very very very happy over at Gawker because the Progressive Revolution is practically guaranteed now! So you guys go fight, and then he'll stand atop the pile of bodies and declare victory! https://splinternews.com/th...
Funny how Ronnie was president of the Screen Actors Guild- a union that made him wealthy...Talk about burning the ladder after you've climbed it....
I'm very glad for my vibrant health, because at present that's what I have going for me. I come from a union family, and one of my deepest regrets is that I never got to join a union myself. Now, I'm facing life as an elder in poverty.
I have especial loathing for the ones online who say, "Bernie was robbed and Hillary's a crook but I held my nose and voted for her." because 90 percent of them are fucking lying.