Discussion for article #224500
It’s a poorly thought-out and terrible decision, but it could have been a great deal worse.
2 Likes
Hobby Lobby wins! It’s a good day for America.
Far-right religious nuts win—America loses.
6 Likes
May you get a job with a corporation run by Muslims who insist that you turn toward Mecca and pray five times a day during work hours.
9 Likes
Yet the nonmembers are still entitled to be defended by the union when facing disciplinary action, they still have benefits, conditions, and salary negotiated for them, and get all of this for nothing.
This is personal responsibility?
Change the law. Unions shouldn’t have to work on behalf of the free riding whiny leeches.
10 Likes
I think this will be the next test for unions, only try to bargain for paying members. The smarter move will be for them to enact it and wait for some non-paying worker to file a complaint or sue ostensibly on the grounds that “they want all the benefits, but don’t want to pay for it.”
This SHOULD be ruled in favor of he unions because we all know how much conservatives hate when “the little guy” gets something for nothing. However, we all know how hypocritical “constitutional originalists” are already.
5 Likes
OK fine. Then the non-union employees can just fend for themselves when they need vacation days or sick days, 40-hour work weeks, etc. Just don’t come crying to the unions when you feel you aren’t being treated fairly by the billionaire overlords.
4 Likes
Or a mormon, banning him from drinking alcohol…living together out of wedlock, failing to go to church on Sunday, tithing 10%…don’t like it…Quit!!!.. Freedum!!..god bless murika!
1 Like
Once again, the reactionaries at SCOTUS are in the saddle. Smells like the fight against the New Deal ewdux.
5 Likes
A horrible ruling. Workers are thwarted from effectively banding together to improve their rotten working conditions and wages, and some religious freak who owns a business can tell a woman that she can’t have effective birth control. Fuck those rotten corporate shill “justices”.
8 Likes
Ultimately, this decision is going to have a far worse effect than Hobby Lobby, but no one is talking about this, the really important decision, because they’re all blinded by the flashing neon from the “shiny object” of the Hobby Lobby decision. The government can take steps to mitigate Hobby Lobby, but not this. This is the “nail in the coffin” to unions.
And I’ll bet those plaintiffs in this case didn’t go turn down the increased benefits the union got them. They just didn’t want to pay for them. Fucking scum.
7 Likes
I am a retired military officer who began my service in 1957. At that time, officers were “expected” to join the officers club. Most did. Those that choose not to were required to explain to the commander their choice. They were precluded from using the club facilities. Most folks had no problem with this arrangement. However, each major unit on post would have a “dining inn”, a very elaborate and strict protocol dinner. Attendance was mandatory. Well what to do with these officers who were not members of the club. Should we waive the rule they could not use the club or should they be made to disobey the commander. Over the objection of many of us they were allowed to attend the event. I understand the problem has now been solved by doing away with club membership and I don’t disagree with that. I admire people who have a value and stand up for it. What I object to is people taking a stand but unwilling to serve the consequences of that decision. Why should non paying members get the same benefits as paying members.
4 Likes
"In the 10 years since unionization, however, wages have nearly doubled, from $7 to $13 an hour; training and supervision has increased, as well as standardization of qualifications, and workers now have health insurance.
“It’s no surprise then that retention has greatly increased. What may surprise many is that this arrangement is cheaper, with savings of $632 million, according to the state.”
This is what the SC has fucked up. Thanks, from an Illinois taxpayer.
6 Likes
Does this mean that in a grievance hearing that the Union does not have to fight very hard for the non-paying members? I sure hope so! Freeloaders should not be protected by the very union that they are against.
3 Likes
I absolutely agree. If better salaries/benefits etc are negotiated for union employees, those who do not pay dues do not receive the benefits.
3 Likes
I hope this means those Unions DON’T have to represent the non-members. The agency fees ruled unconstitutional were to offset the representation the non-members were getting from the unions. If they are gone so should be the representation.
But I suppose we shouldn’t pretend this is about the Constitution. Union busting is a part of the GOP’s efforts to entrench itself. And the GOP’ers on the Court are just playing for the home team.
3 Likes
How so?
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse.
So now each person - alone, as a Sovereign Individual - can go to their employer and “negotiate” for nothing.
What wonderful “choices” we have in our libertarian paradise.
Thanks, SCOTUS.
Women, and union members, will be voting this fall.
Count on it.
2 Likes
. . . but accepting the higher wages and benefits Unions negotiate doesn’t violate the scabs’ 1st Amendment rights?