Unions in trouble

[swamt]

It's about to get real!

" America's union leaders are about to find out if they were right to fiercely oppose Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court as a pivotal, potentially devastating vote against organized labor".


https://www.yahoo.com/news/gorsuch-...r-union-funding-case-134044798--politics.html

Yes I read that article this morning. If they rule in Mark's favor you will see a mass group stop paying dues. However, I am a firm believer in having a choice, but if people opt out then they do not get represented by the union if terminated, file grievances, not paid correctly, safety issues, overtime etc...
It will get interesting if this goes in Mark's favor.

 

[Birdman]

Not sure how this will affect those under the RLA but unions have brought this on themselves though corruption, manipulation, and not listening to their members. I spent the last 13 years at AA on Agency Fee status and saw first hand how low the TWU was willing to stoop to retain control.

 

[eolesen]

The only way unions will ever improve is if their dues income becomes at-risk.

 

[GT53]

Yes I read that article this morning. If they rule in Mark's favor you will see a mass group stop paying dues. However, I am a firm believer in having a choice, but if people opt out then they do not get represented by the union if terminated, file grievances, not paid correctly, safety issues, overtime etc...
It will get interesting if this goes in Mark's favor.

That is not true. Even though you are a dues objector the Union by law must still represent you. I'm not saying they will do a good job, just that they are required too.

 

[eolesen]

That's the case where an agency fee is required aka Beck Rights. If agency fee gets tossed, the obligation to represent may also be tossed.

 

[B737 driver]

That is not true. Even though you are a dues objector the Union by law must still represent you. I'm not saying they will do a good job, just that they are required too.

You can not be a member and pay a fee, they still have to represent you, but you can't vote on anything.

 

[swamt]

That is not true. Even though you are a dues objector the Union by law must still represent you. I'm not saying they will do a good job, just that they are required too.

E kinda already cleared it for you. He was correct that if they vote in favor of Mark, they may very well include the rule of "must represent" with it right out the door. That's what I was referring to.

 

[Buck]

Interjection: I have often wondered as a previous dues objector if given the same circumstances, whether the Industrial Unions would represent the objector the same as an independent representative?

 

[WeAAsles]

I’ve never understood why anyone believes they should be represented by a Union that’s on property if they “contribute” nothing at all financially for its existence?

If an individual wants to be a dues objector and not even pay an agency fee either that’s fine. But they should be completely on their own then for whatever terms the Company they work for wants to set for them.

(I’ve yet to find a Lawyer who works completely for free)

 

[B737 driver]

I’ve never understood why anyone believes they should be represented by a Union that’s on property if they “contribute” nothing at all financially for its existence?

If an individual wants to be a dues objector and not even pay an agency fee either that’s fine. But they should be completely on their own then for whatever terms the Company they work for wants to set for them.

(I’ve yet to find a Lawyer who works completely for free)

All the unions need is a change to their bylaws, you don't have to pay dues, but this is our service fee, as long as it is less than the dues the person can not object, cost of doing business, the union is a business.

 

[Buck]

When you go on Agency Fee you become a non-member of the union. The portion of your dues slated for political donation is no longer used and returned at the end of the year.

 

[eolesen]

The problem with agency fee is that the book keeping on what is political activity and what's related to the CBA can be fuzzy. I suspect there's a lot of indirect political activity going on which never falls into that category on the financial reporting, and that's where these last few SCOTUS cases have their roots.

 

[Bagbelt]

As I belong to the Boston carmens union we have already seen this as a done deal some time ago. I am sure there will be a loss of membership, however I do not see any doomsday senario. I firmly believe that the classic pension system will be phased out in time as the self created debt crisis will make it politically impossible to honor these obligations. Massachusetts, of course, is a very liberal state. But we get hammered by all sides these days. Half the guys I work with are ex Northwest and other airlines. The other half left dealerships after being crucified by the flat rate system. We are all 45-60 years old and I guess the state will let nature take its course. But in the future I expect it to be very different.

 

[Bagbelt]

Listened to argument on c span. I think it's a done deal but who knows the fine print until June. I will say however that a lot depends on vesting rules in different states. Public unions are different than most here would realize. Retirees actually have thier own contracts and only in certain cases can public workers collect social security. Even guys who hate unions pay dues to hedge their bets. My fantasy is that this will parlay into " I don't have to pay taxes to a government policy I don't support".. Maybe they will find the 21 trillion that the professor in Michigan says is "missing" and it will all work out..

 

[eolesen]

The transcript of the arguments is available here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1466_gebh.pdf


DFR for non-paying members was mentioned as not being constitutionally required, even though some states mandate it.