SCOTUS: Public union can't make nonmembers pay fees

[ModernGunner]

For example, say you have to accompany your client to the doctor and your employer has you down for only working 9AM - 5PM. Your clients doctors visit is scheduled for 3:30PM. Well, on a rare fluke the doctor doesn't even see your client until 4:30PM. You both wind up arriving back at the clients home at 6:00PM. The employer doesn't pay for the extra hour you were forced to work.

Doug, that's already covered by Labor law. Worker must be paid, at least 'straight time'. Though, they COULD be given compensatory time off (work 1 hour less the next, for example). But they must be compensated.

And there's penalties (read that as $$$) that the employee can garner for the employer not paying for the hours worked.

And 'whistleblower' laws provide for recourse in case of any punitive action on the part of the employer.

Not sure I'd trust NPR (a leftie-liberal-loon organization) on the matter, as left-loons have a STRONG desire in trying to grab 'support' from the Unions. Want 'wage reform', then band together to change the law, not let some 'union' pull hard-earned dollars out of one's pocket. Start with mandatory 1.5x OT pay for any and all hours worked over 8, not just over 40 / week or 80 / 2 weeks. Sure don't need unions for that.

But, home health care workers are yet another example of why folks should be pushing for a $15 / hr. minimum wage.

Unions are, basically, looking out for the best interest of the Union staff, not necessarily the Union Member. SEIU is particularly known for covering the butts of the Union administration while NOT looking out for the dues-paying Member. SEIU has virtually no actual 'power', but they sure want those union dues coming in, and 'insist' their Members vote democRAT.

Sure makes Obama and Reid happy!

 

[Dauvis]

To All,

I agree that people should not be forced to pay for an organization they do not agree with.

That said, only limiting my scope to home health workers, I have met many of them who seem to be treated very poorly by employers here in Fort Wayne.

For example, say you have to accompany your client to the doctor and your employer has you down for only working 9AM - 5PM. Your clients doctors visit is scheduled for 3:30PM. Well, on a rare fluke the doctor doesn't even see your client until 4:30PM. You both wind up arriving back at the clients home at 6:00PM. The employer doesn't pay for the extra hour you were forced to work.

In looking into this there are some strange legal loopholes for home health workers, nannies, and other caregivers who may spend a great deal of time in the clients home. I must admit I am ignorant of such things.

This is one area where I think a union may(?) produce positive reform to a current status quo. However, the union should be forced to "sell their case" and recruit members voluntarily just as the NRA does. All gun owners benefit from their lobbying and they fight very hard to sell us on why we should pay our "organization" dues.

Regards,

Doug

Personally, the biggest problem with that ruling is that unions being mandated by the government to fully represent the interests of non-members not being considered. As it is, the union is now required to represent non-members and not be fairly reimbursed for that effort. That was the purpose of those fees. If my understanding of the law is correct, those fee are only allowed to cover the cost associated with the bargaining and no more than that. I guess mooching is condoned when politics are at play.

As an interesting side note, SCOTUS had no problem forcing dairy farmers to reimburse the government for the "Got Milk" commercials. I am failing to see the difference between the government mandated speech in the two cases.

 

[juans]

I do think is not fair that you will get the benefits without paying the dues? If you do not want to pay, then do your own negotiations .

Just my opinion

 

[Cpt Caveman]

I enjoy reading about common sense rulings. I'm kinda surprised they ruled the way they did. They get it wrong so frequently these days.

 

[Denny347]

Wage & labor law already covers this issue, if the health care worker works overtime, they must get paid.

Perhaps but a lone employee getting an employer to comply is extremely difficult. If there were only a way that a GROUP of employees could band together to fight their cause.

 

[Denny347]

I enjoy reading about common sense rulings. I'm kinda surprised they ruled the way they did. They get it wrong so frequently these days.

100% subjective.

 

[Denny347]

In before the "Unions are the reasons people have a living wage" argument commences.

The labor movement was born to protect employees from the extremely poor conditions workers faced back in the 1800's. They worked very well. By 2009, only 12% of the nations workers were members of a union, the need was gone. Regardless of what they have become now, Unions were responsible for many positive labor laws.

 

[jamil]

100% subjective.

I think most people can smell when SCOTUS rules politically. That's almost all the time. It's just that lately it seems their rulings have coincided with the time on the face of their broken watch.

 

[Denny347]

I think most people can smell when SCOTUS rules politically. That's almost all the time. It's just that lately it seems their rulings have coincided with the time on the face of their broken watch.

I see people cheering the SCOTUS when they rule on something they agree with then scream "improper ruling" when they do not. It just depends on your perspective. Can you removes politics 100% from their rulings? I don't know. Do I know that their decisions are politically based? I do not. Are their decisions "biased free"? Likely not. We all have our biases and they are VERY hard to overcome, even when we know ours. I find this aspect of social interactions very interesting and work extremely hard to recognize mine and work past them. Even then, I'm not biased free.

 

[88GT]

The labor movement was born to protect employees from the extremely poor conditions workers faced back in the 1800's. They worked very well. By 2009, only 12% of the nations workers were members of a union, the need was gone. Regardless of what they have become now, Unions were responsible for many positive labor laws.

And that's relevant how?

incidentally, the same results could have been achieved with out the union.

 

[Denny347]

And that's relevant how?

incidentally, the same results could have been achieved with out the union.

You suggested that Unions have nothing to do with a "livable" wage and I was responding that, historically, they did, regardless of the dying monster they've morphed into. Highly unlikely that much change could have been forced by a few individuals. The political power that forced such chance at the time could only been had by a large enough group. The workers were poor, who would have listened to them?

 

[88GT]

You suggested that Unions have nothing to do with a "livable" wage and I was responding that, historically, they did, regardless of the dying monster they've morphed into. Highly unlikely that much change could have been forced by a few individuals. The political power that forced such chance at the time could only been had by a large enough group. The workers were poor, who would have listened to them?

I didn't suggest that unions had nothing to do with wages. I snarked on the fact that the union apologists have a limited repertoire of defenses for their antiquated legalized extortion. Not the same thing. And that they will defend any and all actions the union takes out of blind loyalty and a poor grasp of history.

Unions aren't necessary to create a collective bargaining group. The union is an entity with its own power and authority and it exists because people wanted to tap in to that power and authority. People could employ the process of collective bargaining without the unions. People can strike without the unions. The sad irony is that those "poor workers" only think they improved their lot. They didn't actually get out from under the thumb of a controlling entity. They simply changed the identity of the controlling entity.

 

[jamil]

I see people cheering the SCOTUS when they rule on something they agree with then scream "improper ruling" when they do not. It just depends on your perspective. Can you removes politics 100% from their rulings? I don't know. Do I know that their decisions are politically based? I do not. Are their decisions "biased free"? Likely not. We all have our biases and they are VERY hard to overcome, even when we know ours. I find this aspect of social interactions very interesting and work extremely hard to recognize mine and work past them. Even then, I'm not biased free.

When a controversial ruling is made with a 5/4 decision split across party lines, ya, it's political. Sometimes the case isn't a matter where congruent ideology figures much into the decision. That's when we see the 9/0 decisions.

In the 5/4 decisions one or both sides are legislating from the bench. I guess it's subjective if it's a real gray area, or if it's not a gray area and you're intellectually dishonest. The SCOTUS ruling calling Obama Care constitutional was obviously legislating from the bench. The split majority wanted it to be constitutional so they MADE it constitutional. Same kind of thing happened with R. v W back in the day.

 

[88GT]

When a controversial ruling is made with a 5/4 decision split across party lines, ya, it's political. Sometimes the case isn't a matter where congruent ideology figures much into the decision. That's when we see the 9/0 decisions.

In the 5/4 decisions one or both sides are legislating from the bench. I guess it's subjective if it's a real gray area, or if it's not a gray area and you're intellectually dishonest. The SCOTUS ruling calling Obama Care constitutional was obviously legislating from the bench. The split majority wanted it to be constitutional so they MADE it constitutional. Same kind of thing happened with R. v W back in the day.

There's a pretty good history of it.

Plessy v. Ferguson
Marbury v. Madison
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Engel v. Vitale

 

[ArcadiaGP]

SCOTUS sided against Unions today.

JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,

COUNCIL 31, ET AL.
Decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf


U.S. Supreme Court deals blow to labor unions, ruling 5-4 that public sector unions may not collect mandatory fees from non-members

 

[EMDX6043]

This is why the (private sector) Union I belong to doesn't engage in political speech. Our dues go directly towards maintenance, negotiations, and administration of our CBA on the local and national level.

If our members want to contribute towards political issues, there's a PAC for it, separate from the deduction of dues and it must be specifically authorized in writing. The public unions fumbled big time (higher education eh?) by getting into the SJW arena...just go look at some of the "resolutions" they've passed (image attached-my Wife is a Teacher and she's not exactly "pro-choice"). Anti-____ and Pro-_____ messages are not something their union dues are meant to go towards, and thankfully the SC agreed. I'd be pretty angry if that's what my money was used for.

I pay for representation in the workplace; I don't care what they think about political issue x-y-z outside of the work place, nor do I pay for them to engage in virtue signaling or lobbying towards non-workplace issues.

I pay for them to protect my rights as outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

I also agreed with the SCOTUS Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis ruling. However, let that decision be a warning to anyone who thinks they're better off "going it alone". It will get expensive.



For the record too, James R. Hoffa was NOT fond of Socialists.

 

[Trigger Time]

This is a great decision. Democrat majorities in government were stealing from its citizen workers to fund Democrat coffers. Not anymore. That just eliminates one of their dirty tricks, many more to go

 

[Expat]

The idea that public workers, take money from the government, then have to pay part of that to a union, that then kicks back a portion to the elected officials that vote to increase their pay always seemed corrupt to me.

 

[jamil]

In addition. Another thing I’d like to see go against unions. Once a union is voted in, it has to represent everyone, even non memebers, even if the non-members don’t want it. The evil part of that being, that you can’t bargain with the company apart from yourself. Getting rid of that rule would make unions not suck ass so much. Unions would then have to represent the people well. They’d have to compete with non-union labor.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In addition. Another thing I’d like to see go against unions. Once a union is voted in, it has to represent everyone, even non memebers, even if the non-members don’t want it. The evil part of that being, that you can’t bargain with the company apart from yourself. Getting rid of that rule would make unions not suck ass so much. Unions would then have to represent the people well. They’d have to compete with non-union labor.

That's one of the goals of unions though--to eliminate competition. At least in industrial unions, my experience has been they prefer to drag the competition down to their level rather than do what it takes to beat them.