I loathe and despise unions generally. I respect the idea of representation of workers... but the extortion and arrogance of unions generally and teacher's unions/public worker unions particularly has galled me the entirety of my adult life.
If unions were such a great idea, they wouldn't require mandatory membership... which is a euphemism for mandatory union hands in union member's pockets.
As of this morning?
You don't have to join a public-sector union and these so-called "agency fees." It's now based on volunteerism and not compulsion (Napolitano)
Here in Washington State, for example, all home health care workers must now, effectively, be represented by SEIU 775... whether they want that or not.
Now, that such a requirement is illegal and unconstitutional under Harris V. Quinn 573 U.S. ____ (2014) is indisputable. But neither democrats or unions give a damn about the law or the Supreme Court if they get in the way of an agenda.
Locally, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the teacher's union mafia in Evergreed Schools indicated they were going on strike if they did not get a THIRTY PERCENT PAY INCREASE over the next three years.
Well, public employee union/teacher union strikes are illegal. The moment their union goes on strike, their leadership should be arrested and the next day, starting alphabetically, every striking teacher should be arrested as well.
This kind of extortion has been going on unchecked for decades and it's long since past time to put an end to it.
Failing that, (and let's face it, the Washington Education Association owns the legislature like the 13th Amendment is actually the 13th Suggestion) the second best thing was the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States announced today...
If unions were such a great idea, they wouldn't require mandatory membership... which is a euphemism for mandatory union hands in union member's pockets.
As of this morning?
You don't have to join a public-sector union and these so-called "agency fees." It's now based on volunteerism and not compulsion (Napolitano)
Here in Washington State, for example, all home health care workers must now, effectively, be represented by SEIU 775... whether they want that or not.
Now, that such a requirement is illegal and unconstitutional under Harris V. Quinn 573 U.S. ____ (2014) is indisputable. But neither democrats or unions give a damn about the law or the Supreme Court if they get in the way of an agenda.
Locally, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the teacher's union mafia in Evergreed Schools indicated they were going on strike if they did not get a THIRTY PERCENT PAY INCREASE over the next three years.
Well, public employee union/teacher union strikes are illegal. The moment their union goes on strike, their leadership should be arrested and the next day, starting alphabetically, every striking teacher should be arrested as well.
This kind of extortion has been going on unchecked for decades and it's long since past time to put an end to it.
Failing that, (and let's face it, the Washington Education Association owns the legislature like the 13th Amendment is actually the 13th Suggestion) the second best thing was the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States announced today...
Supreme Court delivers blow to organized labor in fees dispute
Yes, indeed. The Supreme Court GUTTED unions, right where it hurts: in their massive, bottomless, checkbook.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a blow to organized labor, ruling that non-members cannot be forced in certain states to pay fees to unions representing public employees such as teachers and police, shutting off a key union revenue source.
The 5-4 ruling, with the conservative justices prevailing and the liberal justices dissenting, overturned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent that had allowed so-called agency fees that are collected from millions of non-union workers in lieu of union dues to fund non-political activities like collective bargaining.
The court ruled that forcing non-members to pay these fees to unions whose views they may oppose violates their rights to free speech and free association under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
Indeed. But since when have unions ever cared about things like constitutional rights?
Now, here in Washington State, there is little doubt the Stalinists running public-sector unions won't take this lying down.
I expect they'll be a full court press on the union-controlled democrats by the unions of this state to find anything they believe is a loophole to continue their extortion of the members and the taxpayers. For example, a two-tiered pay scale, one for union workers and one for those who opt out... even though they're doing the exact, same, job.
After all, the obviously illegal health care worker scam the leftists in the state legislature pulled off was done 4 years after the Supreme Court said that such an action was unconstitutional.
Because one thing's for sure, the other thing the unions don't care about when it suits them?
Any law they don't happen to like.
Other states, including Michigan, have simply made unions optional for ALL (with certain small exceptions) workers, private AND public.
The result?
After all, the obviously illegal health care worker scam the leftists in the state legislature pulled off was done 4 years after the Supreme Court said that such an action was unconstitutional.
Because one thing's for sure, the other thing the unions don't care about when it suits them?
Any law they don't happen to like.
Other states, including Michigan, have simply made unions optional for ALL (with certain small exceptions) workers, private AND public.
The result?
Workers are abandoning unions by the tens of thousands.
And that's the thing, you see: reiterating - if unions were all THAT great? Membership would never be mandatory.
And that's the thing, you see: reiterating - if unions were all THAT great? Membership would never be mandatory.
The irony of this is clear: the Supreme Court decision applies to public sector unions only. So, if many of these jobs were PRIVATIZED and THEN unionized... this decision wouldn't apply.
But they don't give a damn about the workers as much as they do their political power. Because if they DID care about the workers?
They'd support free choice of employment as much as they support abortion.
But they don't give a damn about the workers as much as they do their political power. Because if they DID care about the workers?
They'd support free choice of employment as much as they support abortion.
1 comment:
In 1966 I got my first full-time job at a railroad at their headquarters in San Francisco -- the company had more than 60,000 workers. My first week on the job, I was approached by a thuggish man who told me he was the "union rep" and that I must pay an "initiation fee" and "dues" to the union or I would be fired. Having taken civics classes in High School, I couldn't believe that in "free" America, that this could possibly be true. I soon found out that it was... and out of my first paycheck, nearly half went to pay off this union thug. Over then next several years I witnessed the union get the covered employees a 3% raise... then raise the dues by 5%. Time and again, the union "protected" drunks and screw-up employees that made the workplace more dangerous and often caused the competent and productive workers to have to work harder to get the work done that the "protected" employees hadn't done. (At one point, members of our local were trying to petition to dump our union and switch to another one -- but that went nowhere.) The pattern continued that each time we got a wage increase, the union would raise the dues. In addition we had the joy of receiving a monthly newsletter telling us about all the programs, taxes, and leftist policies that the unions were "supporting" (with our dues payments) that very few of the members would every have voluntarily supported. (Railroad workers, tended to run conservative.) For me, the last straw occurred after I'd been promoted to an "exempt" position -- I no longer was required to be in the union -- that the union (whose membership was shrinking) got management to "expand" the "coverage" of the union employees to include "exempt" employees -- and (later) got the company to protect "seniority" on the union "roster" to ONLY those employees who paid dues (even if the position they held was not covered by union agreement). Over the years, employment at the railroad had been shrinking (when I left in a corporate downsizing after 21 years) we only had 14,000 employees. In the first case, I had to "reinstate" (fee) and pay monthly dues -- to a union who had zero responsibility to "represent" me on an "exempt" job. (Oh, yeah, this extension of the reach of their dues collection did not involve ANY pay increase -- the union traded that away to "get" more dues!) Later, when I was an "officer" of the railroad, the "pay for union seniority" system forced many mid-level employees who had previous time in union positions to continue to pay dues while in exempt positions due to the chance of an (often temporary) reversion back to a union position during one of the many "downsizings" we experienced. (The ultimate irony is that I became the "hearing officer"(for union grievances) for my department during the later stage of my career with the Railroad.)
I absolutely despise unions. The stupid Republicans have had the opportunity to establish a "right to work" law for all workers in the U.S. eliminating monopoly Union Representation and forced dues payments. This is LONG overdue. (And, the UNIONS spend much of the dues running "union label" politicians against Republicans. (What's the matter with them?)
This SCOTUS ruling eliminating forced union membership by unwilling public employees is LONG overdue. Hopefully, the SCOTUS will be able to rule the NLRB as unconstitutional (as it truly is) and eliminate the Leftist THUGS that have too long ripped off the workers of the United States.
Post a Comment