Bitcoin Forum

No one cares about the other SCOTUS ruling 4 days ago?  

By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled in Harris v. Quinn that home health care workers in Illinois cannot be compelled to financially support a union they don’t wish to join. Illinois is one of 26 states that require public-sector workers — such as firefighters, police officers and teachers — to pay partial dues, often known as “agency fees,” to the unions that negotiate their contracts and represent them in grievances, even if the employees find the union’s advocacy work distasteful.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-harris-v-quinn-ruling-108428.html#ixzz36DxM6QYY


To which I say:  Fantastic.  And bravo to Ms. Harris for taking on Goliath.  The court has been ruling very narrowly lately, but this is another chink in the armor of Big Union thuggery.  


What ya all say?

Personally think unions are vital in protecting workers rights, living wage etc but it should be optional to pay dues. Seems a bit counter-productive to force non-members to pay.

If they don't want to join the union, there should be two pay scales:  The one the union negotiates for its union members and the one the rest of the workforce negotiates for themselves.  They should not benefit from being freeloaders.  If an individual can go in and negotiate a comparable wage, have at it.  If you find you don't have the leverage behind you to negotiate a similar wage and benefits package, too bad for you.  You (should) get what you pay for.

I swear the right will not be happy until there is no middle class left.

Don't know what state you're working in.  Here's in CA almost 1/2 of the unionized workers make over 100K/year which is well above the median income.  This includes clerical positions, cops, firefighters, longshoremen, sewage maintenance, county clerks, teachers and nurses.

That may be why the state is losing industry after industry. 

Aerospace - gone to TX and WA
Hollywood - gone to Canada and every other world city except LA
Automotive design - Tesla is the only thing left.  Honda, Toyota, Ford, Nissan, and GM have pretty much left.
Technology - the only thing propping up this state beside agriculture.  When this leaves party is over

For some reason seeing the children who had to eat semen covered cookies from Miramonte school doesn't make me feel like unions have people's interests at heart.

What I say is that these workers will be singing a different tune down the road when they discover REAL thuggery in the form of corporate abuse of workers and an inability for them to get fair salaries and working conditions even though they have distinct skills. The pendulum has swung too far back. Unions were created because American industrialists treated workers like shit, and they banded together. Eventually, the Unions became the same kind of monster they started out to fight - full of corruption and greed, and there was a backlash. Now we're starting to swing back toward the conditions that existed when they got started. Unions will be back. Unions will be back. Bet on it.

And the left wont be happy til every citizen is compelled to have a Govt Union worker wipe your butts.

This was a mother who was taking care of her own son in her own home and was not being 'paid' at all. The money involved was a $1,300 monthly Medicaid check that didn't even cover his expenses, much less 'pay' his mother a salary! But the SEIU (yeah, the same thug union that backed Obama and was created by the same asshole who created ACORN!) was making her pay $90 a month in union dues, due to a state law passed by union-loving Democrat assholes! And of course, this was in Obama's Illinois, home of crooked Chicago politics.

Unions haven't left... how can they be back?

They are still the single largest contributor to the Democratic ticket.  With money comes power...Trumka is more powerful than most Congressional reps.  He goes to the White House every 3 days on average, almost as much as Beyonce!  ;D

 Alito cited a “bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”

I laughed when I heard that on the news. Now that corporations have religion as part of their speech. Can it be said that no one can be compelled to subsidize that speech?

So if you don't agree with that religion, you could quit working for that corporation, and go draw unemployment benefits???


Laugh out Fn loud.


RAREST CIRCUMSTANCE ALERT!!

Now do any of you still think the Court made a bad call after reading the real story? Should an unpaid mom taking care of her very ill son in her own home have to join a fucking thug union like SEIU and pay them dues?

Since it was such an obvious union abuse of power, the mainstream media either said nothing about it at all or omitted the real reasons for the suit. That's what people get for relying on the liberal media...half-truths and cover-ups.

The understatement of the year.  This isn't even about corporations and wages blah blah blah.  This is a PUBLIC SECTOR union sucking money from Medicaid checks. 


I swear, these sheeple must enjoy being screwed by their sacred cows.   

And not just any public sector union! This is Obama's own SEIU, the same one that he represented as a lawyer, and the same one that his buddy Wade Rathke (creator of Obama's ACORN) founded! This is the same criminal union that beat up the black guy who was handing out 'Don't tread on Me" flags in St Louis during Obama's first campaign. This is the sort of low class, unskilled thug union (like the Teamsters) that gives a bad name to the skilled union trades like carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc.

Yes, there is that:
SEIU Union Is Top Spender for Democrats - WSJ
Big Labor's Investment in Obama Pays Off | RealClearPolitics
yet another example, just like Hobby Lobby, how Big Money is the beneficiary of Big Gov every time but the leftwing sheep just chew the cud.

Read all about it in the only news coverage I could find that tells us the whole story!


I'm not sure what YOU'RE talking about but what the decision refers to is privately contracted PAs (Personal Assistants) that Medicaid pays for working poor to hire to help them out with child care. That's from the actual Supreme Court web site on the decision. Or do you think FOX News knows more than the Court about their ruling?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf\

I read the FOX report. When one reads the decision and all the background, it's clear that what this family essentially did was to 'hire from within". Again, the check from Medicaid is not ostensibly for the care of the child - or in this case, an disabled adult - but rather a specific amount provided to pay for a home health care assistant. In this case, the family actually hired the mother, herself to do the job (I guess it's legal, since the state didn't tell them they couldn't do it).  Like I said, I read the actual decision, and it's very clear what it is about - hired assistants. I can't even see that as being applicable to The Harris family unless they did what I described - hired the mother. I could have missed something and I welcome someone pointing it out if I did.

You don't say...you mean like we just said?    And that has what to do with blubberings about corporate abuse and wages?   

Well, let's assume that you're right and the Medicare check covered her 'wages' for taking care of her son. That's a round the clock, 7 days per week job. If she get's 'paid' $1210.00 a month ($90 is taken out for SEIU!), that's less than $3 per hour. Is that the SEIU union scale? If not, where's her fucking SEIU union wages? If she paid dues to SEIU (and she did!), why didn't they demand she be paid union scale?

And since when do union members also have to foot the bill for all the other patient needs, like housing, food, medicine, clothes, etc.?

The Supreme Court obviously ruled correctly. Just admit it and move on.

Ms. Harris was contracted by her son to be his caregiver...and yes, it is perfectly legal under Medicaid and in fact encouraged.  What better situation than for the mother to be the caregiver for such a low wage...it isn't likely to attract the best quality workers.   Ops point about this "not covering his expenses" is true in that sense...the REAL cost of caring for his kid is not covered by this but rather offset somewhat by paying his mom. 

Essentially SEIU was profiteering off poor folks and tax payer dollars, to put money into the pockets of Dems in their endless circle jerk,  as per usual. 

Also, for the record, this set up is ripe for fraud at all levels.  One could, for example, become a caregiver for an aging parent on SS at night during the sleeping hours, and still work as a caregiver for someone else during the day under the table.  This would also make the caregiver eligible for Obamacare through Medicare subsidies.

This is one of the problem with both entitlements and an aging population.  It is very expensive to hire someone for invalid/eldercare through an agency ($25 to $50/hr here...and they usually only get minimum wage or so), so it is mutually beneficial all the way around to exploit the system and pay someone $10-$15 under the table.  SEIU taking their cut from entitlements is just one more element.

No, Umair, the stipend from Medicare is NOT supposed to be for 24/7 care. That's why I wonder why they're even allowing it to be paid to the mother. it's meant to provide for payment to an assistant to take a little pressure OFF the mother. What part of "Home Health Care ASSISTANT" boggles you so very much?

Maybe she would end up with more wages -- substantially more than the $90 union dues -- if she joined the union.

She evidently doesn't have to.   And that's fine with me as long as she doesn't benefit from freeloading off the dues paying members.
 
She is certainly free to negotiate her own reimbursement, as a party of one and all the negotiating power that entails (guffaw) but she should not in any way benefit from the work done on behalf of the dues paying members by their union in negotiating better pay and benefits.

I'm going to answer your question with another question. Trust me, the answer is in there - Do you (or most right wing conservatives) support ANY worker being mandated to join a union?

OK, go ahead - pretend that doesn't answer your question.

I'm pretending his hidden clue isn't there in his answering a question with a question, because trust him, it is.  Lol.


Predictable as the sun rise.   

Seriously, it is obvious don't even know what you are talking about.   Why don't you actually read the back ground and understand the facts regarding this case and the law (including the ruling) before you comment.   

And yet..... you didn't even acknowledge the answer. Predictable as the sunrise.

They don't care to learn the particulars of the case because the particulars don't matter to them.  They'll side with the unions anyway, no matter the details.
So who thinks that workers should be FORCED to pay union dues? I surely do not. And the Unions themselves say they represent everyone regardless of whether the are union members or not.

if the union is responsible for getting your position the pay and benefits you will receive, why should you NOT be required to join the union there? Why should you receive the BENEFITS of union membership if you refuse to pay your dues? Isn't that freeloading off all the other employees who DO pay their dues?

Bingo.  Meanwhile union money feeds Dems who feed entitlements which feeds Dem unions and WS which feed Dems and so on and so on...all on the backs of the 99%.

I read the background. I read the actual decision - have you?  You also can't even participate in this discussion without pretending that at least SOME of the background (the conservative position that NO ONE should be required to be a member of a union) doesn't exist. You want to lay down specific parameters in which this must be discussed. Well, sorry, Umair, but that doesn't hold water. The main plaintiff here happens to be a woman who was essentially paying herself as her home health care assistant for caring for her son (still not sure how that's legal, but hey - that's between her and Illinois). But the decision is way more far reaching than her particular circumstance. That silliness you spoke of, of hiring someone under the table doesn't apply here either - clearly, if someone is applying for assistance from the state to pay someone - and if the union is insisting that because they negotiated the standardized rate and conditions for it, you should pay dues - it's not under the table. 

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/municipal-cities-counties-bankruptcies-and-defaults.html

LOL, the cities and the Unions are stuck within the domain of the government location. Meanwhile, taxpayers, Employers simply pack up and leave. That beneficially shrinks the tax base and leaves the government entity with no source of income. The NON-Union, Red State RTW states are gaining Employers and the Blue Union Thug owned states are losing them.

The American Enemy Liberals just can NOT understand why companies and tax payers have packed up and left them with empty shell communities. They apparently believed these entities were ignorant and would therefore tolerate all the Tax Punishment needed to feed their Union Thugs.

Then add the oppressive gun laws and we have a major blue state exodus! Its fun to watch these Anti-American Unions crumble beneath American workers' feet!

she was not paying herself wages.  She was essentially contracted by her son who is the actual Medicaid recipient and yes it is legal  And no one is "laying down specific parameters blah blah blah" just because you are flailing to try to make this about private unions when it is not. 

This is a clear case of SEIU/Illinois Democrat party collusion, intended to rip off those who are just trying to take care of a family member in order to fund the union and eventually, the Democrat Party. The Supreme Court ruled correctly.

I am inclined to agree, but no one should be forced to pay a union if they didn't want to join in the first place and the union does not represent their individual interests. Unions are due for a reality check in the sense that they've just turned into a way to bully both corporations and workers -- and even state governments in a lot of cases unless the government is willing to stand up to unions like they did in Wisconsin. Doesn't mean that the basic idea behind unions won't still exist, it just means they need a decent sense of their proper place in the relationship between employees and employers.

 I have the utmost respect for skilled trade unions, but I have nothing but contempt for the semi-skilled or unskilled thug unions, like the Teamsters, the Laborers, and SEIU. They are nothing more than gangsters, and when the Mafia was in its heyday, they and the thug unions were one and the same.

The Supreme Court has ruled.   They don't have to join the union or pay union dues.  All that I am saying is that if they don't want to join and pay dues. they should not then be able to freeload off those paying the dues that support the representation of the union in negotiating a higher wage or better benefits.  They can go in and negotiate their own salary and benefits since they are not paying dues.

Surely you also don't believe they should get something for free either -- do you?

I don't know how that's siding with the unions.  That's merely saying you should not benefit off the good will (and dues) of the union if you don't want to be a member and pay the dues.  And you say I'll side with the union no matter what, but the reverse is true for you and yours, that you will side against them no matter what.

If dues only went to fund collective bargaining agreements for wages and benefits you might have a point, Bees. But many workers do not join a union (yours truly for instance) because they do not subscribe to the political leanings of the unions and do not wish to pay for support of candidates for office and other political lobbying they disapprove of. Dues go for lots of things, including outrageous "CEO" salaries that liberals never seem upset over, that have nothing to do with improving the conditions of the member-workers.

I would venture to say that the prevailing reason that folks join a union shop or seek work in a union workplace is for the increased wages and benefits, and that they view their dues as a small price to pay for substantially increased wages over the non-union shops.     And part of those dues are sometimes used to support pro labor candidates, pro labor legislation, and generally looking out for the interests of labor, just like any group of like-minded or like-employed folks do.  For example, I am a court reporter, self-employed.  Part of my membership dues to the National Court Reporters Association and the Minnesota Association of Verbatim Reporters and Captioners goes for lobbying efforts to look out for the interests of our members.  Without unions or private organizations like the ones I belong to, how does the working man have any voice other than their single vote?

And believe me, in a volunteer situation, like my state and national association, the members carry the burden and everyone gets the benefit, which is, on its face, patently unfair, IMHO.

But that aside, whatever their reason for not wanting to pay the union dues, they are free to do that.   The Supreme Court made that clear here, and you evidently also are working that way at your employer.  All I'm saying is then those non-union employees should have to negotiate their own salaries and benefits, and if the union happens to negotiate a better wage for their dues-paying members, well, that's part of the reward those dues-paying members are reaping for their dues.  Why should dues-paying members fund that representation and allow those who choose to not participate in paying the dues to get the same benefit nonetheless?

I would venture to say that the prevailing reason is because they have to.  That is being evidenced by the exodus from unions whenever it is possible, and why unions like SEIU tried for force Ms Harris to pay and why they are attempting to establish themselves offshore. 


Unions are dying because their love affair with Dems and mutual greed has trumped their usefulness to workers. 

No employee should be forced to pay any union fees if they don't wish to, I used to respect unions until they started using these kind of tactics, like with most of these civil rights movements they've gone from equal rights to favouritism.

Neither membership or dues should be compulsory. If a union does things outside their limited scope workers should have the right to leave the union and cut off their financial support of the union. Wisconsin was just the beginning of the define of huge unions and their thug bosses.

Yeah, I was really pleased to see this one along w/ the rest. The union mentality and the forced paid membership is what we need a lot less of in ole USA. The unions served their purposes in the early and mid parts of last century but they've become too powerful and entrenched and contributed to the bankruptcy of GM. Furthermore, they now serve as money laundering operations to the democratic party. Many of these state and local public union pension funds are deeply underwater so Obama (in certain cases) just takes federal bailout funds and distributes them back to his union buddies who take a cut off the top and return the favor. Meanwhile, it's whatever is left of the productivity class here that is footing the bill, of course there's Fed monetization going on as well.

That's not the only company that unions drove to bankruptcy. A while back, Eastern Airlines was driven to bankruptcy because of unions. They were already having financial problems. Frank Borman (yeah, THAT Frank Borman, the commander of Apollo 8 ) was President and COO at the time and his ideas were just beginning to turn the company around when one of the unions got a pickle up their bum and forced the company to abandon its profit sharing plan. This led to heavy losses to the company and the eventual sale of the airline.

IMAO Thank you Wil, I love debating and there is no hard feelings if Im proven wrong, to me this is all about keeping an open mind to what others have to say about certain issues.

The real reason that unions are hated so much by the republicans is that the unions give the working man a loud voice.  The unions were able to do a good job of making sure voters got to the booth. So for many years the corporations have been fighting to end union rights so they have no voice.  I hate to tell you poor deluded idiots but the union voice was a voice for you. Try reading a little history of this country.'  Can any of you tell me where the term redneck came from.

Exactly, union membership in the US had been declining for decades now, the only reason we have a minimum wage in the UK is due to pressure from the unions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

"In 2013 there were 14.5 million members in the U.S., compared with 17.7 million in 1983. In 2013, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.3%, compared to 20.1% in 1983.[1] From a global perspective, the density in 2010 was 11.4% in the U.S., 18.4% in Germany, 27.5% in Canada, and 70% in Finland.[2] Union membership in the private sector has fallen under 7%[3] — levels not seen since 1932".

You get a few loud conservative voices who take a job in a union shop and  somehow think that the union hasn't got the right to speak for the general welfare of the members of the union because they pay dues. But they sure like the benefits the union got for them. If you don't want to work in a union shop, what's stopping you from walking away and going to work somewhere where there isn't one - say... Walmart? I'll tell you what it is - it's the fact that they like a 40 hour work week, they like getting benefits like paid vacation and medical insurance, and they like getting a living wage. The fact that the Union is responsible for making all those things happen means nothing to them. Rush Limbaugh told them that the union is holding them back and they believe him. Labor unions are, as you said, the ONLY voice that working people have in the public venue. Individually we working class people have no power. None. We haven't got millions to spend buying the ear of legislators. But COLLECTIVELY; pooling our resources and speaking as a group we have both sufficient funds to compete in lobbying AND large voting blocks to get politicians' attention. That's why unions exist, and why they are crucial to the future of America.