It's Game Time For Unions Thanks To Politicized SCOTUS
ctrzaska said:
DaveSchmidt said:If unions are adept at winning over the best contracts for their members, those not in the union and thus less-well-served would logically conclude that they’re better served being part of one.
What happens if the union wants to choose not to be the sole bargaining agent for workers who don’t pay dues, because it can’t be forced to spend money to support speech that pits it against itself?
The hitch is that federal law and, I believe, many states require that union contracts for public workers cover non-members, too. If you don’t join, you still get the negotiated benefits, meaning the incentive you mention is nonexistent.
JF, DS: thank you both. And Lost, too. I’m learning from you all that although most of our language around labour relations and economics is similar, in fact we use terminology to describe different relationships and situations - a bit like when we we’re discussing politics and thinking we’re using analogous terms.
Our unions operate differently; their social & industrial contract with membership appears similar due to ancient history but the modern history aspect (since the Great Strike in the late 1800s) is quite different. There’s a real hatred and wish to smash their existence, so as to radically destabilise working conditions, by right-wing/ conservative parties and populist independents.
The assumptions are ‘that each individual can enter into their own work contract’ without need for legal or financial advice, regardless of age or experience - if you talk about your contract with someone other than your boss, you’ve broken it. People don’t know how to check conditions or pay, or get advice. Media spread lies and fear.
We need, as our Wayne Swan said last night, to get back to the basics: let people know what our shared Australian history is built on, and value it.
Jackson_Fusion said:...
What if the state/local discriminated between the union and non union employees in the other direction? What if I ran Maplewood and decided to break the union by giving better deals to all independent workers? The union would crumble....
If the hypothetical "you" broke the union in the manner you propose, the taxpayers would soon pick up the pitchforks and torches; until the holiday gathering where you tell the non-contract employees that they'll be be getting 30% less in salary, starting 1 January.
The contract employees; they get the same offer for a contract renewal. (The crowd now puts down the pitchforks and torches).
Not long thereafter, some bright girl or boy, turns to their coworkers and sez: Jackson can't treat us like this, if we all stand together.
I think that most of that which you've written on this matter has been spot-on, but extracted this limited bit of that which you wrote as a jump-off point to express my belief that unions ain't going away.
TomR
This reminds me of the time of Jersey City's Mayor Hague. You paid to the Democratic Party t get the teacher jobs. You paid after you got the teacher jobs. Then you were more likely to get the job if your relative was a party official or you knew someone.
When N.J.E.A. gained power, that stopped.
Joanne, thanks for your kind words 
Tom_R said:
Jackson_Fusion said:...If the hypothetical "you" broke the union in the manner you propose, the taxpayers would soon pick up the pitchforks and torches; until the holiday gathering where you tell the non-contract employees that they'll be be getting 30% less in salary, starting 1 January.
What if the state/local discriminated between the union and non union employees in the other direction? What if I ran Maplewood and decided to break the union by giving better deals to all independent workers? The union would crumble....
The contract employees; they get the same offer for a contract renewal. (The crowd now puts down the pitchforks and torches).
Not long thereafter, some bright girl or boy, turns to their coworkers and sez: Jackson can't treat us like this, if we all stand together.
I think that most of that which you've written on this matter has been spot-on, but extracted this limited bit of that which you wrote as a jump-off point to express my belief that unions ain't going away.
TomR
I don’t think they will fully go away (the publics) but I do think they’ll be by necessity pulled back towards their reason for being. They will be less of a politicized organization.
In regards to union breaking.... conservatives by and large do want to see the publics brought down a peg because of the dynamic described earlier. For the privates, that’s more of a “US Chamber of Commerce” thing than a movement conservative thing. Just my opinion on that. But I don’t find conservatives getting bent about IBEW the way they do about AFSCME or whoever. That big inflatable rat is between the developer and the trades guys.
I’m going to brush up my decoding skills (Over here, the ‘ugly unions’ are CFMEU [I think I have that right], dockside workers, and the general ACTU, the national Trades Hall that generally talks for overall workers and to the Australian Labor Party)
I miss having people here, in my living room, with whom I can discuss these subjects. I grew up in a household that used to discuss them, in several languages, for several continents.
DaveSchmidt said:
ctrzaska said:The hitch is that federal law and, I believe, many states require that union contracts for public workers cover non-members, too. If you don’t join, you still get the negotiated benefits, meaning the incentive you mention is nonexistent.
DaveSchmidt said:If unions are adept at winning over the best contracts for their members, those not in the union and thus less-well-served would logically conclude that they’re better served being part of one.
What happens if the union wants to choose not to be the sole bargaining agent for workers who don’t pay dues, because it can’t be forced to spend money to support speech that pits it against itself?
I assumed we were talking in hypotheticals. Unions can’t technically decide not to represent others (be the sole bargaining agent) if the end result is that they are anyway.
DaveSchmidt said:
ctrzaska said:The hitch is that federal law and, I believe, many states require that union contracts for public workers cover non-members, too. If you don’t join, you still get the negotiated benefits, meaning the incentive you mention is nonexistent.
DaveSchmidt said:If unions are adept at winning over the best contracts for their members, those not in the union and thus less-well-served would logically conclude that they’re better served being part of one.
What happens if the union wants to choose not to be the sole bargaining agent for workers who don’t pay dues, because it can’t be forced to spend money to support speech that pits it against itself?
Non-existent until the union collapses due to lack of membership.
ctrzaska said:
DaveSchmidt said:I assumed we were talking in hypotheticals. Unions can’t technically decide not to represent others (be the sole bargaining agent) if the end result is that they are anyway.
ctrzaska said:The hitch is that federal law and, I believe, many states require that union contracts for public workers cover non-members, too. If you don’t join, you still get the negotiated benefits, meaning the incentive you mention is nonexistent.
If unions are adept at winning over the best contracts for their members, those not in the union and thus less-well-served would logically conclude that they’re better served being part of one.
Ah, sorry. I wasn’t following. The assumption behind my hypothetical was that the newly abandoned employees would be very distressed to find themselves in that position and not walk but run back to the union, dues in hand, exposing the fallacy of their free-ridership.
That assumption could be a reflection of my personal bias, but enough colleagues of mine who were bumped from management jobs expressed such relief at returning to the rank-and-file — and its contract protections — that I’m pretty confident your hypo is a given.
yahooyahoo said:
Non-existent until the union collapses due to lack of membership.
See above. There’s a reason unions form in the first place. If a public worker can get the union-negotiated contract provisions without paying dues, it’s easy to see why he or she would go that route. But if it were “no dues, no union benefits,” you might be surprised by how many would turn right around and pay.
DaveSchmidt said:
yahooyahoo said:See above. There’s a reason unions form in the first place. If a public worker can get the union-negotiated contract provisions without paying dues, it’s easy to see why he or she would go that route. But if it were “no dues, no union benefits,” you might be surprised by how many would turn right around and pay.
Non-existent until the union collapses due to lack of membership.
I agree. The question is whether they will turn around and pay in time to keep the union viable.
Smedley said:
I think this is a well-articulated view on how this particular SCOTUS decision was a good one.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/06/im_an_njea_member_but_supreme_courts_unions_ruling.html
Having already misunderstood TomR and ctrzaska in this thread, I risk getting Cody D. Miller wrong, too, but it sounds like he pays about $21 a week in NJEA dues, if spread over a full year. (It wasn’t clear to me whether or not he was availing himself of a fair-share option, which would spare him from funding the political spending he objected to.) I pay $33 a week. Just noting as points of reference for the individual burden the Janus ruling is talking about.
I’m hoping I’m not pulling this discussion off-topic - if so, I’ll go take the discussion elsewhere as directed.
I’ve just read this article about Amazon buying Pillpack, so entering healthcare and medicine distribution. One of the things unions do, and do well (at least over here) is fight for workers compo, decent health care for ordinary citizens, a better health deal for working families (and those who retire injured through their work). Given Amazon’s agressive marketing and distribution, hows this going to affect the future of unionism??
joanne said:
I’m hoping I’m not pulling this discussion off-topic - if so, I’ll go take the discussion elsewhere as directed.
I’ve just read this article about Amazon buying Pillpack, so entering healthcare and medicine distribution. One of the things unions do, and do well (at least over here) is fight for workers compo, decent health care for ordinary citizens, a better health deal for working families (and those who retire injured through their work). Given Amazon’s agressive marketing and distribution, hows this going to affect the future of unionism??
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44646767
Amazon is doing other things on the health care front, so if the net effect is cheaper, more effective health care, than we all win, unions included.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/health/amazon-berkshire-hathaway-jpmorgan-atul-gawande.html
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:Having already misunderstood TomR and ctrzaska in this thread, I risk getting Cody D. Miller wrong, too, but it sounds like she pays about $21 a week in NJEA dues, if spread over a full year. (It wasn’t clear to me whether or not she was availing herself of a fair-share option, which would spare her from funding the political spending she objected to.) I pay $33 a week. Just noting as points of reference for the individual burden the Janus ruling is talking about.
I think this is a well-articulated view on how this particular SCOTUS decision was a good one.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/06/im_an_njea_member_but_supreme_courts_unions_ruling.html
I don't think the point is so much with the amount -- even if it's $0.01 per paycheck, why should someone be forced to fund a private organization.
As Cody D. Miller (who's a he not a she) says, "The point is: it's ours to decide how to spend, not a mandatory tax on our earnings."
Smedley said:
I don't think the point is so much with the amount -- even if it's $0.01 per paycheck, why should someone be forced to fund a private organization.
As Cody D. Miller (who's a he not a she) says, "The point is: it's ours to decide how to spend, not a mandatory tax on our earnings."
I knew I’d get Cody D. Miller wrong. Fixed, and thanks.
The primary answer to your question, I think, would be: Because the organization is obligated to conduct costly work on behalf of that someone. But whatever one’s POV, that post was not intended to make or counter an argument but simply to provide information.
drummerboy, thanks. Over here, you need appropriate qualifications to be able to do business in the health care sector, you can't just buy in. (I actually asked my BIL the same question, as he's a pharmacist and he said if the national legislation changes, Amazon could do it here but not til then). See, for instance, Ramsay Healthcare or Guild Pharmacies, BUPA etc - even if they sound familiar, they'll be run differently here.
Smedley said:
I don't think the point is so much with the amount -- even if it's $0.01 per paycheck, why should someone be forced to fund a private organization.
And since Janus was decided on free-speech grounds, another answer might be: The government already draws the line at free speech in requiring us, say, to pay taxes even if we oppose some of their uses.
In the workplace, the government also has leeway to limit free speech; public employees can’t just bad-mouth bosses, say, and claim the First Amendment automatically shields them. [ETA: I believe that union representation — an agreed-upon conduit for channeling that kind of speech — is part of the rationale that courts have used to uphold that leeway.]
The Kagan argument is that there’s no good reason to draw the line at fair-share fees and, to the contrary, good reasons not to, including: If Janus does end up crippling public unions and, without a negotiated procedure, a worker’s response to his grievances is to grouse and moan and otherwise protest them at the office, how far will the First Amendment protect him then?
Fair question, one I don't know the answer to.
I will say though that I don't think it will come to that, i.e. public unions being crippled and employees going without adequate representation. If it's moving in that direction I can't see how that case won't be made to the employees, most of whom would then pony up dues as necessary if they had opted out.
What this ruling should do IMO is shrink the trough that unions have been feeding from and shake out a lot of the corruption. For example, I hope for their sakes that the NJEA leaders have invested wisely, because their obscene salaries (14 officers made > $530k in 2016, according to NJ dot com) are going the way of the dodo bird.
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:I knew I’d get Cody D. Miller wrong. Fixed, and thanks.
I don't think the point is so much with the amount -- even if it's $0.01 per paycheck, why should someone be forced to fund a private organization.
As Cody D. Miller (who's a he not a she) says, "The point is: it's ours to decide how to spend, not a mandatory tax on our earnings."
The primary answer to your question, I think, would be: Because the organization is obligated to conduct costly work on behalf of that someone. But whatever one’s POV, that post was not intended to make or counter an argument but simply to provide information.
Unions are already allowed to charge non-members for any grievance work that they do on an employee's behalf. Supposedly, any worker who doesn't want to pay anything to the union expects to never have a grievance or is prepared to pay a per hour fee for work done on his/her behalf.
As for negotiations, unions don't charge by the size of a workplace. Union dues are the same for a workplace with 100 workers or 1,000. The fact that unions charge the same amount when the cost-per-worker is so much lower in the larger workplace tells you that what unions charge is divorced from the cost of negotiations.
Also, the people who don't want to pay anything to the union say again and again and again that they want to negotiate for themselves. They are not "free riders" but "compelled riders.
Alito alluded to this in his decision where he said that non-joiners have been "shanghaied" into the union.
"Petitioner strenuously objects to this free-rider label. He argues that he is not a free rider on a bus headed for a destination that he wishes to reach but is more like a person shanghaied for an unwanted voyage."
Also, unions don't enhance every employee's salary anyway.
If someone is a high-performer and/or has an in-demand skill set, the union provides no benefit (and might reduce salary). Early-career and short-career workers are disadvantaged in a different way.
So the idea that a worker must be forced to pay for negotiations that produce a contract that might even reduce their salary compared to self-negotiation seems "constitutionally infirm."
Runner_Guy said:
Unions are already allowed to charge non-members for any grievance work that they do on an employee's behalf. Supposedly, any worker who doesn't want to pay anything to the union expects to never have a grievance or is prepared to pay a per hour fee for work done on his/her behalf.
"Supposedly," or "theoretically"? Public unions remain sole bargaining representatives under federal and state laws, so in practical terms -- as I understand them -- they still must handle, and pick up the tab for, grievance work on behalf of nonpaying employees.
As for negotiations, unions don't charge by the size of a workplace. Union dues are the same for a workplace with 100 workers or 1,000. The fact that unions charge the same amount when the cost-per-worker is so much lower in the larger workplace tells you that what unions charge is divorced from the cost of negotiations.
Or it tells you that unions are collectives, that the costs are spread not only in the spirit of solidarity but also because it can be impossible and pointless to parse them per worker. One example: Gains negotiated at one workplace can set standards that other workplaces piggyback on during their own negotiations.
Also, the people who don't want to pay anything to the union say again and again and again that they want to negotiate for themselves. They are not "free riders" but "compelled riders.
They can say it again and again and again -- and even again -- without ever having to put their money where their mouths are, because they're going to keep receiving those benefits either way. You and I are free to take their assertions for whatever we think they're worth.
Also, unions don't enhance every employee's salary anyway.
If someone is a high-performer and/or has an in-demand skill set, the union provides no benefit (and might reduce salary).
"Provides no benefit" is inaccurate, in my experience. There are higher wage categories for those with in-demand skills. There are raises and merit bonuses for the high performers. There is extra pay for the go-getters who work overtime. There are job protections that help those high-performing go-getters keep a jealous or lousy supervisor from impeding their career. And while it's true that things like seniority rules may frustrate early-career and short-career workers -- only now, after nearly 30 years in a union, do I have Saturdays and Sundays off -- for me they paled in comparison with the safeguards that went with them.
I’m not saying there aren’t real beefs. If there were a way to put the go-it-alone preference of disgruntled public union workers to the test, we could see how it would all shake out. (Of course, if they want to try going it alone at a different employer, they can un-shanghai themselves that way.) Seems to me, however, that Janus leaves it up to only one side to prove itself, and then only after denting one of its biggest tools. If others see it differently, fair enough. Just beware the boogeymen.
Smedley said:
I will say though that I don't think it will come to that, i.e. public unions being crippled and employees going without adequate representation.
I loosely used the word "bluff" in an earlier comment. The claim that Janus threatens to doom public unions could be thought of as Kagan's bluff, and you (and Alito) are calling it. It does remain on open question.
DaveSchmidt said:
Runner_Guy said:"Supposedly," or "theoretically"? Public unions remain sole bargaining representatives under federal and state laws, so in practical terms -- as I understand them -- they still must handle, and pick up the tab for, grievance work on behalf of nonpaying employees.
Unions are already allowed to charge non-members for any grievance work that they do on an employee's behalf. Supposedly, any worker who doesn't want to pay anything to the union expects to never have a grievance or is prepared to pay a per hour fee for work done on his/her behalf.
Alito himself wrote in the Janus decision that it was legal for a union to charge a worker who pays nothing for a grievance procedure:
"There is precedent for such arrangements. Some States have laws providing that, if an employee with a religious objection to paying an agency fee “requests the [union] to use the grievance procedure or arbitration procedure on the employee’s behalf, the [union] is authorized to charge the employee for the reasonable cost of using such procedure.” E.g., Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §3546.3 (West 2010); cf. Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 5, §315/6(g) (2016). This more tailored alternative, if applied to other objectors, would prevent free ridership while imposing a lesser burden on First Amendment rights."
Also, in some states, like Illinois, unions have the right to sit in on and participate in, a grievance procedure of a non-member even if the non-member actively doesn't want the union there, since whatever settlement is reached could theoretically affect other workers.
Also, unions do not actually have to fight a grievance procedure even for a full-fledged union member. The union could decide that the worker's complaint has no merit or there is just no chance of success.
Unions aren't supposed to make this decision based on union membership status, but the decision to not fight a grievance is always a subjective one.
Runner_Guy said:
Alito himself wrote in the Janus decision that it was legal for a union to charge a worker who pays nothing for a grievance procedure:
"There is precedent for such arrangements. Some States have laws providing that, if an employee with a religious objection to paying an agency fee “requests the [union] to use the grievance procedure or arbitration procedure on the employee’s behalf, the [union] is authorized to charge the employee for the reasonable cost of using such procedure.” E.g., Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §3546.3 (West 2010); cf. Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 5, §315/6(g) (2016).
Legal if a state takes action to allow it, as New York recently did. Otherwise, theoretical, right? I don’t know how many other states have done so, if any, or what the law governing federal unions requires.
I hope we are ALL well aware that when we claim that everyone can negotiate salaries for themselves, we are saying that the playing field does NOT have to be level from the start. Women and minorities are routinely disadvantaged in individual negotiating sessions. Even just their names can deny them a seat at the initial interview table. So tell me again how the system would be more fair???? What is my one voice against the power of the status quo? How about if my boss doesn't like the fact that I'm a dyke? Or that my kid is an immigrant? Or that I'm not interested in his or her "friendly gestures." Of course he or she is usually not stupid enough to say these things aloud. If you think we live in a meritocracy I've got a few bridges to sell you. (Quick before they all get painted orange and renamed for the Emperor!) Does anyone remember why teachers and nurses needed to unionize in the first place?
DaveSchmidt said:
Runner_Guy said:Legal if a state takes action to allow it, as New York recently did. Otherwise, theoretical, right? I don’t know how many other states have done so, if any, or what the law governing federal unions requires.
Alito himself wrote in the Janus decision that it was legal for a union to charge a worker who pays nothing for a grievance procedure:
"There is precedent for such arrangements. Some States have laws providing that, if an employee with a religious objection to paying an agency fee “requests the [union] to use the grievance procedure or arbitration procedure on the employee’s behalf, the [union] is authorized to charge the employee for the reasonable cost of using such procedure.” E.g., Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §3546.3 (West 2010); cf. Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 5, §315/6(g) (2016).
Yes, I believe it would require state statute to allow unions to charge non-members for grievance work.
To get deeper into my opinion on mandatory fair share fees (if anyone cares), I think it would have been better if Congress or the states had tried more faithfully to implement Abood and established a stricter, more honest, more transparent way to assess chargeable versus non-chargeable expenses.
I don't know what the ceiling rate was in all union-security states, but in NJ it was 85% of full dues. The CWA actually did charge the full 85% rate. The NJEA charged 83%.
IMO, that 85% included a lot of expenses that don't directly relate to negotiations, including transfers to out-of-state "sister unions," the state organization's overhead, union magazines, litigation, high salaries for staff Ed Richardson reportedly makes over $1 million a year), lots of staff period (I've read that the NJEA has over 1000 employees) For many unions, a convention was a chargeable expense.
Because of the complexity and subjectivity of assessing chargeable versus non-chargeable expenses, it would have been better if states just capped agency fees at 50% of full union dues.
Unfortunately, we had a situation where Abood might have been a better ruling in theory than in practice and where dissenting union workers had to pay for a lot of ideological activity and or just bloat.
A decent compromise would have also been to only require workers to pay agency fees to the local and not the state and national unions. Unfortunately no side asked for this and instead they both pursued maximalist objectives.
Runner_Guy said:A decent compromise would have also been to only require workers to pay agency fees to the local and not the state and national unions. Unfortunately no side asked for this and instead they both pursued maximalist objectives.
What representative group was there on the other side for AFSCME to compromise with? And would that have prevented any other individual from filing the same case against another public union, with the same Supreme Court result? Overturning Abood was a goal of Alito’s. Given the court’s makeup, I doubt anything that unions did could have stopped him.
Smedley said:
I know a bit about the history of unions and I respect what they have accomplished. But I just think for the most part, in 2018, they are a vestige of the past.
Especially if you are a worker with an in-demand skillset.
On the other hand, NPR did a piece on the chicken plant in Albertville, AL where there was an influx of immigrant workers - some legal, some not - at the time the chicken industry was expanding rapidly.
I was left thinking, "what if the workers had a strong union"?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/us/immigration-attitudes-cnn-kff-poll/index.html
I agree -- that is the type of situation where a union can provide real value.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Our amazing driving nanny is available for work.
Apr 28, 2024 at 8:05am
-
(No Fees) Hire A Baby Nurse Here for Your New Borns! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(NO FEES) Hire A Fresh Energetic Nanny/ Housekeeper Here ! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(NO Fees) Hire Housekeepers Here! ( 732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(No Fees) Hire Home Health Aides Here! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
Summer Private Speech Therapist
Apr 26, 2024 at 9:12pm
-
Apr 26, 2024 at 1:58pm
-
(Classic Painting and Materials) Fair Prices. Spring and Summer Specials
Apr 25, 2024 at 5:14pm
Help Wanted
-
Part Time help for special needs young adult
Apr 27, 2024 at 4:43pm
-
Apr 25, 2024 at 6:15pm
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
If unions are adept at winning over the best contracts for their members, those not in the union and thus less-well-served would logically conclude that they’re better served being part of one.