Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner campaign following Pritzker around with a toilet
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Rauner badly stumbles while trying to make some valid points
Posted in:
* Doug Finke…
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on public employee unions did not happen again on Tuesday.
Meeting for the second day this week, the court on Tuesday issued opinions in two more cases — including upholding President Donald Trump’s travel ban — but the highly anticipated Janus vs. AFSCME case was not among them. A final day of opinion releases is expected Wednesday. This is the final week of the Supreme Court’s current term.
No word yet on whether Gov. Rauner will stay in DC.
* While we wait, here’s Kristen McQueary…
It’s fitting that Mark Janus, the plaintiff behind a highly anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week, works for Illinois government. The union he sued is particularly influential in politics and policy here — with perilous outcomes for taxpayers.
The 200-page American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 contract exemplifies how the demands of public employee unions have grown extreme in Illinois government and why Janus got fed up. Overtime costs, seniority rules, a hyperactive grievance process, pay raises and step increases that far outpace the consumer price index, health care plans heavily subsidized by taxpayers, costly pensions and worker protections that keep bad employees on the job have soured the image of public employee unions. They’ve gone too far.
Several years ago, a supervisor at the Illinois Department of Revenue made the mistake of working extra hours to reduce a backlog of tax returns. AFSCME filed a grievance. Why? She had violated a clause in the union’s contract by doing “bargaining unit” work. The union also filed complaints against volunteers at veterans homes who were giving their time, for free, to answer phones and welcome visitors. They were intruding on union workers’ turf.
The grievances were upheld through an arbitration process in Illinois that favors unions, not management. Embedded in public employee union psyche, that process codifies inefficiency in government. It’s coveted.
And taxpayers are on the hook. The union advocates for tax hikes and government growth — last year’s 32 percent income tax hike and now a proposed graduated income tax — to shore up its strength to the detriment of Illinoisans en masse. All those years of unbalanced state budgets and shortchanged pension funds? AFSCME, an ally of the Democratic majority, was an enabler.
* John Kass…
As the government unions keep Boss Madigan in power, the Democrats with their clout have repaid the government unions many times over, with luxurious pension benefits and raises unheard of in the private sector.
The symbiosis has had an impact on public policy for decades, from those debilitating budget fights in Springfield, to the collapse of the state’s credit rating, to the giant multibillion-dollar hole in the government union pension fund.
Businesses flee to surrounding states, to Wisconsin, Indiana and elsewhere in the Midwest, and those businesses take good jobs with them.
And homeowners see property tax increases devour the equity of their homes, the tax increases going to pay for amazingly generous retirement benefits for teachers and administrators.
All of this is fiscally untenable and ethically corrupt, because the public is being played and the rules are stacked against them.
* Gerald Friedman…
Women, African Americans, and Latinos are much more likely to work in the public sector (apart from the police and corrections) than are white men, and are therefore much more likely to belong to public-sector unions. This is largely due to the large share of caring, teaching, and clerical jobs in the public sector—all jobs disproportionately held by women and by racial and ethnic minorities. Nearly 16% of all women are employed in the public sector, as are almost 12% of African-American workers and 8% of Hispanics, compared with barely 7% of white men. This concentration of women and minority workers means that the Janus case is particularly important to these workers.
* Dylan Matthews…
Shaun Richman, a veteran union organizer, warned in the Washington Post that a ruling against agency fees could require public employers to allow multiple unions to compete for workers, instead of dealing with just one. That could lead to greater union militancy and power as unions fall over each other to show they’re the most committed worker advocates.
* Eugene Volokh…
I don’t think there’s any First Amendment problem with compelled payments of union agency fees at all. The government can constitutionally require people to pay money to the government (in taxes), money that the government can then use for ideological purposes (e.g., supporting a war, opposing racism, promoting environmentalism, and so on). Likewise, the government can constitutionally require people to pay money to unions, money that the unions can then use for ideological purposes.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner campaign following Pritzker around with a toilet
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Rauner badly stumbles while trying to make some valid points
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
…allow multiple unions to compete.
This is one of the big problems I have. Whatever happened to United we stand. Divided we fall.
Comment by BlueDogDem Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:19 am
== a ruling against agency fees could require public employers to allow multiple unions to compete for workers, instead of dealing with just one. That could lead to greater union militancy and power as unions fall over each other to show they’re the most committed worker advocates.==
That actually sounds about right. Every other thing Bruce has tried not only hasnt worked as intended, but blew up in his face - no reason to believe it won’t happen with unions as well.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:23 am
As a local president, I really don’t have much of a problem if the Janus ruling goes against us if (and this is a big if) we also no longer have to represent them in grievances and other issues that take up a lot of my time.
Comment by G'Kar Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:24 am
===…and why Janus got fed up.===
So fed up that he….pocketed his union scale pay? If he was fed up, what did he do with all the extra money he earned? Donate it to charity? Flush it down the toilet? Roll it up and smoke it?
I am tired of hearing about how poor Mark Janus was so oppressed by his union scale pay.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:27 am
Unions aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.
Comment by Michael Westen Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:35 am
GKar- your IF is a bit delusional. Tune in tomorrow.
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:37 am
Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution and neither are airplanes or televisions
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:40 am
>>Unions aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.
Comment by Flapdoodle Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:42 am
Okay, that got cut off some how — “Unions aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.” — The inanity of this statement will keep me chuckling for quite a while.
Comment by Flapdoodle Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:43 am
unions can then use for ideological purposes.’
One problem here is that decent wages and benefits are considered politcal acts by Roberts and his followers. In reference to a different case, I heard Roberts argue that requesting mileage reimbursment is considered a political speech if you are a government employee (yes - that’s ridiculous to us who live and work in the real world).
I think its bizarre that this straw man case got this far given that Janus’s original complaint was that the union was mis-using his fees for political (ideological) purposes. The court will have to accept Janus’s willfull misunderstanding the separation of the AFSCME voluntary PEOPLE PAC and fair share representation fees. (Roberts is already there.)
If not for the tortured plutocrat logic of Janus, Roberts, and Rauner,
This could have been solved by an audit of the use of FS fees and should never been heard.
Comment by Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked Aready??) Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:45 am
===Likewise, the government can constitutionally require people to pay money to unions, money that the unions can then use for ideological purposes.===
You know, five minutes on Google would keep you from spreading right wing lies and propaganda. Unions are barred by federal law from using money from dues or fair share fees for political purposes.
The only money unions may, under the law, use for political lobbying is that which is *voluntarily donated* by members.
If you don’t know this, and did not take the time to check your facts, then you are lazy. If you did know this, but chose to write the falsehood anyway, then you are a liar.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:45 am
The Justices are probably waiting for the lanky guy in the wrinkled suit to quit pacing back and forth out front.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:48 am
=Unions aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.=
Breathable air and drinkable water aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Go Trump, Go Pruitt, Go Ruaner, Go Jaunus!
Comment by Excessively Blocked by Rich Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:50 am
==government can then use for ideological purposes==
Yeah, right now my money is being used to house small children that were separated from their parents at the border. I have a bigger problem with that myself.
Comment by HangingOn Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:51 am
Volokh loses me on the second part of his attempted analogy. Yes, we all pay taxes and some of it gets used on things we don’t like. Paying taxes to the government and being forced by government to pay a private entity doesn’t seem like apples to apples to me.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:51 am
Michael -Political parties aren’t mentioned in the constitution either.
Comment by Ike Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 10:59 am
So Mcqueary, why did Janus leave state employment in 1990 and then come back in 2007? It was union in 1990 and still union in 2007. Didn’t private industry give him enough benefits?
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:01 am
Thanks, McQ, i totally missed that the sole purpose of the 32% tax increase was to fund AFSCME./s. Silly me, i thought it went for education, health care, higher ed, etc.
Comment by Langhorne Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:02 am
Ron Burgundy- - you okay with drivers not being forced to carry auto liability insurance? We are required to carry it to protect other people against losing their shirts afdition to suffering injury and property damage at our hand. Common good.
As to the supervisor doing union wor: She’s getting paid to manage. I think that’s probably supposed to be a full time job.
One she’s probably neglecting to do others work. Plus- she’s probably not knowledgeable about all the ins and outs of said work either.
Comment by Thoughts Matter Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:06 am
Katrina calling unions “enablers” to unbalanced budgets is particularly hilarious.
Check out her lying apologetics for Rauner’s willful fiscal recklessness:
–So, there’s no better time than now to blow up some of the inaccurate and tiresome arguments you’ll hear from Democrats and Rauner’s critics on budget gridlock and how we got here. One of the naysayers’ favorite ways to shift blame for the state’s financial mess is to assert that Rauner never introduced legitimate, authentic, balanced budgets.
False, false and false.–
It goes on and on like that. Sad way to make a living, being a lying shill.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-rauner-balanced-budget-democrats-perspec-1125-20161123-story.html
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:08 am
Thinkin’ the SCOTUS heard GovJunk was plannin’ a big presser to talk about his great victory and they are rewritin’ the opinion.
Skip the Katrina piece big waste of space. Hope non union workers don’t lose too much if Janus goes GovJunk’s way
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:08 am
–Unions aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.–
I bet there’s a point there somewhere, struggling to get out. I wonder what it is?
Are you going to prepare the full list of entities that “aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution?”
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:11 am
The upside is that Rauner is earning a lot of hotel rewards points towards a free night’s stay. That’s fiscal responsibility right there.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:12 am
@ Nick Name
They can still use dues to support soft money expenditures and issue advocacy.
Comment by California Guy Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:20 am
“Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution and neither are airplanes or televisions
Union dues were compared with taxes. Taxes are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Unions and their dues are not. Not only aren’t televisions mentioned in the Constitution, they also weren’t mentioned in this post, so not sure to what you were referring.
Comment by Michael Westen Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:22 am
Janus got fed up… with pay raises and step increases that far outpace the consumer price index? Really? He doesn’t want the benefits?
This’ll fix it:
Next Supreme Court case:
Nondue-paying members get no raises, healthcare, or representation - individually negotiate your own pay and benefits.
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:30 am
“in order to form a more perfect union” us constitution
Comment by Rabid Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:31 am
“The symbiosis has had an impact on public policy for decades, from those debilitating budget fights in Springfield, to the collapse of the state’s credit rating, to the giant multibillion-dollar hole in the government union pension fund.”
Kass for the win.
Do we get to quit being the enablers for the highest paid state workers in the country, now?
Comment by anonymous Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:32 am
The citizens of Illinois have ideas and views on how much tax money should be spent on public sector employees’ salaries/benefits, as well as the protections public sector employees have from being fired for lousy performance. AFSCME lobbying advances a particular political view on those matters with which many public employees, and many citizen disagree.
Comment by Texas Red Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:35 am
1) perfidious McQueary and Kass are apologeticists for the 1%. They don’t want employees banding together for protection from Rauner and other corporatists. It’s perfidy because they are drumming up resentment and envy, falsely blaming public employees like teachers, fire and police, DHS/DCFS caseworkers, etc for problems caused by Rauner.
The hostage/budget crisis caused by Rauner is the cause, not workers. That is the perfidy
It’s like Trump blaming immigrants.
Villainization via perfidy
But to the post
I think the opinion, most likely written by Alito
Will eliminate sole representation
And thus we will have multiple unions
Competing for members
By being more militant. I think Richmsn is right.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:41 am
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…..
Comment by Tom Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:43 am
G’Kar…. on the representation issue should the ruling go against ASFCME. That is not what I’ve been told by the council. They intend to keep the job titles exclusivity rights. To do this they must represent the free riders….
Comment by Steward As Well.... Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:45 am
– Not only aren’t televisions mentioned in the Constitution, they also weren’t mentioned in this post, so not sure to what you were referring.–
Obviously, it’s a reference your ding-dong original post about “unions not even mentioned in the Constitution.”
Again, how’s that list coming of things not mentioned in the Constitution that have been subject to courts’ rulings on Constitutional questions?
Pretty extensive so far, I bet.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:46 am
Why will Janus prevailing do away with the exclusive representation issue. You will not impact bargaining units- just membership. If WS is a model- membership will be down by more then 50 percent in 12 months if not more. The WEA lost 70 percent of its staff
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:47 am
@ Texas Red
=as well as the protections public sector employees have from being fired for lousy performance.=
Isn’t that what you hire high-dollar managers for? Please cite in any agreement where an employee can’t get fired for the inability to perform the job. It doesn’t exist.
Hang up the tired argument for blaming mismanagement on unions. Be honest - It’s the due process you have a problem with…
Comment by Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked again?) Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:47 am
Last I checked, Hurricane McQueary and Moutza Kass were members of the newly formed Chicago Tribune Guild. How do they reconcile union benefits for themselves and not for others?
Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 11:59 am
Are Illinois state workers the highest paid?
http://www.sj-r.com/opinion/20170422/bernard-schoenburg-state-workers-highest-paid-look-at-stats
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:01 pm
Looking forward to the massive protest by Illinois taxpayers to show support for AFSCME and their horrible loss of cash flow to fund their powerful political machine. /s
Comment by anonymous Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:02 pm
Union workers pay taxes
Comment by Ike Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:10 pm
= Steward As Well=–I know that we still have to represent them unless congress changes the law . . .
Comment by G'Kar Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:20 pm
“…a ruling against agency fees could require public employers to allow multiple unions to compete for workers…”
I would love to see my school district have to deal with the Teamsters.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:22 pm
If the unions lose, won’t they have less political influence, Kennedy asked David Frederick, representing the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Illinois affiliate. Yes, Frederick said.
“Isn’t that the end of this case?” Kennedy replied.
Seems pretty cut and dry…
Comment by Pinkerton Detective Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:33 pm
Texas Red- articles II and IX on Management Rights and Discipline clearly and precisely lay out how a poor performing employee can be fired.
It’s all laid out in the contract that AFSCME and the State negotiated and signed.
The only “protections” or “rules” that you refer too are that “discipline must be progressive” ( with a few exceptions like workplace violence or sexual harassment).
TR I’m looking right now at lunch over an action plan from supervisor of an employee who is “trending downward”. The employee may not make it out of trainee status. This is well documented. Manage rights dictate that the boss gets to decide how what when where and why we work. Unless there is some kind of discrimination that can be proven, my union sister is going to have to follow the action plan to get the letter. As steward I’m going to do my best to smooth things out, get the supervisor out of attack mode and get my sister to straighten up and fly right.
Hopefully that will retain a good employee and set a solid relationship.
That’s much better given how much was invested in her than just firing her like the private sector.
I was forced to resign once because I was critical of the boss and it got back to him.
Regardless, the only thing usually protecting an employee is managements laziness, inefficiency and largesse in documenting and following negotiated procedure
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:41 pm
Link below to a long read-discussion among three union experts, including Shaun Richman. In addition to the possibility of multiple unions competing for members in a single workplace, there’s also a distinct possibility that the strike as standard labor tactic will return. At the end of the piece, it’s worth noting that one of the discussants mentions the need for global-level, corporate-wide level, and industry-wide level organizing in future.
If the decision comes down as most observers are anticipating (with majority opinion by Alito, dissent possibly by Ginsberg, who may have reserved it for herself as senior dissenting Justice), it will usher in a new era of labor unrest, and may end up being a case of “Be careful what you wish for” for the anti-union, anti-labor activists.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21168/janus_unions_exclusive_representation_labor_right_to_work_supreme_court
Comment by dbk Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:48 pm
I primarily have pro-union sympathies. Unions are why middle class people have good medical plans, livable wages, safe work environments, weekends off and secure retirements. But I don’t believe that a person should be forced to join a union such as AFSCME or even CTU as a condition for employment. A person should be hired because they meet the skill and experience requirements of the job they applied for. I can see an argument for a trades union where a union such as the Carpenter can attest to a person’s qualifications by declaring that person a journeyman or an apprentice, but why should union membership be considered a condition for employment for say a teacher. Teachers need to possess a bachelor’s degree and a state certificate, both credentials that can be substantiated by transcripts. Union membership does not validate any skills. Therefore, to me, forcing a person to join say CTU in order to be employed at a public school does seem to force a person into something that should strictly be optional.
Comment by Groucho Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:50 pm
Thanks Tiny Dancer(FKASue) for the link. Too much rhetoric being thrown around. McQueary mentions overtime at the top of her list. The article points out that Illinois lost 20K employees in 16 years.(2nd lowest per capita number of state workers in the nation). Who decides not to hire new employees for the work that needs to be done? Not the employees. And often overtime is mandatory.
Also in the statics, are over 52K (a little less than half of all state employees) college and university workers, many who are highly educated and would command higher wages even if they weren’t state workers. How do you compare this with all the people in Illnois?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 12:57 pm
Facebook isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, but I think Harley Davidsons are.
Comment by Wallinger Dickus Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 1:02 pm
==and many citizen disagree.==
Lucky for you, you have a say in what the state does with unions when you vote for the Governor every four years. Don’t like the deals? Find a candidate that agrees with you.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 1:05 pm
State pensions preceded public sector unions. Kass and McQueery are delusional blaming ‘government union pension’ debt is the fault of unions.
Comment by Dublin Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 1:17 pm
“Nearly 16% of all women are employed in the public sector, as are almost 12% of African-American workers and 8% of Hispanics, compared with barely 7% of white men. This concentration of women and minority workers means that the Janus case is particularly important to these workers.”
The people who are anti-union are primarily among the most privileged and wealthy, and Caucasian-American. Where is the big anti-union push from African-Americans, Latinos and others who do not fit the characteristics of Rauner and those who support Janus?
Rauner claims he’s done more than any governor for African-Americans, but he is trying to break apart one of the vehicles that have helped so many get a better life through government jobs. Bruce Rauner and his allies are economic racists, who want Jim Crow and a double standard for public employees to be RtW employees in full-union states.
Bruce Rauner got rich off of the blood, sweat and tears of public employee unions, through pensions. Please don’t be fooled that he’s some kind of conservative. He’s been right there, “breaking the system” for decades, with the people he wants to bust apart. This is the worst part, the hypocrisy.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 1:35 pm
@Demoralized
“Lucky for you, you have a say in what the state does with unions when you vote for the Governor every four years.”
It is about free speech and freedom of assembly and how public sector unions abuse those freedoms. For those of us lucky enough to be Citizens of the United States the Bill of Rights enshrine and guarantees our inalienable rights, these need not be sanctified by any election.
Comment by Texas Red Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 1:54 pm
“Unions aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution”
This is perfect - you can almost hear the hiccup before he says it
Comment by pc Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 2:20 pm
@ Groucho. No one is forced to join a union. Janus is asked only to pay his fair share of the costs which the union incurred in negotiating a contract from which he receives benefits. The fair share law is about curbing free-loaders, not about compelling membership.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 2:37 pm
So exactly how do unions abuse freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 2:40 pm
Seems to me the member. Or non member is basically paying for a service from the union
What’s so difficult about that
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 2:54 pm
–Seems to me the member. Or non member is basically paying for a service from the union–
Rauner is consistent on that front.
His entire private and public sector records were built on not paying for goods and services delivered.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 2:58 pm
–..the Bill of Rights enshrine and guarantees our inalienable rights, these need not be sanctified by any election.–
Woof, that’s quite a stew of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and old-timey religion you chucked at the wall there.
But unless you’re in a theocracy, elections don’t “sanctify” anything. Same with the “enshrinement” of anything that not only is subject to changing interpretations, but amendment through democratic process.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 3:06 pm
If paying fair share dues to a union is not required, then no benefits of that union should be extended to the employee. No representation in a work action, no benefit of union negotiatied salary increases and certainly no legal protection in event of a lawsuit against that employee. Sounds very fair to me.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 3:14 pm
@HB
“So exactly how do unions abuse freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?”
I’ll let Gorsuch and team expound on that tomorrow !
Comment by Texas Red Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 3:27 pm
==no benefit of union negotiated salary increases ==
Who says he or she cannot get more?
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 3:45 pm
==It is about free speech and freedom of assembly==
Though the Court is likely to disagree with me, I think it’s absolute nonsense to suggest that anyone’s free speech or free assembly rights are being violated. Nobody is forced to take a job that is included in a bargaining unit.
==sanctified by any election.==
You do know elections are how we go about the task of governing right? We elect people to represent us.
==For those of us lucky enough to be Citizens of the United States==
And, by the way, you don’t have to be a citizen to be protected by the Constitution. Just FYI
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 3:46 pm
==Who says he or she cannot get more?==
lol. You go with that.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 3:48 pm
==I’ll let Gorsuch and team expound on that tomorrow==
Warren Berger already expounded on that for Abood versus Detroit Board of Education. It was an unanimous decision.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 4:07 pm
Demo (can I call you Demo?) - So a male union member and a female non-union member are in the same role/position doing the same job with the same job rating. The female is going to be paid less?
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 4:15 pm
City Zen- probably not initially. As a matter of fact that the non union may get higher to cause more defections. Once the union is busted then they could simply drop it to whatever they want. there would be mothingvyo stop them. No grievance process and no way out
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 4:27 pm
city
Maybe they can get better without the union, that’s great, that’s wonderful - more power to them
that’s not the point - if the union if FORCED to provide a service for an individual that individual should have to pay for it.
My union dues should not be used to pay for the services of others who are not willing to pay for themselves.
Comment by nick Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 5:20 pm
==if the union if FORCED to provide a service for an individual that individual should have to pay for it.==
Unions are forced only because they have exclusive representation rights. The cost of being forced to represent everyone is minuscule compared to the benefit of having a monopoly on all representation rights.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 9:28 pm
Declared objector pays their fair share to a charity
Comment by Rabid Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:59 am
Keep the Retirees in the union with a reduced membership
Comment by Rabid Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:05 am
Employers of noncitizens are also “ethically corrupt”. Each “migrant” costs the taxpayers of the State of Illinois $10,000/year. To educate, medicate and incarcerate.
Comment by John 56 Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 6:19 am
City
Are you suggesting that there should be multiple unions to choose from
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 8:01 am