Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 (owner, company, salary, claim)

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by TCROX

You are right jbgusa-- Janus was a huge SCOTUS decision and is a very powerful tool for taking union power away from politics- that's why the left wing is so upset about it - once employees realize how the unions are stealing from them and NOT making the country a better place- they will withhold the $$ PLUS it may indeed start encouraging misappropriation of funds criminal charges-- janus will take some time to gain speed,but, the impact is gonna be awesome!! More supreme court decisions coming!! Good point jbgusa!

Good points as well. This decision will stop the enforced funding of political propaganda.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Good points as well. This decision will stop the enforced funding of political propaganda.

Amen.

Now there is true Freedom of Association in government workforces nationally.

[Deserterer]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Good points as well. This decision will stop the enforced funding of political propaganda.

And now the wealthy employers won't have to worry as much about pesky unions and their workers wielding as much political clout, while the wealthy will still be wielding/buying their own.

[Lekrii]

Originally Posted by Deserterer

And now the wealthy employers won't have to worry as much about pesky unions and their workers wielding as much political clout, while the wealthy will still be wielding/buying their own.

If a person feels a union is truly best for their future, nothing is stopping them from supporting unions in political lobbying.

[Deserterer]

Originally Posted by Lekrii

If a person feels a union is truly best for their future, nothing is stopping them from supporting unions in political lobbying.

Do you mean with money? With weaker unions they are less likely to be able to do that

[Lekrii]

Originally Posted by Deserterer

Do you mean with money? With weaker unions they are less likely to be able to do that

So unions can't support themselves to the extent that they are effective, and the solution is to force people to give money?

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by Lekrii

So unions can't support themselves to the extent that they are effective, and the solution is to force people to give money?

Do attorneys work for free? Every organization needs money to operate.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

They fear competition

No, they understand the implications of workers being represented by three or four different unions. Do you realize how hard that would be to coordinate? What happens is a grievance results in a rule change, would that rule change apply to all workers or just those who are members of that union?

I think the answer to this will be legislative with states adopting a law like the one in Florida that provides for bargaining exclusivity for a union that has majority status, but does not require that union to represent non-members in the grievance procedure (Florida statutes 447.307 (b) and 447.401).

[Lekrii]

Originally Posted by treemoni

Do attorneys work for free? Every organization needs money to operate.

What does that have to do with what I said?

If unions can't be effective without forcing people who dislike them to give money, they might need to think about changing their business model.

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by Lekrii

What does that have to do with what I said?

Unions provide representational services, just like attorneys. Those services cost money. I think it's fair to ask for some type of fee, however minimal, if you benefit from their work.