What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
lauriandres said:
Colton, what are the worse top3 laws in history of USA, that were activated thanks to the combination of bad lawmakers and bad group of SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

I'm not really qualified to answer that, but here's a website list that you should find interesting: https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/10/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time.html

Am i correct that the only way to abolish bad laws approved by SCOTUS is to replace all SCOTUS members with better ones?
Click to expand...

That's the main way. The only other way would be to pass a new amendment to the Constitution.

By the way, where are you from? From the questions, I assume it's not the U.S.
 
Interesting to me the correlation between the Janus decision and the Citizens United decision (wasn't Kennedy the author of that?) - - perhaps if that decision had gone the other way, and corporations and unions were not granted the same Freedom of Speech protections for their political spending, the Janus situation would not have become such an issue.
 
One Brow said:
Are you familiar with the issues engendered by free-riders?
Click to expand...
Yes. I work in a right to work state and belong to a union.

Now that free-riders might put the union itself in jeopardy of existing those free-riders can decide if taking a free ride is worth losing their union over. So, ultimately, if this is the death of the union the free ride is over, right?
 
Eminence said:
From my understanding public sector unions are required to offer their services to non-members as well as members. Seems like it was 'unfair' both ways to me before the ruling in a way that somewhat balanced out. Now it seems like a way to hamstring unions, as they're legally required to offer their service, but aren't allowed to require payments.
Click to expand...
What if the people not paying don't want the services of the union? Wish that they worked in a non-union environment? Think that the union isn't getting them anything more than they would get without the union?
 
Bulletproof said:
What if the people not paying don't want the services of the union? Wish that they worked in a non-union environment? Think that the union isn't getting them anything more than they would get without the union?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter? The Union is required to do so, it's state law in most places (I believe originally stemming from racism in letting members join the unions).

I guess the Unions should probably take it to court and try to change it to not be required to represent them I suppose, but as it is with this decision it's incredibly one sided.
 
Eminence said:
It doesn't matter? The Union is required to do so, it's state law in most places (I believe originally stemming from racism in letting members join the unions).

I guess the Unions should probably take it to court and try to change it to not be required to represent them I suppose, but as it is with this decision it's incredibly one sided.
Click to expand...

So they should be forced to pay money to something they don’t agree with, don’t belong to, and don’t support?

Furthermore, that money goes to political contributions that they may not agree with. If 90% of the political contributions that unions made went to the Republican Party rather than the Democrat Party, I can guarantee you people like Thriller would have a big problem with that. I, and everybody else, have the right to not see our money spent that way if we don’t want it to.

Maybe rather than forcing people to pay, unions will have to earn their pay by providing the best service there is. And even if they do, there will be a few leechers, and hanger-ons, just like there are in every service. That doesn’t override the people’s right to free speech though.
 
Eminence said:
It doesn't matter? The Union is required to do so, it's state law in most places (I believe originally stemming from racism in letting members join the unions).

I guess the Unions should probably take it to court and try to change it to not be required to represent them I suppose, but as it is with this decision it's incredibly one sided.
Click to expand...
I completely understand what you're saying, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

People who work in job covered by a collective bargaining agreement (aka, a union) are bound to that union even if they would prefer there be no union in their workplace. Even if they wish they could negotiate directly with management and deal with other issues on an individual basis.

I think you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union. Working in a union workplace and being represented by an incompetent union, I can tell you that I would have better pay, better shift flexibility and a better work/life balance if my garbage *** union wasn't there.

My union represents primarily unskilled labor. I am in a skilled labor field that has a pretty significant shortage of skilled people qualified to work with the automated systems that are becoming more and more common every day. The people in my field make up a very small portion of the overall hourly workforce at my workplace. The union is all but hostile to us. When they find out the managers are working with our schedules for the benefit of everyone and the harm of no one they shut that **** down. When market forces should drive our wages up they actually refused to allow the company to increase just our wages on the last contract, demanding that entry level inexperienced forklift drivers needed to have a pay increase if the mechanics were going to get a pay increase. When the company refused to give the forklift drivers a pay increase, the union said then they wouldn't agree to mechanics getting a pay increase. There were no strings attached, the company just wanted to adjust our wages to be competitive so that they could attract employees. I've worked at the place I'm at for about five years and they have never had full staff in my department.

I've also worked in non-union places and the work environment was better. The pay was just as good. Raises were better. Benefits were better. There was more flexibility.

I don't want my stupid *** union to represent me. I want them to go away.
 
Bulletproof said:
I completely understand what you're saying, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

People who work in job covered by a collective bargaining agreement (aka, a union) are bound to that union even if they would prefer there be no union in their workplace. Even if they wish they could negotiate directly with management and deal with other issues on an individual basis.

I think you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union. Working in a union workplace and being represented by an incompetent union, I can tell you that I would have better pay, better shift flexibility and a better work/life balance if my garbage *** union wasn't there.

My union represents primarily unskilled labor. I am in a skilled labor field that has a pretty significant shortage of skilled people qualified to work with the automated systems that are becoming more and more common every day. The people in my field make up a very small portion of the overall hourly workforce at my workplace. The union is all but hostile to us. When they find out the managers are working with our schedules for the benefit of everyone and the harm of no one they shut that **** down. When market forces should drive our wages up they actually refused to allow the company to increase just our wages on the last contract, demanding that entry level inexperienced forklift drivers needed to have a pay increase if the mechanics were going to get a pay increase. When the company refused to give the forklift drivers a pay increase, the union said then they wouldn't agree to mechanics getting a pay increase. There were no strings attached, the company just wanted to adjust our wages to be competitive so that they could attract employees. I've worked at the place I'm at for about five years and they have never had full staff in my department.

I've also worked in non-union places and the work environment was better. The pay was just as good. Raises were better. Benefits were better. There was more flexibility.

I don't want my stupid *** union to represent me. I want them to go away.
Click to expand...
You know I love ya and I don't want you to take this the wrong way but it sounds like you should go where the work environment is better, benefits are better, flexibility is better and raises are better and you get treated better.
Why are you staying in the worse place rather than the better places?
 
I like my job, the people I work with and things in general. I want everyone to get the most pay and best situation possible. I don't think our incompetent union helps any of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top