U.S. Supreme Court rules against unions over non-member fees

[ducks]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-rules-against-unions-over-non-member-fees/ar-AAzeUTn?ocid=spartandhp

[boutons_deux]

Capital's War on (all) Labor, thanks to SCOTUS5 whores in robes

[ducks]

yeah how dare someone have a choice to pay their money to a union if they are not a member
you want them to force them to pay almost 600 to the union for what

[Chucho]

Capital's War on (all) Labor, thanks to SCOTUS5 whores in robes


Yes, because people should be forced to pay membership fees to groups they are not part of. Makes PERFECT sense, you Pinko Commie retard.

[Chucho]

Even ducks gets it. But again ducks is smarter than Boots by far.

[spurraider21]

the issue here is that they have overturned a 40 year old SCOTUS decision and didn't really give great grounds (imo) other than "we dont like it and it should have been this way all along"

typically, you observe precedent unless the landscape has changed so much that the current law is no longer workable. i dont think they really made a great showing... weakening stare decisis with this ruling imo.

and while its easy to say "im not in a union, why should i pay" you have to realize that by law unions are obligated to collectively bargain for all members of that employee class, union members AND nonmembers alike. so you are still getting the benefit of their collective bargaining. so as a result of today's ruling, imo there's going to have to be a follow-up ruling on antoher case that no longer mandates that a union must bargain with equal interest for all employees. and that's going to fuck over workers tbh

[boutons_deux]

union-hating free-riders SHOULD get excluded from the benefits that unions achieve

[spurraider21]

union-hating free-riders SHOULD get excluded from the benefits that unions achieve
that will be the inevitable result of this ruling... but then that makes the unions considerably weaker as they represent a much smaller piece of the pie. basically workers are going to get shit on completely because employers can just say "well we'll just negotiate with these unrepresented non-union workers isntead"

[boutons_deux]

Fruit of the Poison Tree

https://dawm7kda6y2v0.cloudfront.net/uploads/2017/04/[email protected]

There are plenty of others who can give you smarter and more knowledgable takes on the Janus decision.

It’s terrible.

As Justice Kagan says,

it’s weaponizing the First Amendment (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/elena-kagan-janus-dissent), a new interstate commerce clause, only for power rather than rights.

The only very mild saving grace in the Janus decision is that labor saw this coming a mile away and they’ve had time to prepare as much as possible.

There’s not a lot they can do but there are steps to mitigate the damage.

The decision itself is the purest form of right wing judicial activism

and

illegitimate because it relies on the corrupt appointment of Justice Gorsuch.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/fruit-of-the-poison-tree

[spurraider21]

the big issue here is how easily they seemed to decide to overrule precedent

[boutons_deux]

the big issue here is how easily they seemed to decide to overrule precedent

"money is speech" and "corporation are people with people rights" were much bigger, more corrosive, more corrupting and also overturned 100 years of stare decisis

the biggest is in Janus is :

illegitimate because it relies on the corrupt appointment of Justice Gorsuch.

... due to Bitch McC / Repugs stealing a SCOTUS appointment from Obama.

The Repugs respect absolutely NOTHING except power gained through money from the oligarchy

Amerca is fucked and unfuckable,

but if Kennedy retires and Repugs make the oligarchy SCOTUS5 into the oligarchy SCOTUS6, then really GAMEOVER,

esp when combined with Repugs filling 10s, 100s of federal judgeships with young (on the bench for 30+ years), incompetent, right wing extremist ideologues where 95% of rulings become law (ie, not going to or accepted by SCOTUS)

[spurraider21]

its really court of appeals judges that make law... not so much district court guys. their rulings are never mandatory authority

[boutons_deux]

Princeton Economists Find That Unions Had Historical Role In Helping Address Income Inequality

The rise in income inequality between skilled and unskilled workers since the 1970s might be due, at least in part, to a decline in union membership, Princeton University researchers have found.

Henry Farber (https://irs.princeton.edu/people/henry-farber), the Hughes-Rogers Professor of Economics (https://economics.princeton.edu/); Ilyana Kuziemko (https://scholar.princeton.edu/kuziemko), professor of economics; and Daniel Herbst, an economics graduate student, published the results of their study,

“Unions and Inequality Over the Twentieth Century: New Evidence from Survey Data,”

Among the study’s findings were that

unions consistently have provided workers with a 10- to 20-percent wage boost over their non-union counterparts over the past eight decades.

The researchers also discovered that when unions have expanded, whether at the national or state level, they

tended to draw in more unskilled workers and raise their relative wages, with significant impacts on inequality.
“What we’re simply trying to do in this study is to be able to say something systematic, historically, whether

there seems to have been an inverse relationship between unionization and inequality, so that when unions were strong, inequality tended to be lower,”

“A strong lesson is that when unions were strong and they were growing, they were organizing the less-skilled workers and raising their wages, and that tends to reduce inequality,”

https://scienceblog.com/501785/princeton-economists-find-that-unions-had-historical-role-in-helping-address-income-inequality/