Scotus hears Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association today

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Pretty big case - should public employees be forced to pay union dues even if they're not voluntary union-members?

I'm firmly in the "fuck no" camp (Shocking, right?)

Good backrounder

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/11/today-at-scotus-public-sector-unions-man

[xyzzy]

I'm Ok with her not having to pay dues as long as she doesn't accept any of the benefits that result from union negotiation

[Eric Ramon]

I'm firmly in the "pay 'em less" camp.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Sure - as long as the unions don't accept any benefits from contracts negotiated prior and so on and so on

That's the problem with the free rider issue - it doesn't exist in a vacuum

[Ken Olson]

And there's the crux of the problem...

[Ken Olson]

On 1/11/2016 1:28 PM, xyzzy wrote:

Plus, no representation to deal with adverse employer's actions.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Reasonably simple solution - just pay her less by the amount of annual dues

[Eric Ramon]

or....let's say the union negotiated $40 per hr. Pay her $20. Or whatever, up to the company to decide the amount.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Sure - she can negotiate her own scale, etc - was just looking for an easy and simple solution (I know, I know....)

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Unions IMO are THE Catch 22. Some level is necessary to offset poor
management practices but the pendulum swings too far both ways. I
would replace unions with profit sharing. And sharing would be based
on rank of the employee - cut and dried, no bias.

I don't think teachers and law enforcement people should unionize. Let
supply and demand solve the problem. Teachers unions are the reason
IMO that private schools are so successful.

My main problem with unions is that seniority trumps talent. No way I
would have ever worked in a place where people who had been there
longer couldn't be passed.

I respect the opinion of a couple of union people here so I am not
going to argue or debate

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:42:55 -0800 (PST), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>or....let's say the union negotiated $40 per hr. Pay her $20. Or whatever, up to the company to decide the amount.

$40 per hour plus profit sharing.

Hugh

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

She can then make her own deal with the school district, right?
And so can any other teacher that walks in off the street, eh?
I'm sure the union will be just peachy with that....

--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Then the school district can start hiring non-union teachers as much
as they want -- surely taxpayers will be looking for them to do that
so they can save money.

--
"I find that a great part of the information I have was acquired
by looking up something and finding something else on the way."
-- Franklin Pierce Adams

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:28:44 AM UTC-8, Eric Ramon wrote:

> I'm firmly in the "pay 'em less" camp.

No, you're firmly in the "why are we paying them at all?" camp.

IFYOFY.

Mike

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2016-01-11, Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you got rid of the unions you could pay them all *more* and get a
better value, because you wouldn't have to put up with the dead
weight in the "rubber room". When unions negotiate an essentially
"can't fire" policy, that deadwood ends up consuming salary/benefit
dollars.

That way better people make more, slugs make less. Just like it is in
the real world.

--
Life isn't fair, but it's good. -- Regina Brett

[Michael Press]

In article <8aaa7aab-17a4-4b94...@googlegroups.com>,

Fine with me, too. I prefer negotiating with my employer on my merits.

--
Michael Press

[shiite]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:28:13 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:

I'm OK with her having to pay dues as long as she is allowed to select political contribution recipients in a manner that is proportional to the others.

[Ken Olson]

The problem is that unions have been forced to bargain contracts that
freeloaders work under and also represent them at disciplinary hearings.
Even though the person paid no union dues.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

And people have been forced to pay for political speech they
didn't support.

As far as "representing them at disciplinary hearings", I wish
they wouldn't. That lets unfit workers suck up public funds. The
idea of a "rubber room" makes me literally ill.

--
Life is a long lesson in humility. -- James Barrie

[Ken Olson]

In MI, we had what's called an agency fee shop. You paid the costs of
representation, but not political action. By being against
representation at disciplinary hearings you must be assuming that the
only times that workers are put through the disciplinary process is when
there's just cause. Sadly, this isn't true. When the measures of job
performance are highly subjective, the field is ripe for management
abuse. That's what made me literally ill, as in literally throwing up.
Too often it isn't the worker that's unfit, it's supervision and
administration. Representation is a part of due process. Are you
against due process?

What do you mean by "rubber room"? Never heard the term in a
labor-management setting.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 01:34:43 -0500, Ken Olson <kol...@freedomnet.org>
wrote:

>The problem is that unions have been forced to bargain contracts that
>freeloaders work under and also represent them at disciplinary hearings.
>Even though the person paid no union dues.

I don't think a person should be required to pay union dues - it
should be his choice.

At the same time he should not benefit from union efforts if he
chooses not to be a part of the program.

When I was first hired it was for a position where that type of work
was unionized. I was going to refuse to join the union. Fortunately
the company offered a better position at the home office that was not
unionized before I started work.

I think fair play eliminates the need for a union, at least for those
who are capable of competing. Unfortunately fair play seems to be
rather elusive.

Hugh

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassignment_centers

Essentially a place to put misbehaving union members who cannot be fired, but cannot be entrusted to do their jobs.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

I don't argue that there can't be management abuse. But that fierce
overprotectiveness of most unions has swung the pendulum too far the
other way.

Amazing how other businesses seem to get along without unions.

> Too often it isn't the worker that's unfit, it's supervision and
> administration. Representation is a part of due process. Are you
> against due process?

I am against the total absence of firing as in rubber rooms and
federal government departments where you are more likely to die
on the job than be dismissed.

How is it that no one was fired from the IRS or VA in the past
couple of years with their scandals? I rest my case.

> What do you mean by "rubber room"? Never heard the term in a
> labor-management setting.

It is where teachers can't be fired but they aren't allowed to teach,
so they report to a room to do nothing all day. There are hundreds and
hundreds of such "employees" in New York and Los Angeles and Chicago.

--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:04:09 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> Too often it isn't the worker that's unfit, it's supervision and
>> administration. Representation is a part of due process. Are you
>> against due process?

Although I am as anti-union as it gets, it's the fault of owners and
management that they were ever created. One should not blame the
people for organizing. One can blame some of them for their tactics.
Poor practices bring equal and opposite reactions - both ways.

With the present situation Ken and I could never agree on a workable
solution (if there is one) but he appears to be very reasonable.
Between us we might be able to offend everyone.

Hugh

[agavi...@gmail.com]

She shouldn't have to pay and therefore shouldn't be able to use the union hall.

What tangible benefits do teachers/schools/students get from teachers unions?

[agavi...@gmail.com]

...as a taxpayer, I say she gets every benefit afforded teachers of her status/ability/etc. regardless of union membership.

[Michael Press]

In article <n726kq$53b$1...@dont-email.me>,

Unions are large and powerful.
They have a duty to contribute to the commonwealth.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article <569531be....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:04:09 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> >> Too often it isn't the worker that's unfit, it's supervision and
> >> administration. Representation is a part of due process. Are you
> >> against due process?
>
> Although I am as anti-union as it gets, it's the fault of owners and
> management that they were ever created. One should not blame the
> people for organizing. One can blame some of them for their tactics.
> Poor practices bring equal and opposite reactions - both ways.

"Hippies create police."

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:17:59 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

Tyrants, real or perceived, create protests. Liberals create violent
protests - that's overkill, not reaction.

Hugh

[Eric Ramon]

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:35:00 AM UTC-8, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ...as a taxpayer, I say she gets every benefit afforded teachers of her status/ability/etc. regardless of union membership.

I think it's likely that a business would make a show out of giving a good salary and good benefits to a non-union person, as long as it's one (or a few). I also think it's likely that in the long run if the non-union people became a sizable portion of the work force in shops that are currently unionized that we'd see workers' conditions get worse, showing why the unions were there in the first place.

Obviously, my opinion.

[Michael Press]

In article <56958051....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:17:59 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <569531be....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:04:09 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Too often it isn't the worker that's unfit, it's supervision and
> >> >> administration. Representation is a part of due process. Are you
> >> >> against due process?
> >>
> >> Although I am as anti-union as it gets, it's the fault of owners and
> >> management that they were ever created. One should not blame the
> >> people for organizing. One can blame some of them for their tactics.
> >> Poor practices bring equal and opposite reactions - both ways.
> >
> >"Hippies create police."
> >
> >--
> >Michael Press
>
> Tyrants, real or perceived, create protests. Liberals create violent
> protests - that's overkill, not reaction.
>

Never said otherwise.

--
Michael Press

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

She doesn't have to worry about getting a pregnancy inspection and being fired on the spot if she's preggers.

Because of a teacher's union.

How about they pay her at the same scale they pay private school teachers in her area? With the same shitty bennies of course. Bet she'd be paying those union dues before ya know it.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:38:43 -0800 (PST), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:35:00 AM UTC-8, the_andr...@yahoo.com wro=
>te:
>> ...as a taxpayer, I say she gets every benefit afforded teachers of her s=

>tatus/ability/etc. regardless of union membership.
>

>I think it's likely that a business would make a show out of giving a good =
>salary and good benefits to a non-union person, as long as it's one (or a f=
>ew). I also think it's likely that in the long run if the non-union people =
>became a sizable portion of the work force in shops that are currently unio=
>nized that we'd see workers' conditions get worse, showing why the unions w=

>ere there in the first place.
>
>Obviously, my opinion.

That does not appear to be the problem I see. The problem is that
union shops have poorer quality teachers than the private schools I
see. I see that in three states.

I see both sides in our family and I chaired the Board for more than
400 Eagle Scout candidates. Those from private schools or home-taught
were always the better candidates - with one exception who was public
and went to MIT.

Hugh

[agavi...@gmail.com]

> I think it's likely that a business would make a show out of giving a good salary
> and good benefits to a non-union person, as long as it's one (or a few). I also
> think it's likely that in the long run if the non-union people became a sizable portion
> of the work force in shops that are currently unionized that we'd see workers'
> conditions get worse, showing why the unions were there in the first place

All of the folks at my non-Union shop are make truck buckets of money with terrific benefits.

I think it has a lot to do with their skills being specialized and the requirement that employees maintain a high level of performance. People there tend to make an effort to make themselves valuable.

I always find it amusing that strikes seem to have some added element - violence, disruption, or some rule that the shop can't hire replacements. I wonder why that additional element is needed.

If a "scab" is taking someone's job at a lower rate or worse conditions, doesn't that alone define the market value?

[Ken Olson]

I believe in holding people accountable for their actions. Any system
that never allows for dismissal is ridiculous. Any system that allows
for arbitrary and capricious dismissal is equally ridiculous.

As Hugh said above, owners and management are the reason that unions
came into being. Equal and opposite reactions. If management creates a
situation where workers are treated unfairly, the workers will
eventually react and organize to correct the power imbalance. If
management creates a situation where workers are treated fairly and
compensated reasonably workers will be less inclined to organize.

Hugh, I honestly believe that we could come
up with a workable solution. Neither of us would likely like it.
Sometimes that's the best you can do.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:17:45 -0500, Ken Olson <kol...@freedomnet.org>
wrote:

>Hugh, I honestly believe that we could come
>up with a workable solution. Neither of us would likely like it.
>Sometimes that's the best you can do.

Neither liking it is the only solution that has a chance of working in
today's divided society.

My thoughts are essentially unworkable universally because people
gravitate to unfairness to gain an edge - and my thoughts depend on
fair play.

If I say much more someone will hand us a key to a room in Motel 6. I
wouldn't settle for less than a suite at the Ritz-Carleton, Kapalua,
Maui. You can have the suite across the hall. I assure you they are
nice - overlooking the ocean and the golf course.

Hugh