Man do you have it backwards. When these people stop having their wages stolen by unions... ...they'll actually be taking home more of their own money... ...thus raising their income. Besides lowering income is a goal of the Democratic Party; the permanent underclass.
If someone is doing their job poorly, that's not the fault of the union. They didn't hire the employee, the employer did and it would appear that whoever hired the poorly performing employee didn't do their job properly. The union gets stuck representing the employee otherwise the union can be sued by the member for failure to represent. If there is extortion as you claim, that is illegal. Why haven't you and/or the airline executives demanded the arrest of those responsible for committing crimes? Why are those who struggled hired in the first place? If you own a company, don't you only want to hire top performing people? In a uptopian society that might work; however given that airline executives could conspire to keep pay rates at a pre-determined level, the employees would get screwed out of a living wage. The fact of the matter is that workers are entitled to have certain rights in the workplace and bargain collectively for their wages, terms and conditions of employment. No one forces the companies to agree to the demands of the the unionized employees; if there demands were so horrible and unfair, then why would the company agree to them in the first place??
It's about time that got overturned. Public sector unions don't own the government and the SCOTUS should uphold freedom of association.
It's quite possible that SCOTUS might believe that people have a right to work for less and no rights in the workplace. Management just love people with your mindset.
How utterly disingenuous. It's not up to the SCOTUS to dictate wages and it's not even remotely possible that the court will rule that people have no rights in the workplace. What's possible is that the court will uphold freedom of association, which is certainly going to upset rights-repressive union members who want to deprive people of that freedom for their own benefit.
Haha they already don't have to join a union or association by federal law. The Taft-Hartley Act saw to that. try again.
They don't in right-to-work (right-to-starve) states. Each state decides how they want to approach union membership; it's the american way in case you didn't notice . Some states believe in rights in the workplace; others don't hence you have people living in poverty, but that's the mentality in those RTW states.
I know - thankfully, I live in a RTW state and people aren't starving because of it and they aren't being stripped of their rights in the workplace. Unions are just being deprived of imposing their will and dues on others. Freedom - it's the American way. We'll see how the court rules. In case you didn't notice states don't get to decide they can violate the civil rights of American citizens. Nor should freedom-hating unions who are only interested in lining their own pockets at other workers' expense
Strawman. Having to work under a union contract only held down my wages and advancement with its "deal".
And I support peoples right to choose to work for less. After all like you said "Freedom - it's the American way." If the employees feel that the union is freedom-hating as you maintain, then they can always decertify the union. Why haven't they done that en mass? Why do people still continue to organize and join unions if they are so bad as you maintain? Hmmmm...yes that's a good question. Could it be that they want rights in the workplace?
They can choose to work for more, and more is what they'll be earning without having to pay the extortionists in freedom-hating unions. Union membership is down - big time. Have you asked yourself why?
My sister is a teacher and a big progressive, but she hates the teacher's union and thinks the Democrats have destroyed the profession.
Under the first amendment she is certainly entitled to her opinion. I would think if she hates the teachers union so much, she'd either run for office in the union and change things to her liking or push for desertification of the union. That's one of the problems in this country; people whine about how bad things are, yet they don't want to work to change them. They are a part of the problem and not part of the solution. I think people like that have helped to destroy their professions.
MG, I've always liked you and thought you were a good guy, so I don't want to see you lose your job. But public sector unions really aren't needed. Worst of all, the people who negotiate public sector union contracts don't have to answer to stock holders or consider company profitability, they have no stake in the game. In return for their votes, politicians who approve of lucrative union contracts make the taxpayers responsible for adhering to them. It's not fair.
Steve, then it would appear that the politicians are culpable as well since they influence the school administrators when it comes to contract time; how do you propose that we reign in the politicians??
There's a difference between public and private sector unions. And intelligent people wouldn't need a union, they'd know their best route to job security is not seniority but providing an employer with a service he's willing to pay good money for. Are you in a union? If you owned a business would you want your employees to unionize?
