I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say that ruling–which removed the requirement to pay union dues from part-time public employees working in private residences (ie. home healthcare aides)–muzzled public unions.
@Truist – I look at it as protecting workers from the Thugery, Violence, and anti-capitalism that Unions have been foisting on American Workers for years. The Muzzle doesn’t keep the Unions from having their say in the public forum. It keeps them from Savaging workers who would dare to work without the Union getting their cut and imposing work rules the workers don’t want.
Unions are necessary, but all too often, union leaders themselves develop a hubris, and like many corporate CEOs, easily succumb to the lure of big money, power and excessive benefits for themselves. They can corrupt the very concept, and validity of unions. Years ago, I worked under a union, and can relate many stories of their shennanigans.
@Sizeofpea – So let me make sure I understand your argument in favor of Unions being allowed to take money from non-members.
1) A group of people gets together and decides they are going to represent all workers within a given context: State, Shop, municipality, factory, etc.
2) They pool their resources to lobby for better wages, benefits, working conditions, etc. And for a long time were quite successful at doing so.
3) Now, along comes an individual that doesn’t feel the Union is representing their best interests and doesn’t want their money going to support thugs and crooks. But the Union wants to use laws they helped enact (political donations) to force that individual to support them anyway.
And the Supreme Court told them NO!!! You don’t have the right to take away the rights from others. Good for Scotus.
If Unions want to make a comeback in this country they should stop using their dues to support Criminals, Politicians, and Corrupt Union Bosses – And instead use it to grow grass roots support for their initiatives. Then they would get support from both Union and non-Union workers alike.
I understand that you support your Union and you probably think they have done right by you. But you also have to recognize the rights of others, who don’t agree with you, to not have to give your Union money just because of something it did in the past.
@Wolf – You treat Republicans as a monolithic group.
I, for one, would have treated such agreements in Silicon Valley as Collusion which is illegal.
Again, I don’t speak for all Republicans but most of them that I know and I want the Employer and the Employee to be able to engage in fair business practices that recognize both sides. And believe it or not, this can be done without a third non-government entity sticking their nose in and adding their unwanted politics to the mix.
If either group employer or employee feel that they being mistreated – they are welcome to bring an attorney to the table and the laws of the land.
ConserveGov about 10 years ago
^^^^ Typical liberal babbling about nonsense.Democrats love their forced union campaign bribes.
Boots at the Boar Premium Member about 10 years ago
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say that ruling–which removed the requirement to pay union dues from part-time public employees working in private residences (ie. home healthcare aides)–muzzled public unions.
Mephistopheles about 10 years ago
@Truist – I look at it as protecting workers from the Thugery, Violence, and anti-capitalism that Unions have been foisting on American Workers for years. The Muzzle doesn’t keep the Unions from having their say in the public forum. It keeps them from Savaging workers who would dare to work without the Union getting their cut and imposing work rules the workers don’t want.
This is one more blow for Free Enterprise.
This is a very apt cartoon.
moosemin about 10 years ago
Unions are necessary, but all too often, union leaders themselves develop a hubris, and like many corporate CEOs, easily succumb to the lure of big money, power and excessive benefits for themselves. They can corrupt the very concept, and validity of unions. Years ago, I worked under a union, and can relate many stories of their shennanigans.
Mephistopheles about 10 years ago
@Sizeofpea – So let me make sure I understand your argument in favor of Unions being allowed to take money from non-members.
1) A group of people gets together and decides they are going to represent all workers within a given context: State, Shop, municipality, factory, etc.
2) They pool their resources to lobby for better wages, benefits, working conditions, etc. And for a long time were quite successful at doing so.
3) Now, along comes an individual that doesn’t feel the Union is representing their best interests and doesn’t want their money going to support thugs and crooks. But the Union wants to use laws they helped enact (political donations) to force that individual to support them anyway.
And the Supreme Court told them NO!!! You don’t have the right to take away the rights from others. Good for Scotus.
If Unions want to make a comeback in this country they should stop using their dues to support Criminals, Politicians, and Corrupt Union Bosses – And instead use it to grow grass roots support for their initiatives. Then they would get support from both Union and non-Union workers alike.
I understand that you support your Union and you probably think they have done right by you. But you also have to recognize the rights of others, who don’t agree with you, to not have to give your Union money just because of something it did in the past.
Mephistopheles about 10 years ago
@Wolf – You treat Republicans as a monolithic group.
I, for one, would have treated such agreements in Silicon Valley as Collusion which is illegal.
Again, I don’t speak for all Republicans but most of them that I know and I want the Employer and the Employee to be able to engage in fair business practices that recognize both sides. And believe it or not, this can be done without a third non-government entity sticking their nose in and adding their unwanted politics to the mix.
If either group employer or employee feel that they being mistreated – they are welcome to bring an attorney to the table and the laws of the land.
cheetahqueen about 10 years ago
Agree wholeheartedly! Could not have said it better, myself!