SCOTUS: Public Unions Can’t Force Fees on Non-Members; Massive loss for US Public Sector Unions

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 3:17 PM GMT
    http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202661307816/Supreme-Court-Unions-Cant-Charge-Fees-to-Certain-NonMembers
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2014 2:08 AM GMT
    Workers handed a victory over unions
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/06/30/supreme-court-workers-rights-unions-seiu-column/10892679/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2014 6:41 PM GMT
    Union leaders having a hard time talking about Harris v. Quinn
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/union-leaders-having-a-hard-time-talking-about-harris-v.-quinn/article/2550496
    Reactions from Big Labor leaders and the progressive left to the Supreme Court's Harris v. Quinn ruling Monday were constrained by their inability to directly address the facts in the case.

    After all, it's not easy to make to a convincing argument that labor organizations should have the right to extract money directly from the paychecks of people who don't want to be union members in the first place, which is ultimately what Harris v. Quinn was about.

    As a result, the responses to the ruling from people like AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry and Center For American Progress President Neera Tanden all claimed the decision was a blow for working families without ever mentioning that the plaintiffs in the case were eight people from working families that just didn't see a need to be in a union.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 06, 2014 7:02 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidUnion leaders having a hard time talking about Harris v. Quinn
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/union-leaders-having-a-hard-time-talking-about-harris-v.-quinn/article/2550496
    Reactions from Big Labor leaders and the progressive left to the Supreme Court's Harris v. Quinn ruling Monday were constrained by their inability to directly address the facts in the case.

    After all, it's not easy to make to a convincing argument that labor organizations should have the right to extract money directly from the paychecks of people who don't want to be union members in the first place, which is ultimately what Harris v. Quinn was about.

    As a result, the responses to the ruling from people like AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry and Center For American Progress President Neera Tanden all claimed the decision was a blow for working families without ever mentioning that the plaintiffs in the case were eight people from working families that just didn't see a need to be in a union.


    Did those working families ever see a need to benefit from the gains to them brought about by the collective bargaining of the union? Yes.
  • carew28

    Posts: 661

    Jul 06, 2014 7:11 PM GMT
    This is not a good thing. Benefits like vacation time, sick-leave, longevity step raises, protection from arbitrary layoffs, etc. are all supported by unions. Years ago, the 40 hour work week, and overtime pay, were put into place by unions. For the sake of keeping a few hundred dollars annually, some workers are now opposed to joining unions, though I think the vast majority do support unions. In order to be fair, unions do have to be able to charge an agency-fee to workers who are covered by the contract, but don't pay the membership fee. This court-decision, if it goes into effect, will impair employees ability to collectively bargain with their employers. I hope it's overturned.

    If not, the fair thing to do would be to exclude from the employer-union contract those employees who are unwilling to pay either union dues or agency fees. Let them represent themselves independently. At first. I imagine that a few employers may look with goodwill upon them, and take care of them. But let them beware the next time their employer has financial difficulties, and implements a layoff.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 06, 2014 7:19 PM GMT
    40 years from now, people will be unionizing all over again like it's 1910.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 06, 2014 7:20 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said40 years from now, people will be unionizing all over again like it's 1910.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 12:27 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    coolarmydude said40 years from now, people will be unionizing all over again like it's 1910.


    +1


    union-membership-mark-perry-blog.jpg

    Expect it to fall further from here as there continues to be increasing pressure on governments to weaken public sector unions because of substantially underfunded and overgenerous pension plans.

    The primary reason union membership has fallen is because the nature of work has changed while unions have made their hosts uncompetitive and too slow to react to competitive pressures causing many to fail.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 3:05 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    coolarmydude said40 years from now, people will be unionizing all over again like it's 1910.


    +1


    union-membership-mark-perry-blog.jpg

    Expect it to fall further from here as there continues to be increasing pressure on governments to weaken public sector unions because of substantially underfunded and overgenerous pension plans.

    The primary reason union membership has fallen is because the nature of work has changed while unions have made their hosts uncompetitive and too slow to react to competitive pressures causing many to fail.


    And the primary reason they'll be rising is because it will be that, or the poor will start eating the rich. He did say 40 years, not 4.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 4:31 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy saidAnd the primary reason they'll be rising is because it will be that, or the poor will start eating the rich. He did say 40 years, not 4.


    I recognize that - but it seems terribly improbable considering that these pressures of income inequality aren't new (if that's even what he was referring to) so we should be seeing some of this already. They also don't change the nature of work or how it's done so to think that union membership will return seems more based on an ideological pipe dream than anything factual.

    In fact, the nature of work is such that employers have now an even greater incentive to take care of their workers/contractors than before. Technology is driving this, and it will continue to do so.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 5:10 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    WrestlerBoy saidAnd the primary reason they'll be rising is because it will be that, or the poor will start eating the rich. He did say 40 years, not 4.


    I recognize that - but it seems terribly improbable considering that these pressures of income inequality aren't new (if that's even what he was referring to) so we should be seeing some of this already. They also don't change the nature of work or how it's done so to think that union membership will return seems more based on an ideological pipe dream than anything factual.

    In fact, the nature of work is such that employers have now an even greater incentive to take care of their workers/contractors than before. Technology is driving this, and it will continue to do so.


    Try this: When 1% of the people have 100% of the wealth, where does that leave you? That's what a lot of people don't seem to "get". Because it's "moving in that direction".. what's to stop it getting there?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 6:02 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    riddler78 said
    WrestlerBoy saidAnd the primary reason they'll be rising is because it will be that, or the poor will start eating the rich. He did say 40 years, not 4.


    I recognize that - but it seems terribly improbable considering that these pressures of income inequality aren't new (if that's even what he was referring to) so we should be seeing some of this already. They also don't change the nature of work or how it's done so to think that union membership will return seems more based on an ideological pipe dream than anything factual.

    In fact, the nature of work is such that employers have now an even greater incentive to take care of their workers/contractors than before. Technology is driving this, and it will continue to do so.


    Try this: When 1% of the people have 100% of the wealth, where does that leave you? That's what a lot of people don't seem to "get". Because it's "moving in that direction".. what's to stop it getting there?


    Heh - the problem is that I think there are some people who legitimately believe this to be the case. They don't really understand the math that despite growing (relative) inequality, the (absolute) wealth at all segments of the population has been increasing over time. As for what's stopping us from getting "there"?

    Let's start with how technology has dramatically changed how wealth is created or how people can communicate with each other. It's leveled the playing field dramatically and increasingly improving the opportunities for mobility. The problem was never inequality but economic mobility.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 7:45 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    riddler78 said
    WrestlerBoy saidAnd the primary reason they'll be rising is because it will be that, or the poor will start eating the rich. He did say 40 years, not 4.


    I recognize that - but it seems terribly improbable considering that these pressures of income inequality aren't new (if that's even what he was referring to) so we should be seeing some of this already. They also don't change the nature of work or how it's done so to think that union membership will return seems more based on an ideological pipe dream than anything factual.

    In fact, the nature of work is such that employers have now an even greater incentive to take care of their workers/contractors than before. Technology is driving this, and it will continue to do so.


    Try this: When 1% of the people have 100% of the wealth, where does that leave you? That's what a lot of people don't seem to "get". Because it's "moving in that direction".. what's to stop it getting there?


    Heh - the problem is that I think there are some people who legitimately believe this to be the case. They don't really understand the math that despite growing (relative) inequality, the (absolute) wealth at all segments of the population has been increasing over time. As for what's stopping us from getting "there"?

    Let's start with how technology has dramatically changed how wealth is created or how people can communicate with each other. It's leveled the playing field dramatically and increasingly improving the opportunities for mobility. The problem was never inequality but economic mobility.


    Piketty completely disagrees with you on exactly that last point, right? Will be interesting to watch developments (should we live long enough).
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jul 08, 2014 7:52 PM GMT
    correlation looks pretty strong to me

    original.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 7:59 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidcorrelation looks pretty strong to me

    original.jpg


    Middle class income didn't shrink. Middle class *share* of income shrank. Middle class incomes have actually increased during this period.

    Correlation seems quite clear here too:
    correlation_greece_facebook.png

    correlation.png
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jul 08, 2014 8:03 PM GMT
    ^^

    oh well, maybe you know how to read this chart lmao, I can't help it if you're not too bright

    productivity.png
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 8:06 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    tj85016 saidcorrelation looks pretty strong to me

    original.jpg


    Middle class income didn't shrink. Middle class *share* of income shrank. Middle class incomes have actually increased during this period.

    Correlation seems quite clear here too:
    correlation_greece_facebook.png

    correlation.png


    That's not an example; that's casuistry. Nobody in his right mind would maintain FB membership had anything to do with Greek bonds; why? Because they're in no way "related", and the word is "corRELATION".

    All you're doing with your stats example is to ask, "Did the sun come up because it's morning, or is it morning because the sun came up?"

    This is why nobody trusts economists' "math". And they're proven more right than not to not do so.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jul 08, 2014 8:09 PM GMT
    "Economics" used to be called "Political Economy" before they changed it to try to convince people it was a pseudo-science, but it's actually just a bunch of bullshit
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 8:11 PM GMT
    tj85016 said^^

    oh well, maybe know how to read this chart lmao

    productivity.png


    I'm sorry you're too stupid not to understand the difference between correlation and causation ;). And I'll counter with this one "Yes, the middle class has been disappearing, but they haven’t fallen into the lower class, they’ve risen into the upper class":
    families.jpg

    Further, the argument the graph is implicitly making is that it's labor that has contributed to the productivity growth when it's actually capital and technology. Secondly household income during this period has exploded - because of double income families putting downward pressure on wages but also obviously greatly increasing household incomes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 8:14 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy saidThat's not an example; that's casuistry. Nobody in his right mind would maintain FB membership had anything to do with Greek bonds; why? Because they're in no way "related", and the word is "corRELATION".

    All you're doing with your stats example is to ask, "Did the sun come up because it's morning, or is it morning because the sun came up?"

    This is why nobody trusts economists' "math". And they're proven more right than not to not do so.


    Sorry, that's why people doubt any reporting done in furtherance of an ideological objective as you've done. Where's the relationship between union membership and share of middle income? The fact is, people have left unions and union environments of their own free will - or do you actually think people prefer to make less money?

    As I have also pointed out the original graph trying to make the argument of union membership is ridiculous as it compares it against a relative share of middle class income rather than actual growth. When you look at the absolute numbers you see significant growth during that same period.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 8:14 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    tj85016 said^^

    oh well, maybe know how to read this chart lmao

    productivity.png


    I'm sorry you're too stupid not to understand the difference between correlation and causation ;). And I'll counter with this one "Yes, the middle class has been disappearing, but they haven’t fallen into the lower class, they’ve risen into the upper class":
    families.jpg

    Further, the argument the graph is implicitly making is that it's labor that has contributed to the productivity growth when it's actually capital and technology. Secondly household income during this period has exploded - because of double income families putting downward pressure on wages but also obviously greatly increasing household incomes.


    Have you read Piketty's book?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 8:18 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    riddler78 said
    tj85016 said^^

    oh well, maybe know how to read this chart lmao

    productivity.png


    I'm sorry you're too stupid not to understand the difference between correlation and causation ;). And I'll counter with this one "Yes, the middle class has been disappearing, but they haven’t fallen into the lower class, they’ve risen into the upper class":
    families.jpg

    Further, the argument the graph is implicitly making is that it's labor that has contributed to the productivity growth when it's actually capital and technology. Secondly household income during this period has exploded - because of double income families putting downward pressure on wages but also obviously greatly increasing household incomes.


    Have you read Piketty's book?


    Yep it's a great book for his historical work though there are a number of outlying issues that have been discovered given how he did some of his interpolating.

    There are also large flaws in his conclusions. Here's just one example (beyond the debate over the underlying facts):
    http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5837638/the-ipo-is-dying-marc-andreessen-explains-why
    he funny thing about Piketty is that he has a lot more faith in returns on invested capital than any professional investor I've ever met. It's actually very interesting about his book. This is exactly what you'd expect form a French socialist economist. He assumes it's really easy to put money in the market for 40 years or 80 years or 100 years and have it compound at these amazing rates. He never explains how that's supposed to happen.

    Every investment manager I know is sweating the opposite problem, which is: what do I do? Where do I get the growth? I can't get into the public market, so I have to go into the private market. The problem in the private market is there isn't much growth. Maybe a dozen hedge funds. After that they're not that good. The returns degrade down to S&P 500 levels.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jul 08, 2014 8:20 PM GMT
    lol $25k is "middle income" in 2014 bahahahaha

    where? Pakistan? lmfao
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 8:23 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidlol $25k is "middle income" in 2014 bahahahaha

    where? Pakistan? lmfao


    Lol - figures this is the best you can do after your feeble "facts"/talking points have been debunked.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 8:23 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    riddler78 said
    tj85016 said^^

    oh well, maybe know how to read this chart lmao

    productivity.png


    I'm sorry you're too stupid not to understand the difference between correlation and causation ;). And I'll counter with this one "Yes, the middle class has been disappearing, but they haven’t fallen into the lower class, they’ve risen into the upper class":
    families.jpg

    Further, the argument the graph is implicitly making is that it's labor that has contributed to the productivity growth when it's actually capital and technology. Secondly household income during this period has exploded - because of double income families putting downward pressure on wages but also obviously greatly increasing household incomes.


    Have you read Piketty's book?


    Yep it's a great book for his historical work though there are a number of outlying issues that have been discovered given how he did some of his interpolating.

    There are also large flaws in his conclusions. Here's just one example (beyond the debate over the underlying facts):
    http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5837638/the-ipo-is-dying-marc-andreessen-explains-why
    he funny thing about Piketty is that he has a lot more faith in returns on invested capital than any professional investor I've ever met. It's actually very interesting about his book. This is exactly what you'd expect form a French socialist economist. He assumes it's really easy to put money in the market for 40 years or 80 years or 100 years and have it compound at these amazing rates. He never explains how that's supposed to happen.

    Every investment manager I know is sweating the opposite problem, which is: what do I do? Where do I get the growth? I can't get into the public market, so I have to go into the private market. The problem in the private market is there isn't much growth. Maybe a dozen hedge funds. After that they're not that good. The returns degrade down to S&P 500 levels.


    That's not his "point".... at all, and if you'd read the book, you'd know it. Your citation is lifted from the FT "critique" (being picayune with about 6 statistics among a million), and Piketty put those to rest the day they came out.

    But are you really suggesting FB membership and Greek Bonds could EVER BE "related" the way one component of political economy (drop in union membership) and another (declining middle class) in the same way? Are you sure you did ok on the analogous "a is to b as x is to...?" on the GRE?