Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Business owners and executives: "Killing agency fees for unions will make business a paradise for management" Or, you know, a hellscape for management not seen since the early 20th century   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Awkward  
•       •       •

1247 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Mar 2018 at 6:20 PM (33 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



19 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-03-01 06:27:31 PM  
Interesting interpretation. I wish this story weren't languishing on the Business Tab. I'd like to hear what Fark's law GEDs have to say.
 
2018-03-01 06:29:57 PM  

fusillade762: Interesting interpretation. I wish this story weren't languishing on the Business Tab. I'd like to hear what Fark's law GEDs have to say.


I would, too, but it had a better chance being published here.

/subby
 
2018-03-01 07:05:34 PM  

fusillade762: Interesting interpretation. I wish this story weren't languishing on the Business Tab. I'd like to hear what Fark's law GEDs have to say.


I'd really have to doubt that there are that many companies where a significant amount of the workforce would be looking to burn the whole thing down.
 
2018-03-01 07:15:21 PM  
Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
 
2018-03-01 07:16:59 PM  
oligarchs don't learn from the past and can't consider the outcome of their actions? pull the other one subby....
 
2018-03-01 07:31:23 PM  
Maybe his will be the action needed to wake up workers and we can see a return to the way things were in the 1930's.
 
2018-03-01 07:34:59 PM  

BMFPitt: I'd really have to doubt that there are that many companies where a significant amount of the workforce would be looking to burn the whole thing down.


The Janus case is about public sector unions and their agency fees. While you might be right that the private sector workforce might be less confrontational, that might be due more to the drop in union membership over the last 80 years. Public sector unions have the strongest membership comparatively.

And it's those public sector workers where you get your licenses, certifications, affidavits, and forms. That's also who provides your services like this asshat Janus who thinks it's fine to free ride on wages and benefits he didn't negotiate himself. The initial question is how well public sector workers are going to take it, especially with f*ckers like Scott Walker around, acting like government employees and contractors are robbing taxpayers.
 
2018-03-01 08:01:27 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: The Janus case is about public sector unions and their agency fees. While you might be right that the private sector workforce might be less confrontational, that might be due more to the drop in union membership over the last 80 years. Public sector unions have the strongest membership comparatively.


But that's how federal employee unions already work.  It doesn't seem to have had a noticable impact there.
 
2018-03-01 08:06:53 PM  
Haven't a lot of states gotten rid of agency fees? Isn't it essentially the only thing that 'right to work' laws do?

Are there more strikes in the 27 states with such laws?

/thanks, ALEC.
//For the assault rifle too
 
2018-03-01 08:15:44 PM  

BMFPitt: rzrwiresunrise: The Janus case is about public sector unions and their agency fees. While you might be right that the private sector workforce might be less confrontational, that might be due more to the drop in union membership over the last 80 years. Public sector unions have the strongest membership comparatively.

But that's how federal employee unions already work.  It doesn't seem to have had a noticable impact there.


We'll have to see once things change, I guess.
 
2018-03-01 09:20:48 PM  

runwiz: Maybe his will be the action needed to wake up workers and we can see a return to the way things were in the 1930's.


Stuck in the great depression and forced to eat soup made out of bark and acorns?
 
2018-03-01 09:24:54 PM  
There's also a simple solution to this - pay the asshole scabs minimum wage and make sure the union makes it clear they don't get representation. You want the benefits? You sort the union. You don't support the union? fark off.
 
2018-03-01 09:50:16 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: BMFPitt: I'd really have to doubt that there are that many companies where a significant amount of the workforce would be looking to burn the whole thing down.

The Janus case is about public sector unions and their agency fees. While you might be right that the private sector workforce might be less confrontational, that might be due more to the drop in union membership over the last 80 years. Public sector unions have the strongest membership comparatively.

And it's those public sector workers where you get your licenses, certifications, affidavits, and forms. That's also who provides your services like this asshat Janus who thinks it's fine to free ride on wages and benefits he didn't negotiate himself. The initial question is how well public sector workers are going to take it, especially with f*ckers like Scott Walker around, acting like government employees and contractors are robbing taxpayers.


Which when/if they go on strike the oligarchs minions will point to as a reason to privatize them, just accelerating the destruction of civil society, the red States and a distressing number of blue ones are dumb enough to do that.

The founders really liked Rome but some how thought we wouldn't end up like them
 
2018-03-01 09:59:15 PM  
Public service unions generally can't strike and without that weapon they really don't have much power. Outside of government, unions agree to no strike clauses often. And outside of those, you seldom hear of a strike these days.

I wonder how bad things would have to get for workers to be inspired to act (as in strike) like the union members of old.
 
2018-03-01 10:16:28 PM  
wobble the job!
 
2018-03-01 10:52:32 PM  

edmo: Public service unions generally can't strike and without that weapon they really don't have much power. Outside of government, unions agree to no strike clauses often. And outside of those, you seldom hear of a strike these days.

I wonder how bad things would have to get for workers to be inspired to act (as in strike) like the union members of old.


Airline pilots love to go on strike.
 
2018-03-02 07:51:07 AM  

BMFPitt: rzrwiresunrise: The Janus case is about public sector unions and their agency fees. While you might be right that the private sector workforce might be less confrontational, that might be due more to the drop in union membership over the last 80 years. Public sector unions have the strongest membership comparatively.

But that's how federal employee unions already work.  It doesn't seem to have had a noticable impact there.


Federal employee unions don't have agency fees (mandatory dues), yet they still have the obligation to represent employees in workplace disputes (disciplinary actions, grievances, contract violations, etc.).

I work for the only federal government agency where the union doesn't have to represent non-members, and that's an unusual exception to the rule.
 
2018-03-02 08:12:41 AM  

mrmopar5287: Federal employee unions don't have agency fees (mandatory dues), yet they still have the obligation to represent employees in workplace disputes (disciplinary actions, grievances, contract violations, etc.).

I work for the only federal government agency where the union doesn't have to represent non-members, and that's an unusual exception to the rule.


My understanding is that this was the rule, though the unions could choose to do so.  That's how it was presented at the union organizing meeting I was at a few months ago, at least.
 
2018-03-02 08:39:01 AM  

BMFPitt: mrmopar5287: Federal employee unions don't have agency fees (mandatory dues), yet they still have the obligation to represent employees in workplace disputes (disciplinary actions, grievances, contract violations, etc.).

I work for the only federal government agency where the union doesn't have to represent non-members, and that's an unusual exception to the rule.

My understanding is that this was the rule, though the unions could choose to do so.  That's how it was presented at the union organizing meeting I was at a few months ago, at least.


It is pick-and-choose.

If a non-member has something that could turn around and fark every member across the country (or a decision in their favor could set good precedent for everyone) they will take it on.

If it's some little issue that is personal... they're cut loose to handle it themselves.

I'm the steward at my workplace and on a nationwide level I won't turn anyone away from helping them. But if it goes higher and needs to go to arbitration, the local and national won't help them.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report