Fanboy Central

For the Fanboys of the White Sox


    Union Case

    Share
    avatar
    blondy28
    Getting to be a Fanboy

    Posts : 435
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Union Case

    Post by blondy28 on Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:46 pm

    If the Supreme Court sides with the union guy...which they most certainly will given that a conservative sits in the stolen seat...is there a law in place that prohibits the employer from denying the non-union employee from fucking over the employee who's not in the union?  For example, in my line of work, when you become an owner in a condominium association, I am legally bound by the governing documents and the Illinois Condo Act to treat all owners the same...otherwise it's a "separate class of ownership".   So this guy is able to opt out of the union.  Can they now refuse to offer him insurance?  Or schedule him on on Saturdays and holidays?  Or give him a week of vacation whereas someone with the same number of years of employment gets 3 weeks?  And is there anything that would prevent the government from firing him for not being in the union?  Cuz isn't it the union that protects you from that?

    When I worked at the Chicago Stadium/United Center, they required us to be in the union, and if given the option, I probably wouldn't have joined because I was young and stupid...and I got my benefits from my full-time job (had some friends who were career waitresses, so they used the union insurance)...but when I was pregnant and had to be on bed rest, my employer told me that when I came back, I would no longer be working courtside, which is where I'd always been (they only had courtside at the Stadium, but at UC, they have club level service), and I had the most seniority of anybody by A LOT.  My union heard about it by someone other than me (didn't even think it was a union issue) and they made sure that when I returned that I would be assigned to the court again.  This was a HUGE deal for me.  After having triplets and losing my full-time income, I needed those courtside tips.  When I returned was the first year after the final championship, and even though the Bulls sucked, if you had courtside tickets, someone was sitting in those seats.  Those years were actually some of the most lucrative for the courtside staff.  During the championship years, the season ticket holders pretty much went to every single game, and unless they were entertaining a client, people who were at the Bulls game a few times a week don't really give a rat's behind about having the full experience...the food and drinks.  We actually sold a lot more after the Jordan years when the season ticket holders gave their tickets to their cleaning ladies and kids' teachers, and although the per-tip average was lower, we made up for it in quantity.  The servers in the club level sometimes had sections with just a few fans.  And that's no exaggeration.  So they would get their $49/game salary, less $10 to park, and leave with no tips at all.  Without the union guaranteeing my section when I returned, we quite literally wouldn't have been able to afford to live.  So sometimes you think you don't want to be in the union...until you get screwed over.  When the Supreme Court sides with this guy, what's to keep him from getting screwed over?
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 649
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Union Case

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:22 am

    It's a pretty safe bet that unions are going on a one way ticket to the north pole, never to return.  Never mind that union membership and quality of life have a direct relationship with one another over the past 75-80 yrs.  GOP won't be happy unless they can block anything that requires businesses to pay a living wage to full time employees, while also blocking anything that makes healthcare free or very much affordable for those same folks that don't earn a living wage due to THEIR legislating.  

    I very much understand greed and selfishness.  What's hard for me to grasp is how so many people in this country go along with this, especially people that are earning very little.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 567
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Union Case

    Post by alohafri on Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:59 am

    My biggest issue with this is that those who "choose" not to join the union are still eligible for the same protections/benefits as those who do pay their dues. Maybe I should head to the local country club and use the same argument.


    Mind you, there is already "fair share" in which you pay your dues, minus money for political action.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 649
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Union Case

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:02 pm

    alohafri wrote:My biggest issue with this is that those who "choose" not to join the union are still eligible for the same protections/benefits as those who do pay their dues. Maybe I should head to the local country club and use the same argument.


    Mind you, there is already "fair share" in which you pay your dues, minus money for political action.

    That seems like a reasonable option, although I'm sure a decent argument exists against such an option.  It would be interesting to see them separate out the non-union members and have them have to negotiate their own pay with the district, or the business owner.  Of course, if there are just a few, I could see the business offering a slight increase in pay to leave the union, and then they offer slightly lower benefits and hope the employees bite and take the bait.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Union Case

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:38 am