Fanboy Central

For the Fanboys of the White Sox


    Union Case

    Share
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 514
    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 : 714
    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 : 636
    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 : 714
    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.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 514
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Union Case

    Post by blondy28 on Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:35 am

    I guess this went over my head when we last discussed this.  I thought Aloha was saying that he was "concerned" that it "might" happen", but it appears he was right.  These union folks don't pay, but get everything a non-paying union person gets.  I didn't read the decision...how is that possible?????
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 714
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Union Case

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:51 am

    blondy28 wrote:I guess this went over my head when we last discussed this.  I thought Aloha was saying that he was "concerned" that it "might" happen", but it appears he was right.  These union folks don't pay, but get everything a non-paying union person gets.  I didn't read the decision...how is that possible?????

    I would imagine they won't get the protections afforded to them by the union.  As a Teamster, my dad was always protected by the union.  If he had an accident, the union wouldn't allow him to summarily be fired without due process.  If he rec'd a citation or two for speeding, same thing.  My guess is that unions will figure out a way to compartmentalize their benefits in a way that if an employee will not join and pay dues, they'll fall outside of some of the things that the union provides in terms of scheduled income increases, benefits, protections, etc.  More than likely, some companies will actually try offering to pay a bit more to non-union members as an incentive to not join, or because the non-union members won't be receiving as much in terms of costly benefits.  

    I can't figure out if this is going to be the end of unions just yet.  Maybe it won't be.  Some seem to think it will be.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 514
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Union Case

    Post by blondy28 on Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:03 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:I guess this went over my head when we last discussed this.  I thought Aloha was saying that he was "concerned" that it "might" happen", but it appears he was right.  These union folks don't pay, but get everything a non-paying union person gets.  I didn't read the decision...how is that possible?????

    I would imagine they won't get the protections afforded to them by the union.  As a Teamster, my dad was always protected by the union.  If he had an accident, the union wouldn't allow him to summarily be fired without due process.  If he rec'd a citation or two for speeding, same thing.  My guess is that unions will figure out a way to compartmentalize their benefits in a way that if an employee will not join and pay dues, they'll fall outside of some of the things that the union provides in terms of scheduled income increases, benefits, protections, etc.  More than likely, some companies will actually try offering to pay a bit more to non-union members as an incentive to not join, or because the non-union members won't be receiving as much in terms of costly benefits.  

    I can't figure out if this is going to be the end of unions just yet.  Maybe it won't be.  Some seem to think it will be.

    My understanding is that they get all the benefits.  For example, district 15 teachers negotiated a 10-year contract with built in salary increases.  My understanding is that non-union people still get those increases.  Keep benefits, just don't pay.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 714
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Union Case

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:25 pm

    blondy28 wrote:


    My understanding is that they get all the benefits.  For example, district 15 teachers negotiated a 10-year contract with built in salary increases.  My understanding is that non-union people still get those increases.  Keep benefits, just don't pay.

    That may be the current way it works, but I'm of the belief that it doesn't need to necessarily work that way in the longer haul.  Can't a union go in and negotiate for its members and allow the company to negotiate with non-members?  I don't see why not.  Maybe that's not how they do it now, but there's no law stating it has to be that way.  If teachers and other union types start opting out of the union, we might see a change come about.  When I was a teacher in central Illinois in '89 through '98, union membership wasn't required.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 514
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Union Case

    Post by blondy28 on Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:37 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:


    My understanding is that they get all the benefits.  For example, district 15 teachers negotiated a 10-year contract with built in salary increases.  My understanding is that non-union people still get those increases.  Keep benefits, just don't pay.

    That may be the current way it works, but I'm of the belief that it doesn't need to necessarily work that way in the longer haul.  Can't a union go in and negotiate for its members and allow the company to negotiate with non-members?  I don't see why not.  Maybe that's not how they do it now, but there's no law stating it has to be that way.  If teachers and other union types start opting out of the union, we might see a change come about.  When I was a teacher in central Illinois in '89 through '98, union membership wasn't required.

    My understanding is that union membership is not required...that this guy paid fees to for collective bargaining. Yes, I hope the ruling allows them to get their asses kicked to the curb.  I mean, if the right wants us to be right to work, then first people that I fire are these non-paying, sponging off the union people.  During the hiring process, I'd flat out ask if you plan to contribute.  If not, sorry...you may not get the job.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 514
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Union Case

    Post by blondy28 on Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:07 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:


    My understanding is that they get all the benefits.  For example, district 15 teachers negotiated a 10-year contract with built in salary increases.  My understanding is that non-union people still get those increases.  Keep benefits, just don't pay.

    That may be the current way it works, but I'm of the belief that it doesn't need to necessarily work that way in the longer haul.  Can't a union go in and negotiate for its members and allow the company to negotiate with non-members?  I don't see why not.  Maybe that's not how they do it now, but there's no law stating it has to be that way.  If teachers and other union types start opting out of the union, we might see a change come about.  When I was a teacher in central Illinois in '89 through '98, union membership wasn't required.

    As I understand that, there IS a law stating that benefits apply to all...union and nonunion.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 636
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Union Case

    Post by alohafri on Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:17 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:I guess this went over my head when we last discussed this.  I thought Aloha was saying that he was "concerned" that it "might" happen", but it appears he was right.  These union folks don't pay, but get everything a non-paying union person gets.  I didn't read the decision...how is that possible?????

    I would imagine they won't get the protections afforded to them by the union.  As a Teamster, my dad was always protected by the union.  If he had an accident, the union wouldn't allow him to summarily be fired without due process.  If he rec'd a citation or two for speeding, same thing.  My guess is that unions will figure out a way to compartmentalize their benefits in a way that if an employee will not join and pay dues, they'll fall outside of some of the things that the union provides in terms of scheduled income increases, benefits, protections, etc.  More than likely, some companies will actually try offering to pay a bit more to non-union members as an incentive to not join, or because the non-union members won't be receiving as much in terms of costly benefits.  

    I can't figure out if this is going to be the end of unions just yet.  Maybe it won't be.  Some seem to think it will be.


    Yes, they are to be protected by the union that they don't want to be a part of. They are freeloaders who can go fuck themselves.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 636
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Union Case

    Post by alohafri on Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:21 pm

    blondy28 wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:


    My understanding is that they get all the benefits.  For example, district 15 teachers negotiated a 10-year contract with built in salary increases.  My understanding is that non-union people still get those increases.  Keep benefits, just don't pay.

    That may be the current way it works, but I'm of the belief that it doesn't need to necessarily work that way in the longer haul.  Can't a union go in and negotiate for its members and allow the company to negotiate with non-members?  I don't see why not.  Maybe that's not how they do it now, but there's no law stating it has to be that way.  If teachers and other union types start opting out of the union, we might see a change come about.  When I was a teacher in central Illinois in '89 through '98, union membership wasn't required.

    My understanding is that union membership is not required...that this guy paid fees to for collective bargaining. Yes, I hope the ruling allows them to get their asses kicked to the curb.  I mean, if the right wants us to be right to work, then first people that I fire are these non-paying, sponging off the union people.  During the hiring process, I'd flat out ask if you plan to contribute.  If not, sorry...you may not get the job.

    Correct. Before today's horseshit ruling, people that didn't want to contribute to political action would pay a "fair share" fee which went to nothing but the day to day activities of the union (negotiations, representation, etc.). Now, as a building rep, I have too go to bat for some asshole Rauner supporter.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 636
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Union Case

    Post by alohafri on Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:22 pm

    Basically, today the Republican party kicked me out. I am proudly independent.
    avatar
    sharpy
    Getting to be a Fanboy

    Posts : 309
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Union Case

    Post by sharpy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:45 pm

    alohafri wrote:Basically, today the Republican party kicked me out. I am proudly independent.

    Welcome to the tribe. It took longer than I expected but I knew your intelligence and moral decency would win out. 
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 636
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Union Case

    Post by alohafri on Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:46 am

    sharpy wrote:
    alohafri wrote:Basically, today the Republican party kicked me out. I am proudly independent.

    Welcome to the tribe. It took longer than I expected but I knew your intelligence and moral decency would win out. 

    Not a Democrat, an independent.
    avatar
    cream919
    Getting to be a Fanboy

    Posts : 260
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell

    Re: Union Case

    Post by cream919 on Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:58 pm

    All an "independent" basically means is that someone is a democrat who just doesn't want to say they are a democrat.  Laughing The vast majority of independents lean democratic in their voting. Whatever the case in your instance, it's about time you quit the goddamn republicans. From most of the arguments you make I've always been basically of the opinion that your republicanism was always akin to a chicken supporting Col. Sanders. Welcome to the light!  sunny
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 636
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Union Case

    Post by alohafri on Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:57 am

    cream919 wrote:All an "independent" basically means is that someone is a democrat who just doesn't want to say they are a democrat.  Laughing The vast majority of independents lean democratic in their voting. Whatever the case in your instance, it's about time you quit the goddamn republicans. From most of the arguments you make I've always been basically of the opinion that your republicanism was always akin to a chicken supporting Col. Sanders. Welcome to the light!  sunny

    If only Democrats were more like Dan Lipinski and less like Chuck Schumer...
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 514
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Union Case

    Post by blondy28 on Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:18 am

    alohafri wrote:
    cream919 wrote:All an "independent" basically means is that someone is a democrat who just doesn't want to say they are a democrat.  Laughing The vast majority of independents lean democratic in their voting. Whatever the case in your instance, it's about time you quit the goddamn republicans. From most of the arguments you make I've always been basically of the opinion that your republicanism was always akin to a chicken supporting Col. Sanders. Welcome to the light!  sunny

    If only Democrats were more like Dan Lipinski and less like Chuck Schumer...

    If Democrats were more like Dan Lipinski, they'd be Republicans.
    avatar
    cream919
    Getting to be a Fanboy

    Posts : 260
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell

    Re: Union Case

    Post by cream919 on Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:57 pm

    My friend I can't stand spineless Schumer OR Pelosi. As long as those appeasers are the face of the party, the democrats are fucked.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 636
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Union Case

    Post by alohafri on Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:41 pm

    blondy28 wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    cream919 wrote:All an "independent" basically means is that someone is a democrat who just doesn't want to say they are a democrat.  Laughing The vast majority of independents lean democratic in their voting. Whatever the case in your instance, it's about time you quit the goddamn republicans. From most of the arguments you make I've always been basically of the opinion that your republicanism was always akin to a chicken supporting Col. Sanders. Welcome to the light!  sunny

    If only Democrats were more like Dan Lipinski and less like Chuck Schumer...

    If Democrats were more like Dan Lipinski, they'd be Republicans.

    I know that Trotsky is more your speed.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 514
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Union Case

    Post by blondy28 on Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:54 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    cream919 wrote:All an "independent" basically means is that someone is a democrat who just doesn't want to say they are a democrat.  Laughing The vast majority of independents lean democratic in their voting. Whatever the case in your instance, it's about time you quit the goddamn republicans. From most of the arguments you make I've always been basically of the opinion that your republicanism was always akin to a chicken supporting Col. Sanders. Welcome to the light!  sunny

    If only Democrats were more like Dan Lipinski and less like Chuck Schumer...

    If Democrats were more like Dan Lipinski, they'd be Republicans.

    I know that Trotsky is more your speed.

    Try Justin Trudeau.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 636
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Union Case

    Post by alohafri on Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:02 pm

    blondy28 wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    cream919 wrote:All an "independent" basically means is that someone is a democrat who just doesn't want to say they are a democrat.  Laughing The vast majority of independents lean democratic in their voting. Whatever the case in your instance, it's about time you quit the goddamn republicans. From most of the arguments you make I've always been basically of the opinion that your republicanism was always akin to a chicken supporting Col. Sanders. Welcome to the light!  sunny

    If only Democrats were more like Dan Lipinski and less like Chuck Schumer...

    If Democrats were more like Dan Lipinski, they'd be Republicans.

    I know that Trotsky is more your speed.

    Try Justin Trudeau.

    The guy who wrote Doonsbury?
    avatar
    joepoe
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 13
    Join date : 2017-05-05

    Re: Union Case

    Post by joepoe on Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:24 pm

    I will probably be joining a union next week at my new part-time gig.
    I believe people have a right to organize or not organize. I don't feel someone should be forced to join or organize.
    Even FDR was against public sector unions. I am not against public sector unions I am against anyone joining a union or paying for a union because they have to. If they don't join, they should not necessarily get the same pay or protections. They would need to represent themselves with management. 

    If you are anti-union you shouldn't take a union job, but again, it is your right.

    People who think unions are evil and corrupt have a good point, because history especially in Illinois has been ugly.
    State employees union has not paid their health claims for two years. TWO FUCKING YEARS
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 514
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Union Case

    Post by blondy28 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:27 pm

    joepoe wrote:I will probably be joining a union next week at my new part-time gig.
    I believe people have a right to organize or not organize. I don't feel someone should be forced to join or organize.
    Even FDR was against public sector unions. I am not against public sector unions I am against anyone joining a union or paying for a union because they have to. If they don't join, they should not necessarily get the same pay or protections. They would need to represent themselves with management. 

    If you are anti-union you shouldn't take a union job, but again, it is your right.

    People who think unions are evil and corrupt have a good point, because history especially in Illinois has been ugly.
    State employees union has not paid their health claims for two years. TWO FUCKING YEARS

    After this ruling, Illinois says that these freeloaders don't have to pay the non-union rate/fees, but they will get the same protections.  "The Freeloader ruling".

    Unions and neither as evil and corrupt than are every single corporation in this country.  This decision was strictly to reduce/eliminate donations to dems.  Nothing more, nothing less.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy Apprentice

    Posts : 636
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Union Case

    Post by alohafri on Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:32 pm

    blondy28 wrote:
    joepoe wrote:I will probably be joining a union next week at my new part-time gig.
    I believe people have a right to organize or not organize. I don't feel someone should be forced to join or organize.
    Even FDR was against public sector unions. I am not against public sector unions I am against anyone joining a union or paying for a union because they have to. If they don't join, they should not necessarily get the same pay or protections. They would need to represent themselves with management. 

    If you are anti-union you shouldn't take a union job, but again, it is your right.

    People who think unions are evil and corrupt have a good point, because history especially in Illinois has been ugly.
    State employees union has not paid their health claims for two years. TWO FUCKING YEARS

    After this ruling, Illinois says that these freeloaders don't have to pay the non-union rate/fees, but they will get the same protections.  "The Freeloader ruling".

    Unions and neither as evil and corrupt than are every single corporation in this country.  This decision was strictly to reduce/eliminate donations to dems.  Nothing more, nothing less.

    Write this date down. This may be a first. You are 100% correct Blondy.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Union Case

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:47 pm