Hey Chris,

Last I checked two of the justices who concurred in this decision are two of the most liberal on the court. One was an Obama appointee.

Kinda shoots a hole in your rant there partner.

Why should a non-member pay a fee to a union he/she does not belong to advocate politically in a way the non-member does not believe? Let the unions fund their efforts in and of themselves. They should not be able to reach into the pockets of their oponents for funding. I believe the court got it right.

The non-member can send a contribution to a union voluntarily if he chooses.

Please read the article again Chris. The decision was 7-2. Are you inferring that there are 4 Republican scum and 3 Democrat scum on the Court or are you just ticked-off because the scum unions loss a decision?

Bow and pray to the Corporate God, America. Corporations are GOD now. The Corporate Court of the UnIted States, for and by the Corporation for which its stands. Indiciivble, with reduced wages and benefits for all,

America is finished

I'll bet the 3 SC justices, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will be at the Koch gathering this weekend. That's probably why they're not going to give a judgment on the healthcare bill until next week, but we all know how these 3 stooges will vote.

Wow, the left has gone bonkers.

Allowing people to choose how their money is spent is a "loss"? For Who?

It is refreshing to see the Justices uphold an individual's right to choose who they give money to. It is just wrong that the union can take their money and spend it on any political party the union bosses choose.

Next up should be an employee's right to say NO to joining any union against their will, or pay union dues when they choose not to be members of the union.

Seems interesting when a decision by the Supreme Court doesn't go some peoples way what a bunch of scumbags the Justices are. But then when a decision DOES go their way the Justices are Saints. Jeez folks, just live with it, you win a few and you lose a few and the rest are rained out. Our system has lasted 237 years so far so don't jump in and want to change it just because you don't get what you want all the time.

No one should be required to contribute to a cause unless they want to. This would be for any cause, be it union, charity, or social fund. All the unions have to do is solicit their lobbying or whatever funding from those who want to give freely. To do otherwise sounds like extortion and is un-American.

I wonder what this means for the newest union attempt at control .... card check. Unions have long been a political force by bullying their membership into submission. Their strength came in their so-called "collective bargaining" which was actually a restraint upon free trade. Now that unions are having to play by the rules, they are crying "foul".

Unions political influence has now been countered by business and the unions cannot stand it ! LOL !!

No one should be required to contribute to a cause unless they want to

totally agree... i should decide who get's my tax money. there would be a lot of hungry sponges.

And we also notice that there wasn’t a thing said (in the decision) about corporations who spent unlimited amounts of money without having to ask their shareholders for permission.”

Wow, nice try but there is no comparison in a union forcing a non-member to pay into the union and using that money for political purposes to a corporation using corporate money to contribute. There is a big difference. If a shareholder of a corporation doesn't like how the board spends corporate money, they can vote to replace the board or sell their ownership share and buy a share in a corporation that uses its money they way a shareholder likes. An employee doesn't have the luxury and a lot of cases, especially in this job market, to quit a job to avoid this so they would be forced to pay to advance cause they disagree with. Doesn't surprisement the SEIU would try to equate the two. This was the right decision by the court.

You don't want corporations to buy political favors, neither do conservatives.

Ban loopholes and subsidies and kill it!

I would have no problem with this decision if they held corporations to the same standard. Shareholders typically have no means to prevent a company from donating any money to any fund they want. They often do so without any referral to stockholders. They should require all shareholders to opt in to any political donations.

Leto, it allows the worker to decide what is done with HIS money, what protection is he losing?

"There is a big difference. If a shareholder of a corporation doesn't like how the board spends corporate money, they can vote to replace the board or sell their ownership share and buy a share in a corporation that uses its money they way a shareholder likes"

Not a valid arguement, Many shareholders are people with 401k's who have no vote on a corporate board.

In fact many union memebers have money in 401k's and they get no say if the corporation decides to spend money on politicians who are anti union.

Leto, what law that the current regime is choosing not to enforce supplies the nation with slave labor?

Is the current regime made up of "righties"?

barefoot, you can't see what protections workers would lose if unions go away? man you need to read a history book

The protections I was talking about are the rights to negotiate with employers over working conditions

Union money. Union thugs. What a phony lame argument. They can easily be thrown in the file "least of our problems". Our $ stained congress and these $ stained justices are our and our childrens main problem.

barefoot, Go back and read my original post. I'm was talking about whats to come if the current trend of stripping unions of any kind of power comes to it's ultimate fruition.

You're either being stupid or are diverting attention away from my arguement.

DJ 422425-

I would have no problem with this decision if they held corporations to the same standard. Shareholders typically have no means to prevent a company from donating any money to any fund they want. They often do so without any referral to stockholders. They should require all shareholders to opt in to any political donations.

DJ, you do know the difference between union dues and stockholder shares do you not? For one union dues are expenditures and stockholder shares are assets...

Sorry Leto, you don't mention any of that and you said this was a chip out of the workers protection.

I am not anti-union, I just do not see how you can claim to be the party for protecting the worker and refuse to enforce the single most important law that does that.

Is the article we are discussing part of that trend?

Leto- I can show you what America would look like if you didn't...It's called Europe...

“We’re disappointed obviously in this decision. It imposes more restrictions on the ability of public sector workers to organize in the civic life of this country.”

Since virtually all union political contributions go to Democrats, I guess their definition of 'civic life is "electing only Democratic politicians".

Romney “has laid out a comprehensive labor reform agenda that will restore power to workers and let them choose whether to unionize and whether to spend their hard-earned wages on union political campaigns.”

I think that most Americans would agree with that. Forcing workers to pay contributions to politicians that they oppose is hardly fair.

Interestingly, the decision was 7-2 against the union, but you have to read the article carefully to figure that out - they made it seem like it was a close 5-4 decision.

Emperor -- According to the BLS, 11.8% of workers in America are members of a union (2011 numbers). 88.2% are not. How is it that the 88.2% survive?

With all of the existing labor laws I cannot imagine there would be much change in most union shops if the unions went away.

Emperor Leto " I'm was talking about whats to come if the current trend of stripping unions of any kind of power comes to it's ultimate fruition."

Do you really think it's reasonable to think that one little decision against a union is going to lead to the total destruction of all collective bargaining rights?

Let's not be paranoid - we live in a Democracy, and if either business or labor get's too extreme, the voters have a way of correcting it.

This rule applies only to those few situations where workers are not required to join a union in order to work, but still must allow the union to 'negotiate' for them on wages and benefits, so it has a very limited application.

Actually, they should have an 'opt out' available for union workers as well, but that's not the case. Even if a union member disagrees with the political activities of the union bosses, they are forced to contribute to them as a requirement of staying in the union - not many workers can afford to give up their jobs over the issue of political contributions.

There should be no public sector unions... The tax payer should have the final say on public salary and benefits.

You're right BillyBob - that's why many unions fought for the right to represent ALL workers in the work area covered by the union. That's how we ended up with Agency representation - and why non-members should have a say in activities that are not within their beliefs. A number of years ago Washington State had that with a lady that was running for office and her husband had to join a union and pay dues. That union was providing contributions to his wife's opponent in the election! So how does that protect that individual workers rights?

Those who complain that corporations should also have an 'opt-in' rule make the faulty assumption that virtually all business contributions go to Republicans, but the reality is that, over the last 20 years, it's about 55% to Republicans and 45% to Democrats.

In contrast, over that same time period, about 96% of union contributions go to Democratic politicians.

The result has been that the largest 100 contributors over the last 20 years have given about 77% to Democrats and only 23% to Republicans. The Democrats are just complaining because they liked that huge contribution advantage.

Roy, Billybob you guys are bing disingenuous. Never did I say taht this one action would destroy unions or collective bargaining rights. I'ts just one more little bit in the overall erosion of worker rights.

SInce unions do give primarily to the democrats, they are the ones who will advocate for worker protections. Take away that money from the democrats and they will have less incentive and ability to support pro worker legislation.

They just have to compete with the republicans for corporate money. Use a little imaginiation will you and ask yourself if either party will try to do anything that upsets their corpotate handlers.

Eventually, there will be NO worker protections and you all will be fighting each other for whatever scraps you can get.

Why on earth do you think republicans are so anti union? They want cheaper labor for their corporate masters.

People, people please read the article. The Supreme Court ruling applies to locations where not all employees are member of the union, but the non union members must still pay some of the union adminsitrative fees. The Supreme court ruled that they can't use any portion of those administrative fees for political purposes. The supreme court ruling didn't take anyway anyone's rights.

a major victory for the rights and liberty's of American citizens; it was not even close; you can not be forced to contribute to a political cause that you do not agree with; next ruling, you cannot be forced to purchase insurance from the private sector, or have you bank accounts frozen or deducted. One more strike for freedom.

How are Democrats supposed to buy votes if union bosses keep failing??? ... oh that's right, King Obama will keep importing them and promising them jobs.

I would then DEMAND that Citizen's United decision be REVERSED NOW. You cannot be so blatantly one sided on this issue.

Good decision by the SCOTUS. Unions need to go back to the old days, when they actually worked for the rights of workers. Todays unions work to keep democrats in office so they can get outrageous benefits paid for by taxpayers. How many of the union leaders actually know who their rank and file are. None they are too busy trying to get sleepovers in the White House, and taking huge salaries at our expense.

uaw-779887 or what ever Why such language? Maybe your upbringing in the Unions. I worked in a union shop and all we got was "we have have a verbal agreement with management. Unions were good back when but now they are a determent to this country.

Meanwhile, another "closed door" meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Trumka, Mr. Stern, and Mrs. Henry is in the works.

Flashback to Mr. Obama's SEIU agenda is my agenda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM

Strange, sure is a lot of Obama's voter base getting thrown under the ObamaWagon. Now it is the Unions littering the street.

The supreme court of IDIOTS are scabs too, who knew?? The reason wages have been so stagnant for the last 30 years is in part due to union killing measures by the repugnantcans..Enjoy your minimum wages, benefits, and retirement from your corporate masters and i'll continue to get my yearly raises, insurance, vacations, time and a half overtime, and all the other benefits I have from my union representation. "LIVE WELL, WORK UNION"

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Looks like the begining of the end of the Democrats' Job Tax.

Quote from the Great late Ronald Reagan: Mitt Romney "TEAR DOWN THAT WALL" of Secrecy of your Hidden Swiss Bank accounts, your phony sham-shell hidden Cayman island accounts, Not releasing your Tax returns, and paying only a 15% tax rate on your Billions, and wanting to Destroy the Middle Class.

Here's another Quote: "SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE". Is that perhaps secret Republican code for "CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE". Well, is it?

So Everybody, Let's all VOTE a straight DEMOCRATIC ticket, come this November 2012. We don't want Mitt Romney to Economically Destroy the Middle Class.

One more step toward corporate oligarchy and away from democracy since the Presidents started making highly political appointments to SCOTUS. The slow creep of serfdom.

This is excellent news. Soon the money to the dems will dry up and the democrats will soon disappear from the face of the earth. GREAT news indeed.

Will the last democrat to leave the room, please turn off the lights.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Love it

Emperor, you are wrong. Plain and simple. Any employee has the right to withdraw a 401k at any time. There are penalties and taxes that must be paid and of course you lose that all important corporate contribution, but if you truly disagree with the politics of the corporation, then you should stand on principle not your pocketbook and do what you think is right. Withdraw your money buddy. However, union members don't have that same right, until the courts just made it clear that the thugs who steal from unions and non-union members must stop.

USMC The obviously biased rulings of the supposed court of all people has earned them their title scrotum carrot waxers for their attempt to change the political climate to reflect their political affiliation. This court has decided to run the politics of this country thus releiving the people of their Democracy.

Lets just remember becarefull what you wish for as you may get it

lobbyists can do whatever they want - check

corporations can do whatever they want - check

little people cannot have a voice - check

Apparently somejustices on the Supreme Court do not care to represent ALL citizens of the United States of America.

As long as you are white, male, straight and rich, you are all set. The SC has your back.

I really don't understand why anyone would be against this ruling. Yes, it takes money out of unions hands, but do you really think it's ok for unions to be able to force non-union members to contribute to their political campaigns?

Having been a union rep. for a number of years with the UAW, I can say I've seen more concern, by the union leaders, for the continuance of the "Union" than I have seen for the union members!. Also, I've seen union members vote down proposals that would eliminate their overtime in order to bring back some of their union brothers who had been laid-off....talk about being for themselves over what would be the right -thing to do..........very anti-union behavior by it's members - what happened to the one for all - all for one philosophy? Unions today are all about increasing membership and dues!. They are in the fight of their lives to exist.......SELF-PRESERVATION is the rule. The time for ALL unions has passed because they no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally intended for, they are as much BIG BUSINESS as BIG BUSINESS.

If the thought of:

Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton....or

Supreme Court Justice Joe Biden.........or

Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.......or

Supreme Court Justice John Edwards ...Or any combination of them-----

Scares the beejeeebers out of you....Vote and make sure Obama keeps his 1-Term Proposition Pledge.

He will overtly or covertly make Appointments to the Court part of his fear mongering campaign strategy.

How about the MIAMI HEAT!

Emperor Leto

Just one more chip out of worker protections. If they keep at it eventually there will be no protections for workers and then America will be no better than a third world country. Full of sweat shops and slave labor.

Be careful what you wish for righties, you might just get it.

Just how did this take away protection from any worker? You guys just don't get it.

This Supreme Court and it's advocates belong in the 19th Century. Creating laissez-faire polices for the 21st Century shows a consistent disrespect for the middleclass and a desire to create an oligarchy.

The time for ALL unions has passed because they no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally intended for, they are as much BIG BUSINESS as BIG BUSINESS.

They exist to provide balance. Balance is important. Take them away and you remove the primary check on corporate power. Since republicans are out to sink the country into one party rule, ala the Nazi party in the 1930's, it is necessary to destroy the organized opposition. That is what is happening, that is all that is happening and to describe it as anything other is simply lies and hyperbole. Try getting a raise out of the Koch traiters after this happens, or a day off for a funeral. Those benefits, they will go away shortly after the fall of the organized opposition. It's the natural order of things and to say otherwise is delusional. Be careful what you ask for. Republicans are not thinking things through to their natural ends right now, not at all. Most are peeved and too jaded to even think right now. So let's try a dictatorship. Maybe that will finally get rid of all of the smart people that you righties like to make fun of.

Amused In The Midwest

Since republicans are out to sink the country into one party rule, ala the Nazi party in the 1930's, it is necessary to destroy the organized opposition

What a tired worn out excuse for a reason to continue unionism. I suggest you don't drink another drop of koolade until you've done some real "unbiased" research, from some knowledgeable sources, minus the political party claptrap. My knowledge comes from experience and working within the unions themselves - and with the biggest one of all, the UAW.

Yippee!
I'm a happy bird.

Unions are the most corrupt organization in the US.

now we need to make corporations play by the same rule.

Why should any stockholder be forced to give part of their moneys to a candidate or PAC they don't believe in ????

I may not be a fan of unions, but I'm sure not a fan of the Ruthugs extermination tactics regarding unions. While I agree with the court's ruling, I see partisanship in their decision to grant unlimited power (Corps are people) to companies who have every reason to poison our political system. In fact, this scenario is far worse than unions.

Follow the money, folks, because that's where the corruption is. Wall Street anyone? It's AMAZING to see how many of the righties on here crow about how great their slant on things is, when they've simply been convinced to vote against their own best interest. Idiots.

7 to 2 8) The majority wins

Liberal and Conservative Judges did the right thing.

Mark Taft "Unions are the most corrupt organization in the US."

I'd nominate the Catholic Church, but hey, you might be right.

UAW - "The obviously biased rulings of the supposed court of all people has earned them their title scrotum carrot waxers for their attempt to change the political climate to reflect their political affiliation."

So 7 of the 9 justices are far leaning righties? I dont see how anyone can be against this decision personally. If your not a member of the union, you STILL have to pay your share for the collective bargaining costs, just not the political cost. Why is that an issue?

I realize your a union guy, but seriously - take off the partisan blinders- not everyone that thinks non-union members should pay for union political contributions is affiliated with the far right. Statements like that show your ignorance and childish attitude.

ROY WILSON-336103

Romney “has laid out a comprehensive labor reform agenda that will restore power to workers and let them choose whether to unionize and whether to spend their hard-earned wages on union political campaigns.”

I think that most Americans would agree with that. Forcing workers to pay contributions to politicians that they oppose is hardly fair.

What a fu#$king joke! But "members" of a corporation may have absolutely no say or knowledge in how their contribution to that corporation is used?

They are not "forced". They can opt out and they know it well.

If such sensitivity and care for the common voter were considered in previous decisions, this would be a no-brainer.

The left-leaning judges made honest opinions on this one. I sincerely question if that is so by the right "bent" ones on previous decisions.

Well, I would nominate the banking industry, but thats just me

I am all for this! That is, as long as every single stock holder gets a choice whether to "opt in" on having the profits of a corporation...in which they are a part owner...go to a political action committee, or directly to a candidate. After all, as someone said earlier, why should a non union member be forced to contribute to a cause or candidate he doesn't agree with? Exactly. So why should a part owner be forced to do so?

You and Chris must be public employee union members who believe I should contribute to you even if I never use the service.

Kind of like me paying money to the cable company even if I'm not a customer. That would be stupid.

How about you contribute to me?

They do mhrjhn,

Here in Michigan some companies wait until Union contract negotiations are over before modifying their benefits.

Non-Union people get the benefits for free. It is called "pass through benefits".

Look it up.

What disgusting2059887 really means is they don't rule in his favor so the courts and justices are necessarily bad. Public Sector Unions were always a bad idea and, with the latest re-awakening of conservative thought, they will be as common as Dinosaurs in this country in just a few more years. Then all of you union workers will have to get off your backside and DO a job insteead of kicking back and demanding more pay and benefits for drinking beer and smoking dope. Oh, Boo Hoo for you!

So a 7-2 decision is biased? What would make it not biased, 8-1, 9-0, or perhaps any decision not to your liking is biased?

I don't live in Michigan, so they don't contribute to me.

Here's one for you, I have never believed in Public Sector unions anyway.

Citizens have to worry more about Union thugs than Political thugs. The Unions bought the government, from Obama on down. Get rid of all of them, that try and control our lives!

You don't have to believe in them. that doesn't mean they don't have a right to exist.

What do any of you think your going to get from our supreme(Kangaroo) court after abominations such as Citizens United??? These wealthy judges are bought and paid for just like any of our politicians. Come on people wake the hell up. What's simply amazing is all the connies like Brian here have no problem with corporations bribing, buying and selling all of our politicians while they simultaneously bend him over and give it to him hard. OK Brian say it with me, "thank you mr. congressman may I please have another". Now that's the good little drone you are boy.

Fortunately, you don't get to reevaluate their lifetime appointments.

Disgrustled, you hit the nail on the head. Roberts leadership consistently has reflected a court influenced greatly by political agenda. Many Americans no longer have confidence in this court or Roberts ability to lead and render an unbiased decision. This court has proven the necessity for term limits not only based on today's decision. The difference between corporate political donations and that of unions is a little matter called disclosure. Unions notify/disclose to membership and non-union members those donations specifically the who and what basic accountability. Big difference is PAC's or corporations donate unlimited sums of money today without disclosure or notifying shareholders of the manner, intended source and amount. I as a shareholder in any company/corporation should be afforded the same information. Shareholders should be afforded the same opportunity as union/non-union members because being a shareholder or union member is the same both have vested financial interests.

Leto You have already proved that with your posts above that their is no reasoning with you. Nothing but hate and no looking at the problem. Libs and union. You will not survive.

Word usmc201. I do see a lot of liberal whining this morning! I can't imagine what their collective (pun intented...) groan is going to sound like in November! I just can't understand why anyone is their right mind would want MORE government, MORE regulations, and MORE intrusion into the common American's personal lives! Unions have a history of thuggish behavior, and have outlived their purpose. I got into an arguement with a couple of union people, and it was like talking to a couple of seven year olds.

You and Chris must be public employee union members who believe I should contribute to you even if I never use the service. Kind of like me paying money to the cable company even if I'm not a customer. That would be stupid. How about you contribute to me?

They did contribute to you genius.. It was called the negotiated contract that got you your salary, your overtime, your holidays, your weekends off, your health insurance, life insurance, and on and on. The little things that allow you to live life in somewhat comfort and to get ahead by working and not sit still working for what amounts to nothing. You really need to reassess how you think this drivel up because you know nothing about what unions actually accomplish for their members and the others who ride their coat tails without contributing.

disgruntled-2059887

This is again a version of "poli-tricks" that are being played by the SCOTUS. I think its time we reevaluate their life time appointments. They are no longer capable of unbiased decisions!

I can't disagree with you you on this.....But, when I was taking constitutional law in college we were told that the SCOTUS was a non-political position. I wondered then how could that be if they were appointed to the court by a politician because that politician would appoint a judge based on the judges sympathetic political views, However, making appointments on a rotational or limited tenure basis, I don't think, would be the solution either - no matter how you slice it or what title and definition/charter you give it they are political and will render opinions per their personal affiliations and interpretations of the law. I remember a law professor who once told me that a good judge/lawyer is only a matter of opinion.........he was right. And under these circumstances we don't have the best conditions to work with but it's the best we have - nothing is perfect and there is always room for improvement. Politics corrupts all of us in some way.

money from both the unions and corporations need to be taken out of politics period.

if they need expert opinion then they should be able to ask for representitives from both view points, and make a decision based on those facts.

Of course the problem is nobody like to state the true facts.

Unions have done a lot of good, but they have done damage as well.

Both sides can have points that are good, and both sides can and do have points that are bad.

Any ways it is friday so i am happy for that..

I don't understand why membership in a union, or non membership in a union affects the individuals right to vote. If a person is barred from voting, say for instance because of a criminal past, belonging to a union, or not belonging to a union isn't going to lift that restriction. Therefore unions can be considered Political Action Committees, just like all the other varieties and interests which lobby congress and political candidates. Unions represent their monetary self interest, just like the voting individual does.

NPCDan - Whining is the same whether it is Liberal or Conservative. Both sides do it. Its the old "who's ox gets gored". Cornservatives are are always whining about judicial activist judges, unless the decision goes their way. I'm right and you know it. Although come November, its going to be your side that's whining about the Pres. election out come, Romoney is going down the tubes. Just maybe, those union members were just trying to talk down to your 7 year old level to keep it simple for simple you.

I don't think unions should be making any political donations en masse. Let the union workers decide on their own. While they were at it, why didn't the Supremes put the same law they created to work on corporations that make political donations with money that should rightfully go to stockholders so thay can donate or not as they choose?

There are some well thought out posts, but I should add that I find most posts to be stupid expressions from ignorant people.

Public distrust of SCOTUS is at a zenith now. Rulings like this exacerbate the problem, not because the unions lost, but because - particularly in light of Citizens United - there seems to be no consistent reading of the law. These guys appear to be making it up as they go along.

While it has always been impossible to get a truly unbiased judge, our constitution calls for at least an 'independent' judiciary. It is against the law for politicians to offer gifts to judges, or to punish them for decisions. The same is not true for their families. It is not uncommon for spouses and children of judges to be found in lucrative positions arranged by political operatives with an agenda - positions from which, of course, they can be removed if the judge displeases the wrong people with a ruling. Here is another way in which our current political system took its cue from the mafia: if you can't control the prosecutor, focus on his family.

The system is broken. Unfortunately, there is no way to fix it. Oh well, next issue.

Pippo, Stockholders own the companies stock by CHOICE. They can sell it off anytime they want to if they don't like the way it is run or the political contributions the company is giving without consequences. Just go buy stock in another company they like all done in a couple of minutes. Big difference from someone being forced to contribute to a unions political donations or campaign spending. The employee can't just walk away from it especially if they like the job and have another in a couple of minutes.

Most of the sympathy I have for unions was lost with their pursuit of the bogus card check. Ending secret ballot voting means an end to our individual liberty and would expose workers and their families to reprisals from those who support or oppose a measure they're voting on. No way will I ever support that !!

we will soon be back to the days of company stores no union workers no minimum wage no health care benefits and no one to protect a workers rights ..wont it be nice to have the Corporations make all the rules pollute the air .. land .. water own everything you have and pay no consequenses . there wont be any more freeloaders getting benefits worked for and paid for in some cases with blood .. wont it be nice to be at the mercy of the 1%

Making the non-union employees "opt-in" makes it harder for the Unions to raise money? And just why is that? Sounds like they were taking money from people who would rather have kept it! This only deals with the portion of the dues that were being spent for political purposes...not the part spent on running the union.

Yeah I belonged to a Union...and no...I didn't like them spending part of my dues money on political ads for which I had no input! Sorry, but I don't buy this attitude of "just give us your money and trust us"! Simply said....I don't!

The headline is wrong...it is not a blow to unions, it is upholding the rights of the individual to contribute based on his/her own philosophy not based on who is getting what kickbacks and who will get to visit with the occupant of the Oval Office because of the amount of campaign contribution raised. By the way, that is the role of the Supreme Court, to uphold the rights of the individual...

I'm an independent and if I were to have money taken from my paycheck to fund a political party I don't support I would be angry too. I can understand bargaining fees but you don't own my paycheck for your political purposes. I'm not your slave.

GOPisextict = "Here in Michigan some companies wait until Union contract negotiations are over before modifying their benefits.Non-Union people get the benefits for free. It is called "pass through benefits".Look it up."

So your saying then that in Michigan, non-members are not required to pay for those collective bargaining agreement benefits? You should be happy with this ruling then. According to the ruling, if your state hasnt been collecting those costs, they are within their rights to do so. Sounds like you state just has bad union reps - maybe you should focus on getting rid of your union leadership with some more competent people. They can collect that cost from non-members. Again, you should be pleased with this ruling. Otherwise, organize and work for mandatory cutoffs for benefit modifications. Your blaming the wrong people here.

"But the court has also held that workers who don’t choose to join the union can only be required to pay a share of the cost of collective bargaining and can’t be forced to help pay for the union’s political advocacy.

So, for instance, if monthly dues for members were $100 and only 67 percent of that were used for collective bargaining and 33 percent used for political advocacy, then the non-members can only be required to pay $67 in what are called “agency fees” in lieu of union dues."

Why don't these rules apply to corporations, too? But of course it's just the opposite for them.

The fascistic majority on the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to make unlimited contributions to political parties or who or whatever else but the people who work for the corporation or who buy their products (or the share holders) have no say about what political people, parties or causes the corporation can give millions of dollars to and neither can employees, share holders etc "opt out" let alone "opt in" in order for the corporation to do that.

But high court says public sector unions can't do that. They are hog tying the unions because the right wingers on the Court want the public ruled over by a few rich powerful people (with views similar to their own).

We have to get rid of these arrogant right-wing jerks on the Supreme court or maybe get rid of the Supreme Court altogether (it was intended originally to be a brake on popular interests)

This is why this next election is so important; a couple justices will retire, and we have to have a more conservative president in there to appoint someone who's NOT a socialist, big-government, left-wing nutjob.

The Supreme Court has been political as long as we can remember. If the liberals want more rulings go their way, they have to win more presidential elections and appoint more justices like Ginsburg. In order to do that, they have to stop being on the wrong side of what most people want. It is no coincidence that the Democrats have only been able to occupy the White House 6 terms out of the last 15.

@ArchStanton - the two are completely different. A corporation has its own money to spend as it pleases. All this ruling does is give individuals that same right. It doesn't take any money away from the unions operating funds. It only removes the automatic opt-in for political activity. People may still choose to donate if they wish, but are not required to. It is the same with corporations, if you are a customer of a corporation and you disagree with their political position you can always spend your money elsewhere. And if you are an employee of a corporation, they are giving you a paycheck and not taking anything out of it, they are spending their own money on the political activity, as a private company should be allowed to do. This is not an anti-union ruling, but a pro-worker one.

If they don't pay the dues, it's just like them filling up emergency rooms and not paying insurance. The court did not address how people who pay thev dues help benefit everyone at the work place. I've witnessed some instances where some people wait to join unions when they feel they may need their help. We would not have benefit packages, minimum wages or paid vacation without the help of unions. Funny how they restrict union rights , but not corporations. Not surprising, however. They can be labeled a Corporate Court after all.

I work for a company that doesn't have a Union and I have a great benefit package. I have paid vacations, and even have a birthday as a paid day off. I have great medical and dental coverage. Just because a company does not have a union doesn't mean that they are going to screw over their employees. Plus, if you check, this ruling if for people that are not a part of the union. This ruling is that if you do not want to contribute to the political side of the union than you don't have to. The people still have to give for the running of the union just not the part that is given to the political side.

This opinion was right on point. I do not feel as a Non-union member that any money i pay in dues should go toward a political candidate that i abhor. Simple. With the amount of members in any given union, there will always be those of a different political bent. If the unions contributed the money evenly to both political parties then this is a non-issue. However, unions almost always lean left and this creates problems for conservative members. How about hey end all the drama and crap associated with elections and make it so only individual citiznes can donate money and cap the amount. If SCOTUS considers IBM a person, then IBM can contribute what any average citizen can give. Make the amount a manageble amount and be done with it. The amounts spent on elections are OBSCENE and should be outlawed. We have people struggling in this country and we argue about allowing 100's of million's of dollars to be spent for a popularity contest. How did we get to this place? Both candidates should be embarrassed to spend this kind of "other people's" loot.

Mid Roader: "This is not an anti-union ruling, but a pro-worker one."

Mid Roader, you are either against unions and want to see them further crippled or you are a very naive person.

continued from my post above:

Labor organized into unions originally as a response to Capital organizing into corporations.

This was because Corporations are super human and if given the same right as natural persons quickly dominate and control the government and society.

Corporations can be in more than one place at the same time, live forever and have vastly more resources than natural "persons".

Unions have more of a right to contribute funds and participate in the political process than corporations because:

1. The U.S. Constitution only gives rights to natural "persons" or "people". Probably most if not all of the people who wrote constitution would be horrified if they knew that corporations were being extended the same rights as natural people.

I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial ofstrength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. (Thomas Jefferson, in1816, quoted in Lawrence Goodwyn, The Populist Moment).

2. Unions are made of many average working people and are required by law to be democratic. Corporations are dictatorships and represent the interests of a very small, usually very rich part of the population.

3. Corporations are only interested in profit and making as much as they can regardless of the consequences to society. Unions by their very construction and make up have a much wider area of concern.

I'm not saying Unions can't be corrupt (which usually means they are controlled by a small group of people who put their own gain ahead of the members.

Corporations are institutionally made to be corrupt. Their only legal stated purpose is to enrich a relatively small group of people: the share holders (and the way it works the biggest share holders and executives of the company have control over it)

The U.S. has gotten more undemocratic and more unequal during exactly the period that corporations have seen their power grow in the political system.

It's not a coincidence.

The unions only care about how much money and what benefits they get.

That is their job. Thats like saying corporations only care about making a profit.

My tax dollars go to alot of things I don't use either, we don't get to pick and chose what our taxes get spent on.

Can you imagine what a clusterfart government would be if everybody had a say in what their taxes were spent on?

Fire every non union worker in a union shop

uaw-779887

Fire every non union worker in a union shop

Perfect example why we say that unionists are nothing more than marxist/stalinist thugs.

mhrjhn -

While not atempting to denigrate Feisty in any way, you might want to note that she only shows up when she believes the story supports President Obama, and is conspicuously absent whenever the story does not fit the narrative of Obama is the greatest ever.

Oh Larry your a real prankster huh and you are a mean man

uaw You are a PUTZ

Careful uaw, I've known many Marines in my lifetime while serving in the Army, and I know for a fact, that if you had the scones to say that to that Marines' face, you'd very soon be on your back, wondering if anyone got the license plate of the truck that just run you over. Union thugs might think they're a tough bunch, but they are nothing but a bunch of daisy picking girly boys when compared to ANY member of the armed forces. Especially the Marines. Keep up the good work usmc, Semper Fi!

UAW...probably a lazy ass who doesn't want a job, just wants a paycheck. Probably spends most of his time whining to his steward and filing grievances....

Larry Robinson...RIGHT ON, BROTHER!

USMC...from Navy to you, Semper Fi, my friend.

Union idiots are the most selfish and most lazy people I know. I've worked in union shops, union members tend to be some of the most selfish, laziest, and most racist people I know!

UAW, you can go home and brush your tooth now!!!!

Union idiots are the most selfish and most lazy people I know. I've worked in union shops, union members tend to be some of the most selfish, laziest, and most racist people I know!

Much like every Republican troll I've ever read.

UAW I grew up a union brat back when unions bargained for benefits and the parties represented the middle of the American political spectrum. Neither party represents the majority of Americans anymore and I wouldn't want my money given to either of them.

UAW - want some cheese with that whine, or would you just prefer to get some ointment?

Anyone who thinks that todays unions are all "Norma Rae" really need to read up on American history. Does anyone remember the Kennedy's vs the Teamsters. I suppose all you union Democarats think they were stupid right wing jerks. Todays big unions are just like the corporations they claim to oppose. The politics of my Democrat family has been split on the unions for generations now. Some support, some do not.

This is what I know. In the 1950's the teamsters went into areas of Florida to unionize the milk truck drivers. My father stood up at the meeting with the organizers and said the he thought that everyone should think it over for a few days before deciding. That afternoon, a group of union organizing thugs hijacked my dads truck beat him almost to death and left him in his truck in a orange grove to die. He survived and he certainly became anti union after that. My mother remained strongly supportive of the union movement despite this. I took on her support of the union ideal in general, but I never forgot that both sides, the unions and the corporations deal in violence and death.

Not all unions are corrupt as the teamsters became. But absolute power corrupts absolutly whether it is a union or a corporation or a political party. My father stood up for free choice and the union attempted to kill him even as many companies had union organizers killed. Pots calling kettles black.

If you work in a union shop, pay the "$67.00" or give up the benfits that the union gained for you in that shop. If you are a union, give up that person's politcal donation or else ask them where to spend it. Working conditions are collective; personal politics are not.

real quick with the lobbying reform when its we the people, so when are they going to crack down on the mega corps that band together and lobby them against we the people

You're a raaaaaccist!!!

So much of this is panicked low-education voters who cant better their own situation, so they just look to others (unions, government employees) to bring them down so they have misery for company.

WIthout Collective bargaining goes away, expect wages to fall even further than they have. Fools and Morons. Next up, irradicate the minimum wage and benefits

WHy do conservatives want a slave economy?

My thinking these days is as a consumer, I am 'uncertain' about the economy, so I guess Ill just have to cut back on consumption until all the 'trickle down' magically appears as in never (chuckle).

Oh, please, racist? Thomas is a black man who doesn't think he's one.

A black man who does not think like he is told to think is more what you mean.

You are scary!

Oh, please, racist? Thomas is a black man who doesn't think he's one.

According to the liberal playbook, anyone who disagrees with someone who's Black must be a raaaacccist!!

Clarence Thomas, the one who sexually harassed Anita Hill?

Did he? That wasn't proven now was it?

I didn't think Dems really cared about sexual harassment as long as it didn't affect their "job performance." At least that's what they were all saying when Bill Clinton was roaming the WH, harassing and raping as many women as he could!!!!

jwilson - Are you trying to imply there were many women in the WH that were sexually harassed? Name another one, not named Monica. This should be a long unanswered question, I think.

2 lane gypsy Texas is a right to work state and we have a 5-6% unemployment rate. Tell me your plan for the rest of the country to get there.

Supreme Court Justice Thomas is a distinguished, intelligent and honorable man who was once the subject of a democrat witch hunt for pointing out that it looked like there was a pubic hair in his soda. Lisa Brown, the nut job in MI, said "I'm flattered that you are all so interested in my Vagina, but no means no" and she became a cause celeb for the democrats. BTW: This conservative isn't afraid of the word "vagina" and I use it frequently when watching Ed Schultz (example: "Boy, his panties are bunched up his vagina today!"

Yeah Tom.

Maybe we should just fire all the representatives and Senators and let the SCOTUS handle all laws from now on.

Cut out the middle man.

Oh, Tommy, you blasphemer! did you really mean to imply that Obama isn't the great intellectual powerhouse NBC would like for all of us ignorant rubes believe that he is?

ROTFLMAO!

Even Michelle had her hubby's number when she said you could grow BARACKOLI in the whitehouse garden.! Just as my Rutabaga's are true intellectual giants, so is that vegetable in the Whitehouse.

GOPisextinct Apparently the senior Democrat "constitutional law professor" is an idiot and the Reps and Senators who follow the approach "to pass a bill to find out what is in it" is not working. In November we will have the chance to fire them.

bfitz, funny. To quantify it Obama has about one tenth of the brain of Bill Clinton.

Maybe some of you on the right should look at the Federalist Society in connection with the current Supreme Court. This is none other than a corporate controlled,(as all of these "conservative" think tanks/"societies" are), neo-con organization dedicated to the complete corporate takeover of courts. Just as in the days of Gingrich and the "hammer", selling congress to the highest bidder, Abramoff usually. We are fast arriving at the government you deserve, where the people with the money make all the rules and well if you have a grievance, tough $hit. There are plenty of good Patriotic Americans of both political persuasions turning in their graves over what is happening in the current SC(R)OTUS. You know what the R stands for. So after you kill off the unions, meanwhile the wages for working Americans follows the same downward path as union membership, then drown the government in bathtub, who's left to rule the world, those benevolent "job creators". They make money the old fashioned way, they steal it from poor people.

BTW it was Shrub Jr. who penned the "elections have consequences" comment. Yeah we know what a steaming pile he left us with.

Another BTW, What the hell do ya'll have to say about the US chamber of commerce, they are always raising money to put Republitards in office. You know that stimulus ya'll on the right hated, well one of the biggest supporters was, you guessed it the Chamber.

Get ready for the goose stepping and seig heiling MFer's

GOP is dead your party has already made congress unneccesary just let the Dictator in chief rule by presidential edict. We can save a lot of wasted money on elections we will only need one more. No dictator ever gives up power willingly. Actually from what I heard the constitutional law scholar and his wife both had to surrender their law licenses before they got taken away by the state of Illinois.

Actually Unions donate to both parties, As do Corporations, Across the USA over 30% of Union
workers are registered Republican voters (or possibly were at this point) 45% are registered
Democrats and 20% are Inde's (with a few Libertarians, etc on the side)

Bo-1925019,

Your statements are correct, although you left out that Unions donate on average a little more than 90% to Democrats, while Corporate donations are split pretty close to 50/50 between the parties.

I wouldn't say workers are so much stupider than other people ... BUT they ARE workers and not owners or managers for a reason.

You are assuming the workers will actually donate and not just use the money to feed their families.

Only if you want to go back to $1 an hour, 80 hr work weeks, No Vacations, No Holidays, No Overtime

Don't believe it bfitz.

If there were no Unions there would be no bulwark against corporate dominance. Left unchecked corporations would have you trussed up with a ball gag, in fishnet stockings, wearing a wig with your doopsie in the air.

They'd take turns with you.

Maybe you need a union to protect yourself from such GOPisextinct, but those of us who think for ourselves have no problem walking away from mistreatment and we always find a better opportunity when we do. It's called self preservation. You should try it.

Only if you want to go back to $1 an hour, 80 hr work weeks, No Vacations, No Holidays, No Overtime

i'm guessing you be able to work for minimum wage? maybe

Labor unions a "Bulwark Against Corporate Dominance"? Now that really is funny. Between 1992 and 1998 Toyota, Honda, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors built 16 assembly plants for subcompact automobiles intended for the North American (that's the US and Canada) in MEXICO. Why? Because the practice of Union featherbedding, labor costs retirement benefits made the costs of producing those cars in the US too high to be competitive. Those plants employ 149,000 mexicans in jobes that were once held by US auto workers because the unions demanded that their retirement funds be fully funded for a minimum of 10 years in the future for every year.

Some "Bulwark Against Corporate Dominance." The UAW destroyed yhose jobe just as the Postal Reform Act of 2007 ensured that the USPS would also fail by introducing the same requirement to completely fund the retirement system for 10 years in advance and moving that windo ahead with every passing year.

What your unions are is a guaranteed day's pay for a day's work that must have no performance metrica attached to it and no consequences for failing to measure up to any standard. Your unions have been exposed as the defenders of the lazy and the incompetent and, soon, will be as extinct as the dinosaur in the United States.

I am conservative and not anti-union, just anti-stupid-rules-for-unions.

Card check: Hell no!

No say where their dues go: Hell no!

Public employees with collective bargaining rights: Me and FDR, hell no!

I don't think public end union employees are overpaid, I think the rest of the workforce is underpaid and it is the fault of the Democrats. The biggest wage protection our country has is our immigration laws!

bfitz:

I'll work for $2.25 / hour if you will. Americans can never compete with Mexican so-called wages.

Riddle me this: If the people making Mexican cars make $4.00 / hour, then why don't your noble auto companies price those cars at $3,000?

I think if you bothered to check you'll find a Dodge truck made in Saltillo or Toluca, Mexico still costs $35,000.

Yabecoo,...do you think you could find me someone who "thinks for themself" to debate with?

Yeah, I'll wait. Ask Mommy to help you.

I will answer that GOP, they build them outside the US and Canadian boarders and are able to apply some of the profits towards covering the costs of employing the overcompensated US and Canadian workers due to the excessive wages, benefits and healthcare costs. The Cost associated with employing a Union worker here in the states have driven many industries and jobs outside our boarders. The companies had to move them outside the states to stay competitive and profitable which they have difficulty doing when the average UAW/CAW worker banks around $60 an hour in wage, benefits and pension costs. IE...Thus the bailouts the taxpayers were forced into with out proper thought prior to just doing.

Specific to the ruling it is correct, no reason why someone should be forced to pay for something they do not believe in. Its time to free the public sector of Unions, taxpayers are paying premium rates for substandard services. I do not want my money and taxes going towards the overcompensations of these workers and towards the democratic agenda of which I do not believe it. If the Public Sector Unions want to donate towards either Democrat or Repub let them but do it with their own money out of their own pockets and not mine. We all know Dems get a majority of Unions support, fine but again do not have my tax dollars going towards that. Case in point, I have to pay property taxes, have no kids but I have to pay property taxes and 70% of those taxes go towards the local school. Schools employ teachers and we all know teachers strongly support the Dems. I do not want my tax dollars supporting teachers who strongly support the Dems which equals my money going towards the democratics agenda which I do not agree with--this connection must be stopped and made illegal.

But Canadians have socialized medicine UAW. Their benefits don't cost anything, and the VEBA's written into domestic maker's contracts absolve auto companies of costs too.

My dues dollars have to be VOLUNTARILY submitted for political causes via the VCAP program. It has to be renewed annually. If you really KNEW what you were talking about you'd know that.

You are saying that because you don't get these benefits that you should take them away from me? Wouldn't it be more intelligent to turn that around and instead get fully-paid medical benefits,....for you? Why do you think it is a good idea to surrender your benefits?

Besides. Auto companies were making higher profits with far higher rates of Unionization, and the Japs and Germans have far, far higher pay rates than our Unions do here. They make more over there.

How come they're kicking our a$$e$?

Maybe declining Unionization is a symptom of a much larger problem? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

GOP -

FYI - Canadians have socialized medicine, yes, but it is not free as you seem to think. They pay higher taxes to pay for that socialized medicine.

I know many Canadians and they love their health care system. They look at the US and can't believe we are in such a predicament. Our system is broken and we are quickly becoming a third world country.

Anyone who thinks that unions have outlived their usefullness, lives in a fantasy world where the "one-percent/job-creators" are your salvation, and they will trickle down on your head as they continue to eliminate any semblance of a middle class. Enjoy working multiple jobs w/o benefits if you plan to continue living indoors. Unless you're in the uppercrust. But let's enjoy the weekend....brought to you by organized labor.

Bill, if UNions are bad , then what is a fair wage if they are paid too much? Should evryone make less then? YES or NO?

That's the problem with the unions, the "everyone" mentality.

To answer your question, Some people should be making more and some people should be making less depending on what their job is and how they perform it.

Easy, no?

Easy no?

No. Without a Union your payscale may be dependant on whether you give the boss a good hummer or not.

We did have a case like that once where the guy's supervisor (Stephane) was fondling himself while speaking to one of our members.

O'really, you would probably be walking around with a goofy taste in your mouth. Unions are Democracy in the workplace, and I have a guaranteed Union-negotiated pension waiting for me,.....how bout' you?

I probably work harder than you do O'Really,......I just have someone to safeguard my benefits while I sleep.

You?

You get a trailer park, and a half-funded 401K.

Enjoy them.

Sheep need flocks to feel safe... it is what unions depend upon.

If you know you're lazy and incompetent your best bet is to hope to blend into the heard.

What bullcrap. I've never belonged to a union and my payscale was never dependent on giving hummers. There are actually laws against that, but you've swallowed the union line that workers can't defend themselves without their help. Keep swallowing if it makes you happy.

I don't need anyone to safeguard my benefits since I'm self-employed. I hope you get to enjoy your guaranteed union negotiated pension. Most angry men like yourself usually die soon after retiring. Maybe your wife will finally enjoy herself with your money.

Good point O'Really. My Union negotiated a survivor's benefit for her too. :o) She'll get 85% of my pension.

BTW I am 54, swim laps for 1 hour / day, cholesterol is 170, BP 120/70, and my carotid arteries are clear as a bell. Quit smoking 10 years ago. I juice kale and drink a 2 oz. wheat grass juice as well, every week.

I hear that some companies are shaking down their employees to give to the Romney Super-Pacs. By law at least giving to the Union's political arm is VOLUNTARY.

Self employed usually means you get schtuped by Republicans. How's that going?

Dude. You're self employed. You have no benefits!!!

Don't call me dude, I'm a dudette. And it's almost 10 am here, I'm getting ready to go out and swim in my beautiful heated pool before I head out for a job at 3 pm. I should be home by 4 and ready for my weekend. No, I have no benefits, just the freedom to pick the days and hours I want to work. It does wonders for my blood pressure. I've also been able to raise two children, volunteer at their schools, be a Girl Scout leader and be at every one of their sporting events and still make enough to save for retirement and travel the world, all without union help. Who'dathunk?

How's that union job? Have you seen the sun lately?

WOW! Millions of non union people are making a great living? Please tell me what country that's in.........i'm ready to move now!

The United States! Millions of people make a great living without belonging to a union.

Last job before I retired I made $14.00 an hour on a 42 hour week with time and a half for overtime. The starting salary for all new hires was $10.00 an hour. The maximum work week was 56 hours because people started getting hurt after that so the company restricted overtime to 16 hours. We had vacations and healthcare benefits and retirement plans and all that It was a non union plant in a right to work state. The scare tactics won't work on intelligent people.

These non-union workers are happy in their double wides obviously.

Blame the unions for all those jobs going overseas, and congratulate those companies that bring non-union jobs to states and citizens who need and want them.

So what is a fair wage then Steven? Minimum Wage? Or Less? What they get in China?

SO what you are saying that you 'win' and Unions are gone that you expect to see everyone making less? Because American workers are paid too much? You said it, Im just summarizing.

What a putz you are Steven

All unions have succeeded in doing for the last 40 years is pricing American labor out of the world markets

What a great line.

So what is a fair wage then Steven?

let the market decide, in your case I'm guessing minimum wage is about right.

A fair wage is what's competitive in the GLOBAL marketplace.

Because we are in a GLOBAL marketplace.

Paying some union zshlub $30.00 to sweep the floor is NOT going to help us be competitive.

My goodness, when will people understand???

Because American workers are paid too much? You said it, Im just summarizing.

Many are paid too much, especially UNION workers.

That's why the auto makers are setting up factories in non-union states.

And, I might add, the workers there are very happy.

Sucks for the unions, huh?

But it's GOOD for America!!

So what is a fair wage then Steven?

let the market decide, in your case I'm guessing minimum wage is about right.

I have an advanced degreee, worked real hard and earn about $90K a year. How about you?

SO anyway....

In other words, since you have no bargaining power, the CORPORATIONS will pay the lowest they can even below minimum wage. Said it once Ill say it afagin, when wages go down so does sales and revenue ,taxes, savings hjealth care covereage and retirement. IN what Univers is the disappearanvce of a middle class wage 'healthy' for ANY economy?

Cant wait to see the Corporate pigs cheering lower wages and benefits...guess who wont be buying much anymore.

Shortsighted Teabuggerers

I have an advanced degreee, worked real hard and earn about $90K a year. How about you?

You have an 'advanced degreee'?

I'm guessing it's not in 'English'.

Well, I have less education, and make more.

But, my pay is typical for my occupation.

Can't wait to see the unions price themselves out of existence, and we can be competitive in the global marketplace.

Shortsighted neo-Socialists.

Steven, your just burying yourself deeper. You Teabuggerers keep screaming AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM....but want policies that pay people what they are paid in 3rd World countries with the same lack of enviromnmental and safety protectiuons.

Why do you want the American worker to = 3rd World worker wages? and conditions? WHat 'exceptional' about that?

WHy do you want the middle class to disappear, Steven?

The average Chinese wage of $0.57 per hour -- or $104 per month -- is about 3 percent of the average U.S. manufacturing worker's wage

Look everyone, Steven and his Teaturd party want us all to make 57 Cents / Hr so we can 'compete' (chuckle)

The average Chinese wage of $0.57 per hour -- or $104 per month -- is about 3 percent of the average U.S. manufacturing worker's wage

Use your 'advanced degreee' to read this:

http://matadornetwork.com/abroad/how-much-does-it-cost-to-live-in-china/

Tell me, how do you expect us to compete globally when our unions price labor so high?

I'm sure your 'advanced degreee' can help you come up with an answer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/average-cost-factory-worker_n_1327413.html

Oh Steven you big silly, you realize union membership in the US is at about 18%? It's been in decline for the past 30 years. Coincedentally (or not) the middle class has been in decline for about the same amount of time.

SO what you are really saying is that American workers need ot be on par with their Chinees counterparts in order to America to be competitive.

That'll never happen because as we lower our labor costs, CHina will lower it's as well. They have to because we are their biggest customer.

2Lane -

You said look everybody, so I looked, and now I will invite myself into your discourse with Steven B.

Your advanced degree that you mention is seemingly not in logic, since you seem to be missing a couple of things.

The first of these things is that nobody wants anybody to be making 57 cents an hour - that is entirely a fabrication on your part, putting it kindly, and is also entirely illegal in this country. Just maybe you should review the minimum wage law which precludes that eventuality - you know, that law that all of you hyper-supporters of unions continue to claim as one of the great successes of the unions?

Another point is that this does not happen to be China - perhaps a map would be helpful for you in determining what country youare currently in. This becomes important in a number of ways for the purposes of this discussion, but the most salient is this - the laws are different there, as is the culture. So, claiming that becoming Chinese is the result of the downfall of the unions is fear mongering of the most transparent, and quite frankly silly, type.

You speak of the demise of the middle class as if this was one and the same as the demise of unions, and in one sense you are actually correct about that. But, as is typical of a one sided point of view, you fail to see the whole picture. Union jobs have tended to be, historically, manufacturing type jobs - not exclusively, just predominantly. The entire world of manufacturing jobs has changed radically with the advent of technology - more technology means less manufacturing jobs in the traditional sense, such as auto manufacturing.

That translates to less of those traditional jobs, with the unions demanding higher wages for performing those jobs than other easily accessible markets demand for the same jobs. That is competition, by the way.

So which is to blame for the demise of the middle class of tradition - the "teabuggerers", as you so eloquently put it, or simple progress? Or perhaps the idea that companies first and foremost exist to create a profit is difficult, and you have an issue with successful companies?

Perhaps the real answer is that the traditional middle class that we hear so much about is already a dying beast, having been outdated by automation in manufacturing, and the current ability of companies to avoid paying obscene wages to people whose major skill in life is putting a widget in a box.

Automation killed the unions usefulness, not the republicans.

As far as American exceptionalism, that is dying currently, under the misguided notion that everything is supposed to be fair, which is the current hallmark of the liberal mind.

You are partly correct..... but like I said only partly. Yes, company's would love to be able to pay their employee's 57 cents a hour because it is all about net profit come the end of the year. If this wasn't true we would have no need for minimum wage laws. You are correct that workers in china no longer work for 57 cents a day because they have slowly evolved into a middle class sociaty and because of that have started to demand better wages and benifits from there employer's. Higher wages and benifits are now driving the costs of products up that are currently being made in china which is exactly why companies are now looking at other "third world countries" (Vietnam as a example) to produce their products. I agree technology has had a big impact on manufacturing jobs in this country over the last 30 years but alot of these "blue collar jobs" were starting to disappear long before the technology boom. In this day and age it is no longer about making a profit it's about making more profit! It is good ole fashion american greed that will be the demise of the middle class in this county and not because of "union wages".

good ole American greed. So being able to live the American dream like my father who properly moved here with documented papers. Just as a a worker in a non-union factory was able to buy 3 houses. Each time being able to down size from a 3 family, to a 2 family nd eventually a single family. His hard work also put 3 kids through college and he never graduated high school. That is this country not your greedy people, that you believe live here

Your father achieved that because he did it in an era when wages and the cost of living were on par with each other. It is very unlikely he would be able to achieve those goals in this day and age because wages regardless whether they are union or non union have not kept up with the cost of living over the last 40 years! Don't believe me? Here's an example. In 1957 the average price for a house was $2,330.00. Today the average price for a house in this country is $212,800.00! Still think you could achieve the "American Dream" like your father did when you are making Walmart wages?

Mad Dog

Good post. I remember as does my wife our parents paid 2 times annual wage for a house. In 1957 I made $ 5200 per year and bought my home for $9,999. plus the wife did not work but stayed home and took care of the kids. Fat chance my grandchildren will ever see that possibility. Regretfully the die is cast and the good old USA's better days are gone.

Its always the same from the Union supporters...ie...if we get rid of Unions we will all drop to slave wages. Where is the middle ground, there is none when the Union believers speak, instead of someone banking $59 an hour in wages, benefits and pension to bolt seats into an auto why not $33, that would be about $22 plus another $11 in benefits and 401k? The USA is a dual income nation now for the most part, that $22 an hour in Tennessee isnt all that bad and with another income full time household income very livable. These numbers are not slave wages but thats what the Union folks continue to harp on.

The simple fact of the matter is our Gov, States and local cities have made the cost of living expensive. We pay premium rates for substandard services from our Gov, States and local towns. We have all seen the reports from our Gov that their workers average 7% more then a private sector workers, if our Gov did the study we all can agree it probably more. Why are we taxpayers being asked to pay more for everything, because they never make any sacrifices. If we lower the cost of Gov at every level from top down from President down to the park maintenance man the taxpayers burden would be eased and people could use the money to save or purchase items, either way the economy would be stimulated. Its time the Gov, State and Local city workers, Union and Non-Union make the same sacrifices so many taxpayers have had to make, its time the ease the burden on the true taxpayers of this country. Just like Obama has stated, "shared sacrifice" but where have they sacrificed? No need to answer this question, because they haven't or if they have its been very very little. Doubt me, most incomes have dropped in the past 5 years yet property taxes have continued to increase, ours up $1400 a year compared to 5 years ago, now they are $7400 thanks to the local Union contracts that continue to call for more and more. All so they can retire after a simple 25-35 years while the majority of taxpayers have to work 35-50 years to retire if even then. The fleecing of the middle class taxpayers if actually occuring from our Governments, when they are expensive, it makes everything else in this country more expensive and makes for a uncompetitive country on a globel scale.

Steven B:

A fair wage is what's competitive in the GLOBAL marketplace.

Because we are in a GLOBAL marketplace.

Paying some union zshlub $30.00 to sweep the floor is NOT going to help us be competitive.

My goodness, when will people understand???

That's all well and good, Steven and others of like mind. We are living in a global marketplace. Here's the problem. The cost of living in this country is WAY too high to subsist on Third World wages. If the American wage earner is going to make an average of 3% of what he or she is making now, then the cost of living must come down by a factor of 97%. Companies that rely on Americans, Europeans, and other advanced countries to buy their products will find that demand has dried up because nobody can afford to buy their products and services.

There is an answer. Most of the money corporations make goes to pay their bigwigs extravagant salaries and perks. They also spend extravagantly on political candidates and advocacy groups to buy very favorable influence for themselves. Maybe corporate bigwigs ought to take a 97% pay cut themselves. Most can afford to work for a dollar a year - in fact, some do.

This matter goes deeper than the global marketplace meme. Remember that we (Americans) built our society from the ground up. We didn't steal anybody else's jobs. We didn't have any other countries help us out. And the unions' role in establishing a thriving middle class played a huge role in that. But with the global marketplace in place today, it's a zero sum game. There are only so many jobs, and they will be filled by people who will work for pennies on the dollar and be able to afford to live on that paltry sum. That leaves us (we Americans) out in the cold.

Maybe at some point in the distant future an equilibrium of sorts will be reached - where worldwide wages and salaries will be competitive and the cost of living for everybody will be low enough for people to live.

Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like communism.

Funny how Fox has scared these morons into thinking progressive are

socialists. Globalization is a ploy to outsource the middle class and these turds

are to stupid to realize it.

Nonsense. When you get a raw deal from your company, move on to something better. It almost always is. Obama's stacking SCOTUS now with his like mind thinkers and NLRB, Dept of Energy and on and on.

Right, and if unions go away then every company is a raw deal. Do you really want people to look for a job every 2 years you idiot. You are the poster child for the dumbing down of America. You are not even intelligent enough to know where your interests lie unless you are business owner or corporate scumbag just looking to make your bottom line better. If you are a worker your not very smart.

It's not about salaries and benefits fool. It is about forcing (really extortion) money from GOP members, to support the democrats. I have free political choice and no union has the right to use my money to support their political choice, even when it differs from mine leaving me with no choice

yep.

tenure may be the worst idea since socialism and welfare

Remember that when the union goes away the salary of the average worker decreases in direct proportion. Don't be a fool. I am a non-union office manager in a company with union workers. When the company has to pay them the high wages they make the company knows they have to keep my pay in line with or more since I supervise them. So before you bash the unions just remember you could be hurting yourself.

That's not true, but they have an overwhelming and breathtaking sense of entitlement.

Remember that when the union goes away the salary of the average worker decreases in direct proportion.

So do Democrat contributions.

The workers in non-union auto factories seem quite happy.

That must burn your ass, huh?

Crush the public unions. Put every member into poverty. These animals are nothing but freeloaders who have bankrupted the states and destroyed the education system.

Youi know that includes teachers, firefighters and cops, right? WHat a dunce

The average wage in India is $15.00 per day....with no paid benefits That is where the Corporate Gods and their Teabuggering lackeys want to put YOUR wages so they can 'compete' .

Its the KOch Wet Dream

Gypsy you're not worth $15 a day.

Lane Gypsy, you are against outsourcing outside our borders for cheap labor but you support the party that allows outsourcing of cheap labor within our borders?

Public sector workers average 60% more pay than private sector workers - even when the latter are in unions. Add in the Cadillac benefit packages and it becomes 100%. This is the result of their being able to donate to elect their bosses while the private sector cannot. Public sector unions give millions to campaigns and then those elected by this give it back to them in pay and benefits. A cycle of corruption not available to the private sector unions.

His reelection chances are dead?

Try telling that to the Latinos. And the women in America. And scientists, teachers, firefighters, police, etc.

No - that would only follow if they said that union members could opt out - which they did not. This was only for people who didn't belong to the union but worked at the same shop. Shareholders are treated the same as union members - their "dues" can be spent on political candidates at whim of the thugs who run the place.

Shareholders aren't hit with "special assessments". They buy a share / shares and they own part of the company.

And, I might add, there are a number of cases where "activist" shareholders (by activist, I mean shareholders who think the company is wasting money) who try to get their members on the board ... most recent example, Yahoo, has 3 new board members as a result.

Besides, the "politics" of corporations is the pursuit of profit, and return of some of that to shareholders. If someone doesn't like how the profits are shared with its public owners (shareholders), they vote with their feet, i.e. sell their shares.

Keep the rules simple and powerful. Ban all loopholes and subsidies and there is much less and only much cheaper politcal favoritism to purchase.

rational - if this is true then you should also be saying that even the union members - not just those who work in the shop and are nnot in the union - should not have to have their dues going to political campaigns unless they deliberately opt iin. The court did not go that far for unions, why should they do so for shareholders?

I'm guessing you don't own stock. Stock is about income, about capital gains.

Shareholders have an option. They invest voluntarily in a company, the unions forces people to pay dues (donations) to politicians they don's want to support, leaving them with no choice. I can sell my shares, but cannot get rid of the union that enforces my contributions. Do you understand the difference, or are you so brainwashed by your socialist bosses that you have no free thinking ability any longer

The socialist experiment called California just proves that once you run out of other peoples money to fund the false economy that is created, you have to face reality. Seems Europe is in the same boat.. Yet Obama rows on so to speak. Lets hope the 4 year failed experiment by Obama comes to an end.

And it imposes restrictions on their ability to buy legislators who then will decide on what salary and benefits to give the worker.

It doesn't take a sociologist genius to see it coming.; Corporate America in moving the once good name of American-made goods overseas, the piecemeal destruction of the middle-class, the continued denigration of women, the fostering of residual racism and extreme right-wing hate groups, the refusal to cooperate in any way with the POTUS in making economic progress, the deliberate collusion of the conservative majority of the SCOTUS with the fascist direction of the GOP --all this is more fuel for the next American Revolution ! This Texas Independent who fought for and loves America will for the first time vote for a POTUS who best represents ALL Americans-Barack Obama. I am ashamed to say I once was a Republican.

mlkboneundrwear, you're wrong, the employees pay union dues to receive benefits, pay, vacation, etc. now employees can decide if they want to make a political contribution (just like the $3 contribution on your income tax return). unfortunately, big business is about republicans, that's a disadvantage in the political process (like one person, one vote).

Jay Arr, why do you think business are moving their operations abroad. Your favorite unions, who expect more pay for people, than what they are worth is making it impossible to compete with the world. Union members, irrespective of production abilities wants the same money as those hardworking fellow workers. Obviously unions hate payment according to ability and production. When we cannot compete any longer and China owns America, with all the borrowing to keep afloat, then we'll talk again, if we are allowed to talk

There you go again.....GOP calling the 55 yr old schoolteacher, mailman, firefighters and police officers thugs. Why don't you believe that those with union jobs are TAX PAYERS ? The money going to political parties is THEIR money not yours. If they don't want to be part of a union that represents their best needs, than quit, go work somewhere else for less money and benefits. Do you have any say in who your company sends its millions to a political party to make sure it gets special treatment? Thats money you made the company with your work that could be spent to better your life. I never got to withhold my Federal taxes that went to attack Iraq during the Bush years that was a part of the reason this country is in this economic slide. If you don't support your schoolteacher their are private options for you. And don't call 911 just buy a gun and keep the hose ready for a fire.

What are you, new?

Did you even read the article?

Ths is about non-union workers having to pay union dues you moron!!

Mark, you are actually showing us all the real problem here. Being a liberal union member, you are so indoctrinated that you are unable to grasp reality. When the company you invest in, or work for spend their money, it has nothing to do with you. You invest out of free choice. You have been paid your salary, the profits belong to the company, not you.

Unions enforces membership fee's, even if I am not a member. When it forms part of thew negotiating process, I can understand why I have to pay my share.

However, you must be absolutely ridiculous and stupid if you expect me, as a GOP member to pay for that union to donate to the democratic party. The dems are the enemy of my beliefs, why would I wish to donate to them.'

To compare taxes and union dues is the typical liberal hogwash, spoted by fools and then also believed by them same fools

Actually share holders can direct corporate behavior with a sufficient voting block.

Exactly what we Americans need to do if we disagree with the corporations invested in by our 401ks and pensions.

really socialism lol I think you need to see what socialism really means.

But I do think Unions have become too powerful as are corporations there power has disrupted the political process.