What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
bronconick said:
Roberts concurs with the liberals in striking down Louisiana's abortion ruling, says he thinks it was wrongly decided in 2016 and it's about upholding precedent right now.
Click to expand...

Would have been nice if he thought upholding precedent was just as important when he was deciding which way to go on the Janus VS AFSCME case in 2018. That one was all about eviscerating prededence that was set when a good portion of the court was already practicing law (as in it was not so long ago).
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
Would have been nice if he thought upholding precedent was just as important when he was deciding which way to go on the Janus VS AFSCME case in 2018. That one was all about eviscerating prededence that was set when a good portion of the court was already practicing law (as in it was not so long ago).
Click to expand...

I always thought unions approached that problem in the wrong way.

If I were in charge of unions, here is the deal I'd propose with states and the federal government. Unions only represent those people who choose to have the unions collectively bargain on their behalf, and they only collect fees from those individuals. But, the trade off is, union representation doesn't require a majority or a certain number of employees in the work place. If a singe person, or two people want to hire a union to collectively bargain for them, the employer has to negotiate with that union.

You get rid of the nasty fights where employers keep a union out due to intimidation or otherwise.

It gets the unions in the door, maybe only with 25 or 30% of the work force initially, but if they are worth the money, more people will sign on.
 
Couple interesting ones today.

Good news to the IP attorneys and trolls out there, adding .com to a generic word can be trademarkable. 8-1 with Breyer dissenting.

The more far reaching one is the tax credits for religious schools one out of Montana. 5-4 for the conservatives saying that Montana could not forbid tax credits for people donating to religious schools, but the opinions are all over the place. Roberts wrote the majority, but there are literally 8 opinions. Kagan was the only one who didn't write one.
 
SJHovey said:
I always thought unions approached that problem in the wrong way.

If I were in charge of unions, here is the deal I'd propose with states and the federal government. Unions only represent those people who choose to have the unions collectively bargain on their behalf, and they only collect fees from those individuals. But, the trade off is, union representation doesn't require a majority or a certain number of employees in the work place. If a singe person, or two people want to hire a union to collectively bargain for them, the employer has to negotiate with that union.

You get rid of the nasty fights where employers keep a union out due to intimidation or otherwise.

It gets the unions in the door, maybe only with 25 or 30% of the work force initially, but if they are worth the money, more people will sign on.
Click to expand...
So it’s just “Right To Work” with fancy language? Yeah, it doesn’t work. Unions in this situation are completely starved of the money to effectively fight for their members and, because nobody is required to join, the company now has the ability to divide and conquer their workforce.

Collective bargaining only works when it’s actually a collective.
 
Last edited:
Handyman said:
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1277958546940928006

"Some have lied or made racist comments: Thousands of U.S. judges violated their oaths, broke the law but kept their jobs https://reut.rs/3ijktNx"

Some of the info from other another tweet:

"Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide https://reut.rs/2ZkVOjb"
Click to expand...

That's ok. Hannity, Tucker, Laura, and Rush all assure me that there is no systemic racism in America.
 
Jimjamesak said:
So it’s just “Right To Work” with fancy language? Yeah, it doesn’t work. Unions in this situation are completely starved of the money to effectively fight for their members and, because nobody is required to join, the company now has the ability to divide and conquer their workforce.

Collective bargaining only works when it’s actually a collective.
Click to expand...

With my way you'd end up with millions of more union employees. If a union could pick up 20% of every work place in the US, how many union members would there be?

But be my guest and continue with the way that's worked so well in unionizing the US workforce.
 
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that the current method of spending millions in member dues on big, glossy campaigns to unionize other organizations doesn't sit well with a lot of non-union employees.
 
SJHovey said:
With my way you'd end up with millions of more union employees. If a union could pick up 20% of every work place in the US, how many union members would there be?

But be my guest and continue with the way that's worked so well in unionizing the US workforce.
Click to expand...
20% of zero is still zero. And under your scheme zero is the exact amount of leverage any unionized employees would have. What exactly could they negotiate for if it’s only 20% of the workforce?

“Hey! We want better pay, health care and retirement benefits!”
”There’s only 20 of you and 80 others willing to work for what we offer. F- off.”
”We’ll go on strike!”
”Be our guest. Won’t affect us. In fact, don’t come back, we’ll just hire 20 other people.“

Again, collective bargaining only works when it’s the collective. In my job, if we go on strike, everybody goes on strike. Drivers, Rampers, Loaders, Clerks, and even the Pilots. It’s the only way it works.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that the current method of spending millions in member dues on big, glossy campaigns to unionize other organizations doesn't sit well with a lot of non-union employees.
Click to expand...
Can’t speak for other unions but I know most of the money actually goes to paying for representation by the union (negotiators, business administrators, stewards etc.).

But, Labor does rely upon strength in numbers. The more people in the union, the more leverage you have through tactics like sympathetic work actions.
 
Jimjamesak said:
20% of zero is still zero. And under your scheme zero is the exact amount of leverage any unionized employees would have. What exactly could they negotiate for if it’s only 20% of the workforce?

“Hey! We want better pay, health care and retirement benefits!”
”There’s only 20 of you and 80 others willing to work for what we offer. F- off.”
”We’ll go on strike!”
”Be our guest. Won’t affect us. In fact, don’t come back, we’ll just hire 20 other people.“

Again, collective bargaining only works when it’s the collective. In my job, if we go on strike, everybody goes on strike. Drivers, Rampers, Loaders, Clerks, and even the Pilots. It’s the only way it works.
Click to expand...

They would have the leverage they are entitled to. If it's a union of one, not a lot of leverage.

But I'm going to disagree with you on the rest of it.

First, not everyone goes out. My daughter was/is in the nurse's union in the Twin Cities, and when that union called a strike she said that a majority of the nurses crossed the line.

Also, 20% is a huge number. I can't have 20% of my employees gone without it causing major problems. You ever see a meatpacking line or something like that operate with 80% or its employees? Very, very difficult to do.
 
Jimjamesak said:
But, Labor does rely upon strength in numbers. The more people in the union, the more leverage you have through tactics like sympathetic work actions.
Click to expand...

This whole problem goes away if the workers own the place of business.

Just sayin'.
 
I see that conservative media is breathlessly suggesting/hoping Thomas retires this fall so that Itch can ram another young conservative judge through the process. Of course we all know they're also quietly rooting for RBG to croak.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I see that conservative media is breathlessly suggesting/hoping Thomas retires this fall so that Itch can ram another young conservative judge through the process. Of course we all know they're also quietly rooting for RBG to croak.
Click to expand...

I really want to hear why this is ok during an election year now.....
 
Kepler said:
Roberts delivers when it matters.
Click to expand...

The suppressors are out in full force. The only way trump can beat Biden is via voter suppression in perhaps a half a dozen states. Fortunately I don't think anyone thought Biden would prevail in Alabama, but then rulings like this might not affect only one state so it could very well matter. As well it might doom whatever slim chance there was of holding on to the senate seat in Alabama.
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
Not exactly. It is my understanding that the ruling says that states can punish Electors for not going with the state's vote.
Click to expand...

Technically correct (the best kind of correct), because that was the question presented. Having said that, the opinion succinctly points out the nature of the Electoral College since George Washington left and said in pretty explicit terms that states can do pretty much whatever they want to prevent faithless electors.

The Colorado case involved the replacement of a faithless elector, and was decided per curiam, adopting the Washington decision in full. (Sotomayor was recused, hence the separate opinion).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top