Hi from the SEIU/CAP Action labor forum, where I’m already regretting my decision to wear heels. Speakers today include Harris, Warren, Beto, Klobuchar, Castro, and Hickenlooper.pic.twitter.com/mokfdkUWHY
Do svojich Tweetov môžete pridať informácie o polohe, napríklad mesto alebo presnú polohu, z webu alebo prostredníctvom aplikácií tretích strán. Históriu polohy Tweetov môžete kedykoľvek vymazať. Viac informácií
Harris talks about rideshare workers she meets who need a second job to make ends meet. "They should not be in a situation where it’s desperation." Says as president, it would be her goal to make it so that people would only need to work one job, w/ good wages & benefits.
I thought that Right to Work laws meant that workers could not legally be forced to join unions if they didn't support the union's political practices.
Almost right, In right to work states workers are not required to join a labor union even if the workers at their place of employment are members of a union.
Buuuuut the unions that represent their dues-paying coworkers are required to zealously represent them as though they were members, so basically it's a Freeloader Enabling Statute.
I’m not denying that, just making the point that it had nothing to do with the unions’ political ideals.
I mean, it's gotta have something to do with it, doesn't it? Unions are political entities and come out in support of political causes or candidates. I think it's reasonable to expect that workers shouldn't be forced into organizations they don't support.
Sure, as long as the workers who don't pay dues are similarly not afforded the protections of membership. Don't want to join? Fine. Negotiate your own contract. "Right to work" laws are ideological weapons designed to destroy unions.
I was with you until you said "RtW laws are ideological weapons..." Unions have a right to exist, but they don't have a right to my support, the same as any organization. The easiest way to get my support is to stay out of politics unless it's directly related to my job.
A living wage is politics. Occupational safety is politics. Paid leave, health insurance, retirement benefits--they're all politics. You're being deliberately obtuse.
The president does not have this power.
Logical progression. When I'm president, I'm using executive orders to rename the country to "Pizzaland".
Typo? Those who don't pay dues can't be in the union, although they benefit from collective bargaining by the union.
I never understood the argument that if party-1 is an accessory beneficiary of decisions made by party-2 without party-1’s consent then party-2 has a right to adjoin party-1 to a contract without party-1’s consent.
I'm afraid I can't parse your sentence. I particularly can't figure out "accessory beneficiary ".
Sorry.
He's saying he doesn't understand the moral reasoning as to why one who may benefit by the actions of another, yet did so without any consent or action of their own, is then obligated to the other legally.
Oh, that makes sense. Thank you.
He’s saying that people should be able to get all the benefits that the union members worked and paid for without working and paying for it themselves.
No, he's saying that it's other workers' choices to form and join a union but individual workers should have the right not to. If others choose to, it's up to them. They don't have to either.
He’s talking about freeloaders.
Idk which reason to name first that she legally can’t do that. Would almost be funny to see her get smacked down by the court though.
Eh, we’ve stretched the commerce clause so much I can see the argument a Federal Goverment could make to strike them down. Not saying I agree with it or think it’s a good one. Just saying if “non participation in a market has a market impact” flew in SCOTUS, anything is possible.
At the same time, Janus showed the courts are inclined against mandatory dues at all, at least with public sector. With private sector one can argue political beliefs as a protected class and argue mandatory on private sector is discrimination
That’s why we pack the courts 
Yeah this is evil no matter which way you slice it. Can't trade one autocracy for another.
Ain’t nothing in the constitution setting the court at 9
Why not have one per circuit?
Packing the courts will be the end of this country. Not even FDR went that far in the end and he hated not being a dictator
Twitter je preťažený alebo sa vyskytla neočakávaná chyba. Skúste to znova alebo navštívte stránku Twitter Status, ktorá obsahuje viac informácií.