There Goes Low Deductible Union Health Plans!

The SCOTUS ruling that evicerates union dues will more than likely cause unions to increase premiums on health and benefit plans and also increase cost sharing.

Unions around here in Cleveland get GENEROUS benefits, like a $250 deductible for health insurance - when's the last time you seen an individual plan with a deductible option that low? My father got screwed out of 33% of his retirement pension because of funding shortfalls - do you think union workers are going to just take that? Hell No! They will withdraw their dues as a form of retribution - causing a vicious cycle with union benefits...

Supreme Court deals sharp defeat to public employee unions, banning mandatory fees
 
To get those benefits they have to contribute to a benefit fund, no?

While they claim this was about freedom of speech, it is really about trying to erode public service union membership and weaken their power.
 
To get those benefits they have to contribute to a benefit fund, no?

While they claim this was about freedom of speech, it is really about trying to erode public service union membership and weaken their power.
As a former union member, I have a differnt take on it. The union bosses brought it on thier selves by not being repsonsive to the desires fo thier members. Now, thy may have to listen to them if they want to survive.

Back when my BIL was a candidate for governor of GA, the education union leaders told him, "You have done more for education than any of the other legislators... It is a shame you are not a Democrat so we could support you." Say what? They shoud be supporting people that see to the needs of their members not a particular party."
 
Last edited:
As a former union member, I have a differnt take on it. The union bosses brought it on thier selves by not being repsonsive to the desires fo thier members. Now, thy may have to listen to them if they want to survive.

Back when my BIL was a cnadidate for governor of GA, the education union leaders told him, "You have done more for education than any of the other legislators... It is a shame you are not a Democrat so we could support you." Say what? They shoud be supporting people that see to the needs of thier members not a particlar party."

My mother was a union employee. Being in the South membership wasn't required so there were times she didn't join. She got most of the benefits without having to pay. She got the same contract and pay as everyone else and the union had to represent her in any grievance. She simply was not entitled to benefits when out on strike, which generally were a loan versus any real benefit. Also by not being a union member she wasn't required to strike and often got paid very well during that time.

So yes, I do get that sometimes unions are their own worse enemy. However, I really don't believe this was about politics at all since in theory the fair share was just to pay for contract negotiations and representation for grievances, etc. Oh, there was probably someone who was upset about having to pay for even that when the union supported the other party. But the money to fight it out, I firmly believe that came from those trying to destroy the union.

Now some people don't like unions, and that is fine. But don't try to mislead me as to why you are fighting this fight.
 
My mother was a union employee. Being in the South membership wasn't required so there were times she didn't join. She got most of the benefits without having to pay. She got the same contract and pay as everyone else and the union had to represent her in any grievance. She simply was not entitled to benefits when out on strike, which generally were a loan versus any real benefit. Also by not being a union member she wasn't required to strike and often got paid very well during that time.

So yes, I do get that sometimes unions are their own worse enemy. However, I really don't believe this was about politics at all since in theory the fair share was just to pay for contract negotiations and representation for grievances, etc. Oh, there was probably someone who was upset about having to pay for even that when the union supported the other party. But the money to fight it out, I firmly believe that came from those trying to destroy the union.

Now some people don't like unions, and that is fine. But don't try to mislead me as to why you are fighting this fight.
No misleading.. I heard people gripe for years over their dues being used to support liberal causes that had nothing to do with the union. BTW, I have always thought it was wrong that a union be forced to represent a person who is not a dues paying member ... That is as wrong as requiring membership by force of law. However even tough representation was required, a non member did not get as enthusiastic representation as a member.
 
All good comments, but keep something in mind about this ruling. The ruling only forbids “forced” contributions. If a person wants to continue their contributions they can still do so.
 
That is the way it should be.

They should extend it as you said, the union should not be required to represent non-union members, nor should non-union members be entitled to any contract provisions or benefits negotiated by the union.

That could play out very interesting in any number of ways.
 
They should extend it as you said, the union should not be required to represent non-union members, nor should non-union members be entitled to any contract provisions or benefits negotiated by the union.

That could play out very interesting in any number of ways.
Yeah.. I wonder what would happen if a company decided to pay a higher wage to non union members?
 
Back
Top