Supreme Court to Take Up Challenges to Union Practices
Source: NY Times
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Labor leaders and businesses are closely watching a Supreme Court case to be argued this Wednesday that involves a popular strategy used by unions to successfully organize hundreds of thousands of workers.
That strategy — widely deployed by the Service Employees International Union and the Unite Here hotel workers union — involves pressuring an employer into signing a so-called neutrality agreement in which the employer promises not to oppose a unionization drive. By some estimates, more than half of the recent successful unionization campaigns involve such agreements, which sometimes allow union organizers onto company property to talk with workers.
Benjamin Sachs, a professor of labor law at Harvard Law School, said the case before the Supreme Court was potentially “the most significant labor case in a generation.”
Professor Sachs said that if the court ruled against labor, it could significantly hobble efforts by private sector unions to organize workers. He added that the other big labor case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this session could have a significant impact on public sector unions. In that case, a home-care worker has asked the court to rule that the state of Illinois violated her First Amendment rights by requiring her to pay “fair share” fees, much like dues, to a union she did not support.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/supreme-court-to-take-up-challenges-to-union-practices.html?partner=EXCITE&ei=5043&_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
-> I wanted to move out. No violence was required. Cars, shoes, and humans are all nouns. The English language is allows for nouns to be interchanged in sentences. I provided many examples of "move her out" and similar phrases did not have violent connotations.
-> The companies are required to fire people not paying union dues in a State that is not "right-to-work." The example cited in the OP was an undecided court case were the person said she shouldn't have to pay dues because of what appears to be a dubious First Amendment claim. Here is the only actual paragraph in the article that mentions "dues:"
In that case, a home-care worker has asked the court to rule that the state of Illinois violated her First Amendment rights by requiring her to pay “fair share” fees, much like dues, to a union she did not support.
The article is actually about a case before the SCOTUS that:
involves pressuring an employer into signing a so-called neutrality agreement in which the employer promises not to oppose a unionization drive.
-> Why is it telling that the other poster hasn't responded? Juxtaposed last post on DU (at the time I am posting this) was Sun Nov 10, 2013, 11:10 PM. It's Tuesday. Your response to Juxtaposed was posted on Monday. What is telling is what seems to be your assumption of guilt.
-> I "stepped in to defend them"* because you inexplicably decided that "move her out" inherently implied violence. I found that assessment to be flawed and responded accordingly.
* I prefer "stepped in to correct you." You were the one ascribing an implication violence to a phrase--a phrase which I am unable to make sound violent. Perhaps you can give an example.
I doubt it.
http://www.aflcio.org/Learn-About-Unions/What-Unions-Do/The-Union-Difference
Union members earn better wages and benefits than workers who aren’t union members. On average, union workers’ wages are 27 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts.
Unionized workers are 60 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions.
More than 85 percent of union workers have jobs that provide health insurance benefits, but only 54 percent of nonunion workers do. Unions help employers create a more stable, productive workforce—where workers have a say in improving their jobs.
Unions help bring workers out of poverty and into the middle class. In fact, in states where workers don’t have union rights, workers’ incomes are lower.
See related topics:
Nonunion Workers’ Pay Lower
Better Pensions, Health Care
Wages Higher with Union Rights
He just doesn't know what it is to be in a Union. I didn't, but I caught on fast. I'm always embarrassed by what I said and did when I was younger. 
He'll come along nicely, I'm sure. Just keep interacting with people on DU.
discuss the home care worker who doesn't want to be in a union, I'd like to talk about this sentence;
'That strategy — widely deployed by the Service Employees International Union and the Unite Here hotel workers union — involves pressuring an employer into signing a so-called neutrality agreement in which the employer promises not to oppose a unionization drive.
When is the last time a business caved to 'pressure' from a union that did not yet represent that businesses employees? 
I can't think of any. It seems to me the writer revealed his bias. People should have a right to decide to join or not join, when the union is trying to organize. The only way to truly let that happen is for the business to let the organizers in. Once the majority of the workers have decided to accept a union, then all workers are entitled to representation as well as higher wages and better benefits. Higher wages and better benefits which no business has ever, or hardly ever, given willingly to its workers.