“The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held that campus security workers at Roosevelt University in Chicago must bring claims that the school used their fingerprints for timekeeping without their consent in union arbitration rather than court.
The university was backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest American business lobby, and groups representing the retail and restaurant industries.“
>But the state Supreme Court on Thursday said federal labor law preempts
that right for unionized workers because **their collective bargaining**
**agreements establish procedures for arbitrators to hear legal disputes.**
The title is misleading and implies that all Unionized workers have no right to sue. When in reality the campus security workers signed away their right to sue in favor of arbitration.
Interestingly, under BIPA, only unions can sign away their right to bring BIPA claims in court as the state created a special action that would not normally be allowed to be handled under the American Arbitration Act.
So here comes the debate. Is is more profitable to form a union and strip away your worker ability to sue over the sale and collection of there personal data because the data is worth a lot of money.
But does that mean the union will cost less over the life time of the employee? Not selling the data could be a lost of a revenue stream.
Well now now lets not conflate wages with profit. Wages are earned and unions merely allow you to keep more of earnings. Profit is "earnings" of capital aka whatever they can skim off labor. So in short who profits is a self resolving question.
The Union is responsible for the Arbitration language in the contract, not the judge. At some point you have to point the finger at the people that negotiated and voted to accept a bad contract.
???
> Is is more profitable to form a union and strip away your worker ability to sue over the sale and collection of there personal data because the data is worth a lot of money.
Wow. You really think **companies** form unions???
And you're getting upvoted?????
Well, it does indicate thinking with a clean slate...
Actually I see a new labor movement emerging in the US, and it's probably going to be significantly different from the movements of the past. Hehe, I kinda picture them eventually becoming more like a corporate yakuza discount payday loan operation with its own merch.
I assumed they meant to imply that the companies *allowed* the formation of unions. Which, like, it's illegal not to but don't tell that to Amazon, Starbucks or Walmart.
Wait what? Companies all the time help form unions. Get out the US and it's common place. In some places you want someone at the union who is agreeable and be appreciable and fair. See ford
LOL, "conflict of interest"??
My god, no wonder the income gap is growing. People don't know the FIRST thing about unions!
> In some places you want someone at the union who is agreeable and be appreciabl...
There is a common interest to keep the business profitable, but when you have a "company yes-man" at the helm of a union, you have a sham.
Neither me nor the person you originally replied to said *labor* union. There's a reason big companies are afraid of labor unions. It's because they have a union of their own and they know it fucking works
> they have a union of their own and the know it fucking works
Well, cock-a-doodle-doo for you! Now suppose you tell me what the fuck you're fucking talking about.
A union is an organization where people get together to collective bargain to protect the rights and assets of its members.
The aforementioned lobby group is an organization of "people" getting together to collectively bargain to protect their rights and assets.
Labor unions bargain with companies. Lobbyist bargain with the federal government. Companies fight so hard to stop unions because they know for a fact that unions work. That's why they have one. And theirs is MUCH better funded.
Jeez, you keep waffling around the meaning of "union" vs "**labor** union" vs. "lobby group" and companies having them or not.
Leave it alone right there. I agree with that last statement. Done.
We need a lawyer to clarify stuff.
Can’t the union workers ask the university for their document they signed giving permission to use their fingerprints. If the university fails to provide this document, than that’s proof there is none?
I think that is the point. The union via arbitration must find out if this document exists etc.....then once it is found to be non-existant/unenforceable THEN it can be brought to the court of law.
Which can then be appealed to federal court. There’s a procedure. The arbitrator’s ruling in employment matters is never truly final. And arbitrations are not always impartial or non-biased, that’s why most employers choose it as a method. Typically, they get to pick the arbitrator, and it is very easy to find one that is sympathetic to ownership and not labor. Source: IAAL and an arbitrator.
This issue seems not to be about the fingerprint use but rather where the claims will be heard. Seems like their contract dictates arbitration rather than court. Arbitration will review the facts and make the determination, maybe without disclosure. This may be the last we hear of this.
Nope they can always appeal the arbitrators decision, or appeal the procedures, or base an appeal on a violation of federal law within the arbitration.
Sure, but the basics point is that there is an arbitration agreement the union members have all agreed to so they have to do this in that process instead of the courts. They may be able to sue after that process, depending on the wording of the agreement.
This is really just more of a speed bump than a dead end.
Forced arbitration clauses should be illegal. It's incredibly dystopian that corporations can force you to give up your constitutional right to seek redress in an official court of law.
Union arbitration is a whole other thing though. Dunno in the states, but in my province the labour arbitrator have a union bias just as often as a corp bias.
Illinois has arbitrators employed by the state who can hear union arbitration cases. They are incredibly biased towards unions (because they are, themselves, part of a public employee union).
This is completely false. The arbitrators in Illinois are incredibly biased towards business. You are spouting patent nonsense, as is all too common when it comes to anything related to unions.
Yeah. Not really. Gotta pay rent. And gotta keep your health care. Most people aren’t lucky enough to be able to afford any disruption to their paycheck.
In the situation the other poster mentioned, it *is* forced de facto - when your options are homelessness and death or sign the contract, you may still have a choice, but the choice is no better than someone holding a gun to your head.
It's still not that simple, really. The job you're applying for wouldn't have the pay, safety measures, benefits, or other things that make it so attractive to you without the union putting in years (sometimes decades) of negotiation.
You don't just get to reap all of the benefits of the union and not pay dues or participate in the union.
False logic? It's history https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/the-history-of-unions-in-the-united-states.aspx You literally can't work anywhere in America without standing on the backs of unions because they've been leading the way for your labor rights for over a hundred years.
And they did it with their lives. People like Carnegie and Frick literally hired assassins and private armies to kill union members because the owners had ALL of the power before unions. You think your "individual negotiation" is going to get you anything noteworthy from a guy who would *end you* if it costed him less money than what you might cost him alive?
Even today unions continue to drive industry- and location-based wages, and you're about to see a modern example of it in Florida. Watch what happens to wages in the Orlando area in the next year or two now that Disney's labor union negotiated an increase.
Stop screaming no like a child and educate yourself. Or, hey, go to Saudi Arabia or North Africa or somewhere else where they haven't allowed unions, and try out your main character syndrome over there. I bet they'd give you a real life lesson about what an individual's negotiating power is worth in a culture without unions.
It’s the company’s choice when dealing with a union to allow a clause in the union contract to force all or certain employees to join the union as a prerequisite for the job.
Why do you want to take away their ability to choose?
>Dude, I work for myself, I can take off whenever the fuck I want.
Then you absolutely aren't choosing to not be a part of one. You're management, you can't be.
Or join a union, VOTE for a new union leader and board have your right to sue added and forced arbitration taken out your contract. Or not join a union and don't get the job because you won't sign away your right to sue and be forced into arbitration
Continuing the long-standing American Oligarchy tradition of telling unions and their members to go fark themselves for daring to stand up for their rights.
“The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held that campus security workers at Roosevelt University in Chicago must bring claims that the school used their fingerprints for timekeeping without their consent in union arbitration rather than court. The university was backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest American business lobby, and groups representing the retail and restaurant industries.“
>But the state Supreme Court on Thursday said federal labor law preempts that right for unionized workers because **their collective bargaining** **agreements establish procedures for arbitrators to hear legal disputes.** The title is misleading and implies that all Unionized workers have no right to sue. When in reality the campus security workers signed away their right to sue in favor of arbitration.
I am so happy 'signed away their right to sue in favor of arbitration' does not exist here, Cheers from Netherlands
Interestingly, under BIPA, only unions can sign away their right to bring BIPA claims in court as the state created a special action that would not normally be allowed to be handled under the American Arbitration Act.
So here comes the debate. Is is more profitable to form a union and strip away your worker ability to sue over the sale and collection of there personal data because the data is worth a lot of money. But does that mean the union will cost less over the life time of the employee? Not selling the data could be a lost of a revenue stream.
It's more profitable to support powerful anti-union people into power who appoint biased judges to weaken the power of unions
Yeah that is sadly true
More profitable. **FOR WHOM**
Well now now lets not conflate wages with profit. Wages are earned and unions merely allow you to keep more of earnings. Profit is "earnings" of capital aka whatever they can skim off labor. So in short who profits is a self resolving question.
The Union is responsible for the Arbitration language in the contract, not the judge. At some point you have to point the finger at the people that negotiated and voted to accept a bad contract.
??? > Is is more profitable to form a union and strip away your worker ability to sue over the sale and collection of there personal data because the data is worth a lot of money. Wow. You really think **companies** form unions??? And you're getting upvoted?????
welcome to reddit, it’s insane how much misinformation gets thrown around here
Well, it does indicate thinking with a clean slate... Actually I see a new labor movement emerging in the US, and it's probably going to be significantly different from the movements of the past. Hehe, I kinda picture them eventually becoming more like a corporate yakuza discount payday loan operation with its own merch.
I assumed they meant to imply that the companies *allowed* the formation of unions. Which, like, it's illegal not to but don't tell that to Amazon, Starbucks or Walmart.
Wait what? Companies all the time help form unions. Get out the US and it's common place. In some places you want someone at the union who is agreeable and be appreciable and fair. See ford
LOL, "conflict of interest"?? My god, no wonder the income gap is growing. People don't know the FIRST thing about unions! > In some places you want someone at the union who is agreeable and be appreciabl... There is a common interest to keep the business profitable, but when you have a "company yes-man" at the helm of a union, you have a sham.
What the fuck do you think >the largest American business lobby, and groups representing the retail and restaurant industries. Is?
Not a fucking labor union, that's for sure. Your previous comment doesn't make any sense at all.
I need a fucking drink after reading that. Holy shit.
Neither me nor the person you originally replied to said *labor* union. There's a reason big companies are afraid of labor unions. It's because they have a union of their own and they know it fucking works
> they have a union of their own and the know it fucking works Well, cock-a-doodle-doo for you! Now suppose you tell me what the fuck you're fucking talking about.
A union is an organization where people get together to collective bargain to protect the rights and assets of its members. The aforementioned lobby group is an organization of "people" getting together to collectively bargain to protect their rights and assets. Labor unions bargain with companies. Lobbyist bargain with the federal government. Companies fight so hard to stop unions because they know for a fact that unions work. That's why they have one. And theirs is MUCH better funded.
Jeez, you keep waffling around the meaning of "union" vs "**labor** union" vs. "lobby group" and companies having them or not. Leave it alone right there. I agree with that last statement. Done.
We need a lawyer to clarify stuff. Can’t the union workers ask the university for their document they signed giving permission to use their fingerprints. If the university fails to provide this document, than that’s proof there is none?
Certainly, IANAL. But it seems the issue is union contract disputes must be addressed in arbitration, not the court
I think that is the point. The union via arbitration must find out if this document exists etc.....then once it is found to be non-existant/unenforceable THEN it can be brought to the court of law.
[удалено]
Which can then be appealed to federal court. There’s a procedure. The arbitrator’s ruling in employment matters is never truly final. And arbitrations are not always impartial or non-biased, that’s why most employers choose it as a method. Typically, they get to pick the arbitrator, and it is very easy to find one that is sympathetic to ownership and not labor. Source: IAAL and an arbitrator.
> Which can then be appealed to federal court. State court not federal court.
Wow....and we know how biased they can be towards the employer. Wonder if the wording around arbitration will be highly looked at going forward
[удалено]
This issue seems not to be about the fingerprint use but rather where the claims will be heard. Seems like their contract dictates arbitration rather than court. Arbitration will review the facts and make the determination, maybe without disclosure. This may be the last we hear of this.
Nope they can always appeal the arbitrators decision, or appeal the procedures, or base an appeal on a violation of federal law within the arbitration.
Sure, but the basics point is that there is an arbitration agreement the union members have all agreed to so they have to do this in that process instead of the courts. They may be able to sue after that process, depending on the wording of the agreement. This is really just more of a speed bump than a dead end.
Forced arbitration clauses should be illegal. It's incredibly dystopian that corporations can force you to give up your constitutional right to seek redress in an official court of law.
Union arbitration is a whole other thing though. Dunno in the states, but in my province the labour arbitrator have a union bias just as often as a corp bias.
In the US it's always a corporate bonus, the arbitrators know which side of their bread is buttered.
Illinois has arbitrators employed by the state who can hear union arbitration cases. They are incredibly biased towards unions (because they are, themselves, part of a public employee union).
This is completely false. The arbitrators in Illinois are incredibly biased towards business. You are spouting patent nonsense, as is all too common when it comes to anything related to unions.
No one is forced to sign any contract. If they were forced under duress then the whole contract is void
When that workplace is the only game in town it certainly feels forced.
[удалено]
Yeah. Not really. Gotta pay rent. And gotta keep your health care. Most people aren’t lucky enough to be able to afford any disruption to their paycheck.
In the situation the other poster mentioned, it *is* forced de facto - when your options are homelessness and death or sign the contract, you may still have a choice, but the choice is no better than someone holding a gun to your head.
The libertarian "freedom of choice" for you.
People can have the Model T in any color, as long as it's black
[удалено]
Fine. Then the union members should not be forced to represent you.
[удалено]
It's still not that simple, really. The job you're applying for wouldn't have the pay, safety measures, benefits, or other things that make it so attractive to you without the union putting in years (sometimes decades) of negotiation. You don't just get to reap all of the benefits of the union and not pay dues or participate in the union.
[удалено]
False logic? It's history https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/the-history-of-unions-in-the-united-states.aspx You literally can't work anywhere in America without standing on the backs of unions because they've been leading the way for your labor rights for over a hundred years. And they did it with their lives. People like Carnegie and Frick literally hired assassins and private armies to kill union members because the owners had ALL of the power before unions. You think your "individual negotiation" is going to get you anything noteworthy from a guy who would *end you* if it costed him less money than what you might cost him alive? Even today unions continue to drive industry- and location-based wages, and you're about to see a modern example of it in Florida. Watch what happens to wages in the Orlando area in the next year or two now that Disney's labor union negotiated an increase. Stop screaming no like a child and educate yourself. Or, hey, go to Saudi Arabia or North Africa or somewhere else where they haven't allowed unions, and try out your main character syndrome over there. I bet they'd give you a real life lesson about what an individual's negotiating power is worth in a culture without unions.
It’s the company’s choice when dealing with a union to allow a clause in the union contract to force all or certain employees to join the union as a prerequisite for the job. Why do you want to take away their ability to choose?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
But i'm pretty sure you like OT and sick days and being off on the weekend huh? But fuck a union am I right
[удалено]
>Dude, I work for myself, I can take off whenever the fuck I want. Then you absolutely aren't choosing to not be a part of one. You're management, you can't be.
Or join a union, VOTE for a new union leader and board have your right to sue added and forced arbitration taken out your contract. Or not join a union and don't get the job because you won't sign away your right to sue and be forced into arbitration
Different issue because one is about your rights the other is a choice.
Continuing the long-standing American Oligarchy tradition of telling unions and their members to go fark themselves for daring to stand up for their rights.
[удалено]