奥克兰law assignment代写 代理费

2020-03-30 03:04

理论上，代理费对美国经济的影响应该很小，因为与政治无关的费用应该抵消工会收取的代理费。然而，与许多理论类似，在实践中，要确保代理费得到恰当的应用，并且不允许工会严重影响经济，难度要大得多。与代理费相关的一个主要问题是，代理费会阻止个人加入工会。工会会员每周收入与工会会员每周收入之间的估计差异小于2%（表1）。然而，与此相关的是，代理费的平均总额约为会员支付费用的四分之三。这导致工会组织的员工选择不加入。美国劳动力中工会成员从大约25%的公共雇员减少到大约11%，这清楚地表明了成员增加的减少（劳工统计局，2018年）。全国会员人数减少14%，清楚地表明工会不应掉以轻心。如果Janus诉AFSCME案被推翻，工会可以预期会员人数会有更大的下降，因为所支付工会费用的百分比将远远大于仅仅75%。另一个经济问题，代理费目前一直在争论，可能很快就要面对的是工资保护的概念，在这种情况下，工资保护是指通过与雇主达成协议，两个工会可以从雇员的工资中直接提取代理费，不管他们是否工会成员。早在2002年的总统选举中就有人讨论过这个问题。如果最高法院正在审理的你的案件中的判决目前有利于原告，工会将不再有权从雇员的工资中扣除代理费。
奥克兰law assignment代写 代理费
 In theory agency fees should have minimal effect on the economy of the United States because the nonpolitically related costs are supposed to counteract the agency fees collected by a union. Yet similar to many theories, in practice it is much more difficult to ensure that agency fees are properly applied and do not allow unions to gravely effect an economy.One major issue associated with agency fees is that they deter individuals from wanting to join a union. The estimated difference between weekly earnings of union members versus those represented by a union yet are not members is less than two percent (Table1). Yet in correlation the average amount of agency fees totals to be roughly three-fourths of the those that a member would pay. This leads employees in unionized industries to then choose not to join. The decrease of union members in the United States workforce from roughly twenty-five percent of public employees to roughly eleven percent clearly demonstrates this drop in membership additions (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). A fourteen percent decrease in membership nationwide is a clear sign that unions should not take lightly. If the Janus v. AFSCME case receives an overturning decision, unions can expect an even greater drop in memberships because the difference percent of union fees paid would be much greater than simply seventy-five percent.Another economic issue that agency fees have currently been debating and might soon have to face is the concept of paycheck protection  Paycheck protection in this case is in reference to the ability given two unions through agreements with the employer to simply withdraw agency fees from employees’ paycheck whether they are member of the union or not. This issue has been conversed about in presidential elections as of early back as 2002. If the decision in your court case being heard by the Supreme Court currently resolves in favor of the plaintiff, unions will no longer have a right to simply take agency fees out of an employee’s paycheck.

• 上一篇：奥克兰作业代写 不受限制的地理服务
• 下一篇：新西兰奥克兰作业代写 克莱斯勒