HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Gorsuch deciding vote in ...

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 12:13 PM

Gorsuch deciding vote in key labor union funding case

WASHINGTON (AP) — America’s union leaders are about to find out if they were right to fiercely oppose Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court as a pivotal, potentially devastating vote against organized labor.

The newest justice holds the deciding vote in a case to be argued Feb. 26 that could affect the financial viability of unions that are major supporters of Democratic candidates and causes. The unions represent more than 5 million government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia who could be affected by the outcome. The other eight justices split 4 to 4 when the issue was last at the court in 2016.

The court is being asked to jettison a 41-year-old ruling that allows states to require government employees who don’t want to be union members to pay for their share of activities the union undertakes on behalf of all workers, not just its members. These so-called fair share fees cover the costs of collective bargaining and grievance procedures to deal with workplace complaints.

Employees who don’t join the union do not have to pay for the unions’ political activities.

Conservative anti-union interests are backing an Illinois government employee who says that being forced to pay anything at all violates his First Amendment speech rights.

https://apnews.com/a091efa1e1fb49e99cf9e582e26b2695/Gorsuch-deciding-vote-in-key-labor-union-funding-case

“I’m not against unions,” said the employee, 65-year-old Mark Janus, who is represented by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31. “I don’t oppose the right of workers to organize. But the right to say no to unions is just as important as the right to say yes.” He said he opposes his union’s fight for wage and benefit increases when the state is “in pretty terrible financial condition right now.”


Hey Janus, you signed your name to the card to have dues taken out and to be represented by your peers, did you or did you not?

That is what is called majority rule, and that is what unions are all about...........................majority rule

And This supreme court Judge , that was confirmed illegally in my opinion, Gorsuch and is illegitimate sitting on the bench, said it was alright for a company to tell an employee that if he left his truck in the freezing cold he would be fired, even if he where to freeze to death in the cab of that truck, he should not leave the truck....................I really do hate fucking scab supporting hypocrites.........................





16 replies, 1218 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 12:14 PM

1. Be prepared to lose everything that is good; unions, voting rights, clean air and water

justice, etc. Healthcare, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance, heat assistance, etc. etc. etc.

For real, we will lose it all for about 40 years because of nose holders.

I will never forgive them. Not to mention the ones who wouldnt even go that far, wouldnt hold their nose and voted for Stein or not at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 12:16 PM

2. I wonder if Mr Janus knows that important fact you just commented about

in my opinion----------------------no


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 12:18 PM

3. I think it is a given how Gorsuch is going to vote and it clearly will not be pro-Union.

It pains me that he is from Colorado.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 12:44 PM

4. I remember living out there when his mother was in charge,

and she also was dangerous...............and now he has ultimate payback for workers and the environment, and other important issue's.



His mother’s huge early ’80s EPA scandal taints Judge Neil Gorsuch’s name

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article130205449.html



November 2018 cannot get here fast enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 01:15 PM

5. You lost me.

He signed his name to what card to have dues taken from his pay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 01:50 PM

6. To join a union, you sign a card to have the union represent you in contractual matters with a

company in a closed shop, you pay to have the union lawyers fighting for you basic rights to enforce the contract language.

When you get hired, the company tells you these are the forms you have to sign to work here and one of them is to take out union dues, now you have scabs going into court saying, they are infringing on there right to free speech, Citizen United vs FEC, well in my opinion when you sign the card or the form, you are giving the union the right to protect your "free speech" and if you made a conscience decision to sign that paperwork, then if you change your mind..................quit

All this lawsuit, does is an attempt to undermine a 50 +1 majority that wants a union and voted to have union....................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #6)


Response to turbinetree (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 02:55 PM

11. But that's this guy's point. He isn't a union member.

You do realize that closed shops were declared illegal in this Country in 1947, do you not? If not, look up the Taft-Hartley Act. He didn't join the union and is suing to have the fees that non-union employees are required to pay to the union outlawed.

I don't have a dog in this particular fight as I can see, as far as I am able, both sides of this thing and, admittedly, don't have a thorough enough understanding of the union side to form a responsible opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 04:06 PM

12. As a former union rep I fully understand Taft Hartley and it sucks

and he was in shop that had majority of its members paying dues, he is protected by many laws and if he had any idea, he would have gone in and ask to find out if the members want to have a union representing them or do they want an entity to interfere with the majority rule and be intimidated, he did not do this.............he filed a lawsuit with this backing from the "Right to Work for less outfit, to circumvent "due process"

This is what this all about, removing the means to have members vote for representation or not

Taft Hartley sticks it to labor it restricts unions from being active, and limits the right to strike, I know because I was in the airlines...........and when we did strike, union elected personnel in the leadership got fined a lot and we got injunctions placed against us.

Take care...............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 04:22 PM

13. This is a government workers' union.

State of Illinois workers, specifically. The union does exist and those employees who wish to join the union and be represented by it do exactly that and pay union dues. But, though employees are not required to join the union, those who don't are charged a fee by the union. That's what this is about. It isn't about denying any other employees their right to join the union. It's about objecting to having to pay the union when he isn't a member.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 05:05 PM

14. He lives in a unionized closed shop state, Illinois

the National Right to Work for Less is attacking the closed shop status of the state government, local, whatever, teachers, pipe fitters, state highway workers.

He made a decision when he went to work for that state, to be represented by a union and he had pay being taken out, they asked and told him, that he would have dues taken out, he is now objecting, on some lame excuse that the state can't afford the costs, because in essence it raises the taxes of taxpayers in the state because of his wages and benefits............

This is the map that the "right to work for less uses"............this is the map that they attack, Wisconsin at one point was a closed shop state, the employees of the state paid dues................it is now a state that has been flipped by political corruption.

Then when Taft Hartley was enacted it has a provision in that law about labor corruption, never a word about corporate corruption, or state corruption, nope.......good old fashion labor union corruption

http://www.nrtw.org/right-to-work-states/


I believe that he should pay, and he should join the union, he is surrounded by union member that are protecting his back, because they pay dues, he doesn't want to pay dues because he doesn't want to protect their backs, that is what this all about, the "national right to work for less" are doing another end around to attack unions


How to Stop Paying Union Dues: Other States

Regardless of where you live, the Supreme Court has ruled that you can resign union membership at any time. However, if you don’t work in one of the right to work states discussed above, unions can still force you to pay fees similar to union dues (often called “agency fees”), even if you are not a union member. This is because all employees benefit from collective bargaining agreements, regardless of union membership status. Despite all of that, you may still have a right to pay reduced fees.

For example, you can object to fees that are used for anything unrelated to the costs of collective bargaining, such as political campaigns or the advancement of causes that are against your religion. In these cases, the union may only charge you for your share of the costs of collective bargaining. To pay the reduced fee, send a letter to the union stating that you object to paying for more than your share of the collective bargaining expenses, and request a copy of the union’s procedural requirements for opting out of these fees.

Additionally, because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, you may also be able to decline union membership and the payment of fees based on your sincerely held religious beliefs. Many state laws include such opt-out provisions, which let you divert your fees to certain types of charities instead.

He is objecting to having to pay "agency fees" and the below law set the precedent that he is basically using in another closed shop state, albeit a union state, with union state workers ...............

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/487/735.html


Take care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 05:46 PM

15. And you stated the exact issue that he is contesting.

"However, if you don’t work in one of the right to work states discussed above, unions can still force you to pay fees similar to union dues (often called “agency fees”), even if you are not a union member."

That's what he is objecting to now. And the Supremes have agreed to hear the case. So, we shall see what we shall see when they decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 01:51 PM

7. If "swinger" KENNEDY is on the wingnut side (as usual), GORSUCH will certainly be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 01:58 PM

8. Yepper, spot on

the teachers union in this country is the next one, and then federal employees.

Its just fine and dandy with this current majority court, to have corporations giving to factions that attack majority rule, and they then run around screaming about majority rule and that if unions have a political arm to get people elected it is not right with dues being taken out, but corporations have that right, they can fund every anti-union person in the country............................what a double standard


http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/30/us/the-supreme-court-labor-relations-unions-limited-in-use-of-dues-and-fees.html?pagewanted=all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 02:42 PM

10. gonna take a LONG TIME to undo there BULLSHIT!!!!!!

absolutely everything bad for America is what they are all about!!! and people are fucking stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Mon Feb 19, 2018, 06:08 PM

16. Scumbag wants to be a free loader and doesnt care if he destroys the country to get it

 

He enjoys a job where every protection and benefit he has was secured for him and his coworkers by the hard work of the union.

But he doesn’t want to pay even the meaker non-member fees he is required to cover that hard work done for him.

It’s the same mindset of people who don’t want to pay property taxes but expect the fire department and police department to still keep them safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread