Supreme Court rules against public unions collecting fees for nonmembers

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

By Robert Barnes June 27 at 10:17 AM Email the author

[e-mail]

Conservatives on the Supreme Court said Wednesday that it was unconstitutional to allow public employee unions to require collective bargaining fees from workers who choose not to join the union, a major blow for the U.S. labor movement.

The court in a 5-to-4 decision overturned a 40-year-old precedent and said that compelling such fees was a violation of workers’ free speech rights. The rule could force the workers to give financial support to public policy positions they oppose, the court said.

“States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. “This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue.”

He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch. ... Justice Elena Kagn wrote for the dissenting liberals: “The First Amendment was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance — including over the role of public-sector unions.”
....

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow @scotusreporter

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-against-public-unions-collecting-fees-for-nonmembers/2018/06/27/ccdf6bf4-7a0c-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html

---

Much editing. Per LBN rules, edited to link to actual article.

Hat tip, BumRushDaShow, for providing that. See:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142095911#post11

Original title:

- - - - - -

In major blow to organized labor, Supreme Court says public employee unions may not charge fees to nonmembers

Link to tweet

- - - - - -

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_27_2018

we have Janus, per Alito. Reversed and remanded.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/live-blog-of-opinions-with-first-mondays-3/

#SCOTUS holds requiring nonmembers of public-sector unions to pay fees to cover collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment, overruling longstanding precedent

It is 5-4. Sotomayor dissents. Kagan dissents, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

Link to tweet

- - - - - -

Lots of people asking whether this decision is limited to public sector unions. Yes, because the First Amendment only constrains the government. There has been some commentary on how this decision might affect labor markets more generally, but by its terms, it applies only to public sector unions.
by Tejinder 10:08 AM?15

- - - - - -

Both Sotomayor and Kagan cite NIFLA in their dissents... wasn't that released just yesterday?
by Jake 10:10 AMReplies1?6

- - - - - -

Here's the #SCOTUS opinion in Janus v. AFSCME: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf ...

Link to tweet

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

[Squinch]

1. Fuck. Bye, bye last gasp of American middle class. Been nice knowing you.

[ck4829]

2. Meh, middle class is an illusion anyway

Sooner we all realize that, the better.

[watoos]

8. Meh, maybe you're right

but the decline of the middle class, or decent working class wages if you prefer, mirrors the decline of unions.

[olegramps]

41. The Supreme Court has become the mouth piece of the ruling party.

Decisions are not made on the bases of their constitutionality, but sole on politics. We don't have to wait, breathless, for their decision. Any jackass knows that what they will decide is foreordained. I believe this to be especially true in the case of when the Republicans are in the majority. If a case has anything to do with labor rights, forget it. Its dead on arrival. Same for women rights. Why don't they just declare that the Democratic Party is outlawed and be done with it. Then maybe it will sink in that we that we forfeited our Democracy to the Republican Fascist Authoritarian Dictatorship and billionaire oligarchs.

[lordsummerisle]

70. Politicians in robes n/t

[James48]

3. Unfortunately, there is only one solution now.

That is to negotiate a two-tier wage system that pays members a higher rate than non-members.

But it has to be done in a way that will pass legal scrutiny.

Instead of representing all bargaining unit members as the EXCLUSIVE representative, Public Sector Unions need to consider being the NON-Exclusive representative of a bargaining group- and only represent those who are members.

the rest can fend for themselves.

[Freddie]

16. No because

School boards would only hire nonunion if they were cheaper. But I think anyone who refuses to join the union should lose the union's legal representation in grievances and other personnel matters.

[Marthe48]

56. Yep,or get billed for those benefits

the teacher advisor for a group I volunteer with is anti-union, even filed a suit relative to this bad news. She gets an annual stipend for advising the students for this group, but doesn't bother coming to meetings or other obligations.

If they don't want to pay dues, they should not get any of the union benefits and I hope that dedicated union members shun them. I also hope that if they are lazy asses like the teacher I know, that if they shirk on their jobs, they get fired, with no support from the union. You don't get what you don't pay for.

[aggiesal]

18. The problem is, ...

once you have a tier wage system, with higher pay for union members,
when layoffs come calling, the union higher paying positions are released first.

Don't believe me?
Look at what happened with the grocery stores in California.
Stores wanted a 2 tiered system, because they were paying too
much for their cashiers, baggers and stockers and couldn't compete
with the Walmart's of the world.
The union struck twice. The 2nd time the employees broke ranks, and
the union had to give in to the 2 tiered system.
Now I walk into Von's, and the cashiers with high seniority are all gone,
and left are the lower tiered wage earners.

[FBaggins]

35. Not an option

These unions are usually required to serve members and non-members alike because they have been granted exclusive bargaining rights for all employees.

From the dissent:

Remember that once a union achieves exclusive-representation status, the law compels it to fairly represent all workers in the bargaining unit, whether or not they join or contribute to the union. See supra, at 4. Because of that legal duty, the union cannot give special advantages to its own members. And that in turn creates a collective action problem of nightmarish proportions. Everyone—not just those who oppose the union, but also those who back it—has an economic incentive to withhold dues; only altruism or loyalty—as against financial selfinterest—can explain why an employee would pay the union for its services.

[Yupster]

49. What if the employer

paid the non-union employees more than the union ones?

[safeinOhio]

4. OK, now see if they protect the rest of the

First Amendment. Not likely.

[JI7]

5. Tweedledee tweedledum

Fuck Nader

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

6. This shouldn't be remotely a surprise

This case was decided the minute Gorsuch was confirmed.

[bsiebs]

25. Yep... 5-4 decision. Nt

[DeminPennswoods]

87. It was actually heard before Scalia died

Had he lived, the decision would have been exactly the same.

[cstanleytech]

7. So maybe the unions need to craft deals that explicitly grant benefits only to union members

including that union members get first pick for both the number of hours they work as well as shift times not to mention they are the only ones that will be offered overtime hours.

[watoos]

10. Do you think

that management is going to agree to that?

[asiliveandbreathe]

20. From scotusblog -

Lots of people asking whether this decision is limited to public sector unions. Yes, because the First Amendment only constrains the government. There has been some commentary on how this decision might affect labor markets more generally, but by its terms, it applies only to public sector unions.

Public Unions, Govt, now will have lot's of freeloaders..I wish it was as simple as negating seniority..as a former CWA union member - any steward, representing a non paying union member...well, we will just have to see how that works out for the freeloaders.....just sayin'

[leftynyc]

9. More reason

the "purity police" deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule. Hope they're enjoying life under degenerate donnie. I'll never give them the time of day again.

[C Moon]

57. My neighbor (hidden racist /Trump supporter /NRA fan) is a trucker.

Union.
He gets HUGE benefits: for working holidays, etc. As he should. As we all should.
I wonder how he's going to feel when the stripping of these benefits begins, as CEO's realize what they can do.

[leftynyc]

63. I have zero sympathy for anyone

who was stupid enough to vote for donnie, vote third party or not vote.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

81. I think the ruling only affects public service unions. IBOT is unaffected. nt

[C Moon]

82. I was wondering about that after I posted my comment. Thanks!

[BumRushDaShow]

11. WaPo link

In major blow to organized labor, Supreme Court says public employee unions may not charge fees to nonmembers

by Washington Post Staff June 27 at 10:05 AM

The case has major implications for the future of organized labor, which has become a pillar of Democratic Party politics, and for the millions of workers in the nearly half of states that authorize payments from nonmembers to cover the cost of collective bargaining.

Conservative activists for years have brought lawsuits arguing the payments are a violation of nonmembers’ free-speech rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that public-employee unions could charge nonmembers for the cost of representation but not for the union’s political activities.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/27/in-major-blow-to-organized-labor-supreme-court-says-public-employee-unions-may-not-charge-fees-to-nonmembers/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.56d604823069

[mahatmakanejeeves]

28. Thanks. Changed title to this, per LBN rules. Good morning. NT

[asiliveandbreathe]

12. Just now from Amy Howe.....scotusblog -

Alito is still reading from the bench. Not clear yet whether Kagan will read, as she doesn't do so very often. And then we are still expecting a decision in Florida v. Georgia, presumably from Breyer

As a Union member (former CWA) I would agree to having my union dues increased to cover the loss...as well, encourage increase in membership.....I would also encourage non-members to stop being freeloaders....

[yallerdawg]

13. When Obama could have got us 'card check' and didn't...

the writing was on the wall.

Unions are a declining anachronism now.

Strong union states (like Michigan) went for the Republican candidate in 2016?

Progressive, worker-oriented legislation from a united Democratic Party is our best hope now!

[still_one]

32. This started under Reagan when much of labor voted for him against Carter.

Obama barely got the ACA through, and the assertion that Obama could have gotten card check I am not sure about that.


As much as many of us wish the Democratic party was unified on more issues perhaps Will Rogers said it best

"I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat"

[yallerdawg]

42. When Obama went into the White House with Democratic majorities...

and did not pursue the one thing that could have energized and resuscitated Unionism in America, it was clear that we have moved on.

Unions had their day and served their purpose.

Now - we legislate and codify progressivism (when we work together) - we are ALL at the table now.

[still_one]

44. The majorities were not enough as the ACA dmonstrated. We needed the blue dogs, and the ACA was

the only way to accomplish that, because they sure were not going to go for Medicare for all.

I know the ACA and the issue regarding labor are not the same thing, but the dynamics were, depending on the state where the Senator came from.

As far as your last point, absolutely agree

[yallerdawg]

47. I remember this well.

I worked for Walmart at the time (unloading trucks in a store for $8/hr), and Obama winning was considered to be about as good as it could ever get!

[still_one]

48. I hear ya

[BumRushDaShow]

53. He actually did

Obama says he'll 'keep on fighting' to pass 'card check' bill

By Michael O'Brien - 08/04/10 03:36 PM EDT

President Obama told the AFL-CIO on Wednesday that he would "keep on fighting" to pass the controversial "card check" bill.

Obama said during a speech to the labor group's executive committee meeting that he continued to support the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, or "card check" ) among the litany of proposals he favors to help workers.

"[W]e're going to keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," Obama told the union. "Getting EFCA through Senate is going to be tough. It’s always been tough; it will continue to be tough. We’ll keep on pushing," he said.

The labor organizing bill has languished in Congress over the past year and a half after business groups poured millions into efforts to beat it back. While the legislation had some support in the House, it's failed to muster the 60 votes necessary to survive a filibuster in the Senate. Lobbying for and against the legislation has continued at a healthy pace. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a key Democrat and proponent of the legislation, has suggested that some form of the bill could move during the lame-duck Congress between Election Day and early January, when a new Congress is sworn in.

To that end, Republicans and groups like the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) have sought to put their supporters on alert in coming months, putting pressure on lawmakers to swear off lame-duck action on EFCA or other top priorities that will have gone without action until November.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/112613-obama-says-hell-keep-on-fighting-to-pass-card-check-bill

[yallerdawg]

55. He actuallly got us 'card check?'

Let's get him a "Participation Trophy!"

[BumRushDaShow]

58. This is what you wrote

yallerdawg (15,449 posts) 42. When Obama went into the White House with Democratic majorities...

and did not pursue the one thing that could have energized and resuscitated Unionism in America, it was clear that we have moved on.

And I posted a link to an article that said that he DID "pursue" it and also explained WHY there was a problem with getting it enacted.

[yallerdawg]

61. "The labor organizing bill has languished in Congress over the past year and a half..."

You consider this pursuing passage of EFCA 'card check?'

But he did mention it to a Labor Executive Committee?

Now, I'm not saying Obama alone was responsible - Democratic representatives in Congress have "helped" all along. But Obama COULD have pursued this legislation, and we'd be in a different world today.


Not to mention, he could have helped a bit more on ACA - but that's another story.

[BumRushDaShow]

71. I know the history of the time period has been forgotten

but here is the deal and the timeline -

January 20, 2009 - Obama inaugurated.

February 13, 2009 - Congress passes ARRA (American Recovery and and Reinvestment Act - "stimulus" ) right out of the gate less than a month after inauguration

April 28th, 2009 - Arlen Specter switches parties from Republican to Democrat (becomes seat #59)

June 30th, 2009 - Nearly 8 months after his run against Norm Coleman, Al Franken is finally declared a winner and seated

This finally lead to having 60 votes in the Senate. However here was the problem at that point -

<...>

“With their supermajority, the era of excuses and finger-pointing is now over,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Mr. Cornyn said it was “troubling to think about what they might now accomplish with 60 votes.”

But whether Democrats can consistently rely on 60 senators being present is in question. Two veteran Democrats, Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, are ailing and have regularly been absent from the Senate. In addition, a handful of moderate to conservative Democrats have shown a willingness to break from the party, and even liberals will do so on some issues.

<...>

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.html

So basically, Democrats only have a "sure fire" 58 seats with the hope that either or both Byrd or Kennedy could make it for crucial votes.

June 9th, 2009 - ACA submitted with Kennedy's assistance but at that point, he basially did not return to the Senate due to his medical issues

Seats = 59.

July 17, 2009 - Kennedy pens an editorial for Newsweek, his last

August 26, 2009 - Ted Kennedy dies of brain cancer

The seat is now "officially" vacant and "officially" 59.

September 24, 2009 - Deval Patrick appoints Paul Kirk as temporary replacement for Ted Kennedy until the Special Election in December 2009

Seats back up to 60.

December 24, 2009 - ACA (pt. 1) passes with 60 votes in Senate

January 19, 2010 - Scott Brown (R) wins Ted Kennedy's seat and that is the end of the 60 vote majority

From that point on, there would be no more "super majority" nor would there be a guarantee that the Liebermans or Baucuses or Landrieus would ever lock step to provide votes to break cloture. Thus pt. 2 of the ACA had to be done by reconciliation -

March 23rd, 2010 - Pt. 2 - PP-ACA signed into law (passed by by reconciliation - i.e., less than 60 votes in Senate)

June 28, 2010 - Robert Byrd dies (almost end of all hope for getting cloture save for a few showcasing GOP Senators)

Seats down to 58 (D + I).

July 21, 2010 - Dodd-Frank enacted establishing the CFPB (passed with 2 GOP Senators -Snowe and Brown to reach cloture)

Remember, that first 1 1/2 years in office was not about people just sitting there in Congress doing nothing and Obama twiddling his thumbs. People forget that in January 2009, the month of Obama's inauguration, there were 741,000 layoffs.

[vi5]

45. The Democratic party has helped along labors demise....

....wanting their money and votes and energy but refusing to do anything of major consequence to stand with the labor movement.

There have been numerous instances over the past 10-15 years where Democrats could have gone and stand with labor (both physically and figuratively) but instead with a few exceptions of individual members, have instead chosen to play coy so as to not piss off wall street and big money corporate donors.

[still_one]

50. When much of labor actually voted for Reagan against Carter, that started the whole mess

[yurbud]

65. I think you have to go back a bit further to the last time progressive Democrats were dominant

When RFK was running for president.

JFK, MLK, RFK, the truly progressive leaders of that generation were killed. The second string soldiered on, but the right was starting their new strategies formulated after their defeats in the '60's to not just win but own the debate.

[yurbud]

66. those "Reagan Democrats" came at the end of decades of progressive rule

and they forgot the consequences of conservative policies like the Great Depression, boom and bust cycles, epic graft, pollution, and on and on.

That's an inherent problem with democracy: when things are going okay, most people stop paying attention.

[still_one]

73. That point I whole heartedly agree with you

[aggiesal]

14. Money is not speech ...

This all goes back to Citizens United.

Money is not speech.

Just because you have a lot of it, does not mean you get more free speech.
In this case people didn't want to pay their money for union dues, because
it violated their free speech? How?
Quit the union and see how much free speech you'll have then.
Lower wages and benefits. Where will your voice be then, when you're
one of millions that are no longer organized.

But hey, you voted republican and they stole our SCOTUS seat, so now
you can take the rest of us down with you!!!

[asiliveandbreathe]

15. From scotusblog -

Lots of people asking whether this decision is limited to public sector unions. Yes, because the First Amendment only constrains the government. There has been some commentary on how this decision might affect labor markets more generally, but by its terms, it applies only to public sector unions.

[SFnomad]

17. Congratulations to those "progressive" anti-Hillary bashers ...

are you happy now? Was it worth it to be so pure?

[nolabels]

69. Huh?

[mr_lebowski]

77. The point being made here isn't the least bit complicated ...

"Good Job staying home or voting 3rd Party, Bernie Bros who couldn't stomach voting for Hillary and even actively bashed her ... your actions have effectively just destroyed Public Employee Unions in this Country".

[nolabels]

83. Tomorrow you might also get up and blame Bernie for the sun coming up

I am currently in the Teamsters Union Local 495 and have been paying my union dues for twenty-five years.

[mr_lebowski]

84. I didn't say it was MY point ;)

My daddy drove truck as a Teamster out of the Oakland, CA Hall (well, when he didn't have steady gig like at Coke or Lucky's) for 30 years, til an injury on the job took him out ...

He also drug his decrepit, barely ambulatory ass down to the polls to vote for Hillary ...

Also, the person you're responding to wasn't blaming Bernie, just Bernie voters who couldn't stomach voting for Hillary. It's a pretty common theme here, you may've noticed it going on here and there ...

[nolabels]

85. I don't get why everybody has all these ideas is was the people on our side that do these things

The right-wingers have been planning this crap for sixty years and now they are here with it. It's been going on a long time. Really the thing I see is us blaming each other works quite nicely for them

[mr_lebowski]

86. Guess that'd depend on the definition of 'our side' though, wouldn't it?

Bernie voters who stayed home or voted 3rd party ... there only had to be 75K of them in three critical states ... swayed by anti-Hillary propaganda ... they DO make a pretty easy 'target' for the collective wrath of DU, don't you think?

Everyone knows the Repubs who REALLY deserve blame aren't here on DU ... but there may be a few that meet that above criteria, so people say this in the futile hope of actually REACHING and hence shaming ... a member of this population.

[no_hypocrisy]

19. It's allowing the equivalent of legal scabs getting the benefits without paying for the costs.

[asiliveandbreathe]

24. yep - as a former CWA member, still card carry in retirement..the stewards who

represent freeloaders...well.........

[still_one]

21. Where were these voters in those critical swing states when every Democrat who ran for Senate in

those swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican?


People will are now facing up to the consequences of their actions

[Union Label]

22. Moving to a civilized country is looking better and better

I dont recognize my country anymore.

[OliverQ]

38. I want to move out of this country so bad.

But I don't qualify for a Visa anywhere else.

[DeminPennswoods]

23. Was both a non-dues paying and dues-paying

member of the federal union. I never had a "fair share" amount deducted from my pay when I wasn't a dues-paying member. The union did charge a fee if they represented a non-member to cover that cost.

The upshoot is going to be that public sector unions will stop representing members who are aggreived by management. I myself would negotiate collective bargaining agreements that specify while bargaining unit members get the same benefits as are negotiated with respect to pay and benefits, members who don't pay dues are specifically excluded from union representation/support when they believe they are unfairly treated by management.

Sooner rather than later one of these teachers or social workers or cops or firemen are going to be targeted by management for abuse. Or a cop is going to kill an unarmed suspect. Or a teacher is going to get an unsatisfactory evaluation and be fired. Then they are going to want help, but the "I wanna be on my own" employee will have to hire their own lawyer out of their own pocket and fight the case on their own.

[asiliveandbreathe]

26. Good argument - I didn't know a fee was charged to a non-dues paying member..

CWA - retired...I do not like freeloaders..and I'm sure stewards don't either....

Excellent observation and suggestion...

[DeminPennswoods]

27. Public sector unions have lost a lot of bargaining power

already. Many, if not most, states have laws that prohibt teachers from striking or limiting strikes to x number of days total. Police/fire are usually under binding arbitration rules if they cannot come to a contract agreement. Federal employees are prohibited from striking at all and pay/benefits are at the whim of Congress.

Once you can't strike, you lose most of your bargaining power.

[asiliveandbreathe]

29. From scotusblog....

In footnote 6 of the majority opinion, the Court suggests that Unions could be allowed to charge nonmembers for representing them in grievance proceedings.

Otherwise, this could put stewards in a very precarious situation..if they knew they were representing a non-dues paying member..I like to call freeloaders...CWA here!!!!!

[bluehen]

30. As a public school teacher, this really sucks...

We have many members who only pay "fair share". Now, they will pay nothing, yet still reap all the benefits that full paying members receive. I guess they must feel great being able to stick it to those "fat cat" teachers again.

[Freddie]

36. I'm payroll/benefits manager of a school district

We have no fair share people here, they all belong and support the union (at the moment). But I know some of the teachers are Republicans. I honestly can't grasp that amount of cognitive dissonance in a supposedly well-educated person. To paraphrase the famous saying about women, "a teacher voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders."

[BlueIdaho]

39. Why should non-members receive any union benefits?

I would think the other side of this SC decision is an understanding that non dues paying workers can’t expect anything from a Union they do not support.

[Freethinker65]

31. Then Unions should not be required to help out those that opt out

Those employees that opt out should be on their own to negotiate their own pay, benefits, and handle grievances.

Docked for an arbitrary reason- go to management yourself and argue your case.

Unable to get accommodations for temporary medical condition- go to management yourself, or hire your own attorney.

No strike pay for a walkout. Choose to be a scab or go without.

* reposted from locked duplicate thread

[FBaggins]

43. That will require a change in the law

So long as unions retain the exclusive bargaining rights with the government/employer - they are legally bound to represent all employees.

This is a real stake to the heart of public-sector unions. The only reason to pay dues now will be out of the goodness of your heart.

[Freethinker65]

59. Exactly. The unions should not legally be required to represent non-paying members.

Especially in matters with grievances with the employer.

[mr_lebowski]

78. Stake to the heart is a great word for it ... as in ... without this law/these fees ...

These Unions are going to die. Which is ACTUALLY the entire point.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

33. Cheating at elections...

Has consequences.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

34. 2 minutes ago They are done. No retirement announcements from any justices.

2 minutes ago
They are done. No retirement announcements from any justices.

- - - - -

Roberts gavels close to session with no announcement of justice retirements. But such announcements do not have to be made then. (Not trying to tease, just stating what we know)

Link to tweet

[mahatmakanejeeves]

37. AG Sessions brags that administration won all 4 cases where Justice changed positions from Obama adm

AG Sessions brags that administration won all 4 cases where Justice changed positions from Obama admin: The favorable Supreme Court decisions in all four cases reflect that we took the proper course of action.

Link to tweet

[turbinetree]

40. I hate fucking "freeloading scabs".......................

Time to abolish Taft-Hartley......................and over turn this Janus ruling.....................if you join an an organization and was told that a "majority+1 wanted dues to be taken out, then if you don't like it leave. You signed you name saying that you would honor that agreement, no one twisted your arm, you made a conscience decision to honor majority rule-----------------back stabbing

No wonder this country is turning into a third rate state..................wages, education, infrastructure, health care....etc.... unfucking believable....................and these assholes are the same ones that whine that they don't get paid enough


It really is time to take back the courts

And has for Alito writing for the majority your one to talk........................you think a fucking building has free speech right, you know the brick and concrete......................FUCK YOU

http://media.pfaw.org/stc/alito-final.pdf





November 2018 cannot get here fast enough

[Bengus81]

46. Paying dues for UNION wages limits a persons right to free speech?? BS..........

What a shock,another brick out of the wall to bring Unions down. I can understand the rich,assholes like Trump and Corporate CEO's wanting this but then the Trump knuckle draggers also hate unions.

WTF is wrong with those people??? Won't be happy until nearly every job is at MW??

[LiberalArkie]

51. I wonder how the police unions will handle it? They will still have ti provide lawyers for non dues

paying members.

[WorkDoctor]

52. "Conservatives" my ass

A "conservative" would not make some group delivering services (like protection against scheming, thieving employers) deliver it for free. Free rides are for "liberals."

Where's the conscience of a guy who allows the union busters to use him so that his name will forever be enshrined as turning on his fellow workers?

[Javaman]

54. next up: the deconstruction of workers rights.

wait for it. it will be attempted and some will get through.

mark my words.

[GatoGordo]

60. "Elections have consequences"

This is a point that the Repukes made over and over about ACA... but it was used against us.

This is an Obama quote. Time to use it for our benefit.

[EllieBC]

62. Congrats, purists!

Hillary wasn't "progressive enough" so you sat home.

Enjoying what you got now?

[yurbud]

64. the decision is based on a lie. Even in deep blue California, political money is a separate, opt in

even for members in my union.

[MadDAsHell]

67. Seems fair to not require everyone to pay dues, if you also don't require everyone to get benefits.

In fact, it probably should have been that way from the beginning and this wouldn’t have been such a shitshow.

Want union benefits? Pay dues.

Don’t want them? Don’t pay dues.

[mr_lebowski]

80. Used to be if you want to work at a union 'shop' you paid full dues. Cons have slowly eviscerated

the Unions by undermining how and from whom they can collect dues, in many different ways over the years.

Now they've pretty well dealt the death blow essentially saying everyone working at the union shop has to be covered/receive all Union benefits ... but nobody actually has to pay for any of those benefits.

[truthisfreedom]

68. The same argument could be applied for taxes under

an administration whose public views I oppose.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

72. Court's out for the Summer!

[harun]

74. Does that mean taxes are free speech too?

*sarcasm*

[Mr. Sparkle]

75. "unconstitutiona" they really are making this shit up as they go along.

[Turbineguy]

76. I worked with a guy

who was making about $40,000 per year. After taking a training course that I taught, he could make $80,000. But he'd have to join a Union. He's still making $40,000.

When I worked as a civilian for the DoD we were sort of unionized. We got raises when the Union did and things like that. There were a number of people, very few, who got the union pay scale, but did not pay union dues and they were called "free-loaders". It could be that if people who are now unionized do not have to pay dues, they might drop out. If enough drop out, the Union could get decertified and people might get a drop in pay and benefits under a republican administration.

One of the things that took place in Europe with unions is that various countries adopted laws that gave workers pretty much the same protection as the unions gave them. There was no point in joining a union.

I worked for a German firm and company policy that covered my subordinates could have been lifted directly from the pages of my union contract. It was difficult to fire somebody and you had to jump through a lot of hoops.

[angrychair]

79. As a shop steward for a public employee union

I will be forced to quit. What this will do is require locals to let go a majority of their council reps and put a massive workload on what is supposed to be a voluntary position. I am only one of three as it is and the only one still actively trying to be honest. I don’t know what else to do but there is no way I can take on the much of a burden for people that are apathetic at best.

FYI I am in a blue state with a Dem Governor and Dem majority in house and senate (for now)

[DeminPennswoods]

88. The labor laws of the Depression Era are

outdated. On the surface they appear to help workers, but I think the reality is they handcuff them. One of the dissents was posted above and shows the conundrum - unions can't force non-members to pay dues yet have to provide "fair" representation to everyone.