SCOTUS just spanked the Public Sector Unions.

[PaintMyHouse]

I agree with the ruling. Even FDR was anti government unions.

Yes he was, although this affects hardly anyone...

 

[Ibentoken]

The last paragraph is why republicans like this ruling

The bolded is what the republicans like about gutting this. Now people can be free riders on what the unions get done but don't have to pay for it. Much like allowing big corporations to ride the coat tails of the work their workers produce and profit off things they make and sell but not giving the workers their due. Makes perfect sense.

Actually no. The unions cannot help these home health care workers. They cannot give them better working conditions. They cannot limit their hours or even get them overtime pay. They cannot give them better or different workplace safety requirements. The unions get fees and dues for doing basically nothing. And so the workers, led by Pamela Harris sued and won. Why do you hate to see the littlest of the little guy win one?

These non union people will benefit from whatever the union does get done which is WHY the union wanted them to pay their benefits because they are considered health workers by the state.

If the union is so good, why does it have to force people to pay?

 

[LockeJaw]

Funny how some folks are actually angry at people who take care of their disabled relatives. What kind of piece of shit do you have to be to be mad that they're able to keep more of their money?

Hoping these people get screwed over even. I usually like what Diablo posts...but holy shit! What kind of shit is that?

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's actually a win for middle class workers already suffering. Now they don't have to pay unions who were just picking their pockets anyway.

BULLSHIT! Unions are needed because large companies USE people for profit then fire them when they try and get better wages,working hours,or working conditions. Like I said. This country has become a haven for 1% criminals who are not LEGALLY allowed to BUY any politician or judge they can and get things done their way. The people either stand up and put a stop to it or watch legalized slavery return. This time under the guise of "working" and they depend on suckers like you and the tea party and other morons to support them.

These morons should read about what America was like before unions, but that would require learning.

Wasn't pretty. The losertrians want even less government than that. This country will be something very ugly. I bitch about government from time to time, but I've woken up to the reality that civilized society needs some government.

 

[Freewill]

The last paragraph is why republicans like this ruling

The bolded is what the republicans like about gutting this. Now people can be free riders on what the unions get done but don't have to pay for it. Much like allowing big corporations to ride the coat tails of the work their workers produce and profit off things they make and sell but not giving the workers their due. Makes perfect sense.

Does there getting a "free" ride in any what effect what the Unions can negotiate? I don't think so.

 

[Katzndogz]

The last paragraph is why republicans like this ruling

The bolded is what the republicans like about gutting this. Now people can be free riders on what the unions get done but don't have to pay for it. Much like allowing big corporations to ride the coat tails of the work their workers produce and profit off things they make and sell but not giving the workers their due. Makes perfect sense.

Actually no. The unions cannot help these home health care workers. They cannot give them better working conditions. They cannot limit their hours or even get them overtime pay. They cannot give them better or different workplace safety requirements. The unions get fees and dues for doing basically nothing. And so the workers, led by Pamela Harris sued and won. Why do you hate to see the littlest of the little guy win one?

These non union people will benefit from whatever the union does get done which is WHY the union wanted them to pay their benefits because they are considered health workers by the state.

They will not benefit from anything the union does. That was the whole point. There is nothing the union can do that would benefit them. They can't negotiate better working conditions, shorter hours, over time pay, or even break times. Whatever the union negotiates on behalf of union members won't apply to these home workers anyway.

What happens when the union can't negotiate? They call a strike. Is the mother moving out of the home so she doesn't have to take care of her child? Does the husband stop taking care of his bedridden wife because the union says he can't? Meanwhile, completely ineffective in accomplishing anything, the union wants those dues every month.

 

[thereisnospoon]

RIP middle class workers. Welcome to corporate America where you can be used like a whore and tossed aside when you try to ask for something better...wages,working conditions,hours. Its really starting to become where I am thinking of moving elsewhere...This country has become for the rich,paid for by the rich,backed up by tyrants in robes.

Oh please.
This ruling sets logical boundaries by prohibiting labor collectives from taking money for workers who are not members of the collective.
The problem is?

 

[thereisnospoon]

RIP middle class workers. Welcome to corporate America where you can be used like a whore and tossed aside when you try to ask for something better...wages,working conditions,hours. Its really starting to become where I am thinking of moving elsewhere...This country has become for the rich,paid for by the rich,backed up by tyrants in robes.

It's actually a win for middle class workers already suffering. Now they don't have to pay unions who were just picking their pockets anyway.

BULLSHIT! Unions are needed because large companies USE people for profit then fire them when they try and get better wages,working hours,or working conditions. Like I said. This country has become a haven for 1% criminals who are now LEGALLY allowed to BUY any politician or judge they can and get things done their way. The people either stand up and put a stop to it or watch legalized slavery return. This time under the guise of "working" and they depend on suckers like you and the tea party and other morons to support them.

This sensible ruling really hits a nerve with you pro union extremists.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Supreme Court: Partial Public Employees Can't Be Required To Contribute To Unions

On its surface, the case deals with home care workers in Illinois who care for the disabled. The plaintiff, Pamela Harris, serves as the caretaker to her son Josh, who suffers from a rare genetic syndrome. The elder Harris receives Medicaid funds to do so and essentially functions as a state employee.
Many state-supported home care workers in Illinois are represented by the union SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana. Under the contract between the union and the state, all home care workers covered under the contract are required to pay a fee to SEIU to cover the expenses associated with bargaining, whether or not they want to be union members.
This arrangement avoids what unions commonly refer to as freeloading -- that is, benefiting from the union's work without helping to underwrite it. Since unions have to represent all the employees in a particular bargaining unit, they commonly seek requirements in their contracts that all workers pay such "fair share" fees.


The bolded is what the republicans like about gutting this. Now people can be free riders on what the unions get done but don't have to pay for it. Much like allowing big corporations to ride the coat tails of the work their workers produce and profit off things they make and sell but not giving the workers their due. Makes perfect sense.

You don't get it....These workers want nothing to do with SEIU.
They are NOT members. SEIU takes it upon itself to 'consider' these workers to be members ironically without the consent of the workers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The last paragraph is why republicans like this ruling

The bolded is what the republicans like about gutting this. Now people can be free riders on what the unions get done but don't have to pay for it. Much like allowing big corporations to ride the coat tails of the work their workers produce and profit off things they make and sell but not giving the workers their due. Makes perfect sense.

Actually no. The unions cannot help these home health care workers. They cannot give them better working conditions. They cannot limit their hours or even get them overtime pay. They cannot give them better or different workplace safety requirements. The unions get fees and dues for doing basically nothing. And so the workers, led by Pamela Harris sued and won. Why do you hate to see the littlest of the little guy win one?

but that was their argument in front of scotus. That they got these workers better deals, and the workers even agreed that it happened. They just dont want to pay the dues.
so with that being said, Fuck the stay at home workers, they are part-time. They don't want to pay, then the unions dont have to fight for them.
It will be funny when they start getting fucked over and start whining about how the unions are not helping them now.

I dont mind this ruling, nor does it destroy unions at all.

Hey genius...This is merely a continuation of the push back against public sector unions that have been ripping off taxpayers and lining the pockets of union friendly politicians for decades.
These rulings and new state laws such as the ones in Wisconsin and Indiana are a growing trend. Also, right to work is going to become law in more states as tapped out taxpayers pressure politicians to rid them of the burden of unionized( very expensive) labor.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh please.
This ruling sets logical boundaries by prohibiting labor collectives from taking money for workers who are not members of the collective.
The problem is?

There is no problem with not paying something for nothing in this case.

 

[thereisnospoon]

but that was their argument in front of scotus. That they got these workers better deals, and the workers even agreed that it happened. They just dont want to pay the dues.
so with that being said, Fuck the stay at home workers, they are part-time. They don't want to pay, then the unions dont have to fight for them.
It will be funny when they start getting fucked over and start whining about how the unions are not helping them now.

I dont mind this ruling, nor does it destroy unions at all.

There is no such thing as a part time care worker taking care of a disabled family member. It is 24/7. There is no such thing as a caregiver who is taking care of a disabled family member saying "It's 5 pm, time to kick off the shoes. I'm off duty."

The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Harris v. Quinn on Monday, saying partial public employees can't be required to contribute to unions.

go blow it out your ass you ignorant fuck

Uh oh...And there ya have it. Another lib with a big problem when things do not go their way...
Nice. Your credibility just dropped to zero.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The last paragraph is why republicans like this ruling

The bolded is what the republicans like about gutting this. Now people can be free riders on what the unions get done but don't have to pay for it. Much like allowing big corporations to ride the coat tails of the work their workers produce and profit off things they make and sell but not giving the workers their due. Makes perfect sense.

Actually no. The unions cannot help these home health care workers. They cannot give them better working conditions. They cannot limit their hours or even get them overtime pay. They cannot give them better or different workplace safety requirements. The unions get fees and dues for doing basically nothing. And so the workers, led by Pamela Harris sued and won. Why do you hate to see the littlest of the little guy win one?

These non union people will benefit from whatever the union does get done which is WHY the union wanted them to pay their benefits because they are considered health workers by the state.

No they don't...SEIU does NOTHING for them. NOTHING....

 

[Ibentoken]

Why should family who take care of disabled family have to pay union dues? Gangsters.

 

[Ibentoken]

Read the link I provided...the STATE considers them to be union workers yet they are considered union workers who are paying NOTHING to get that union protection and benefits.

So it's nothing but an old fashioned protection racket. I know. We don't need it any longer because there are laws to protect workers now. Too bad for the gangsters of the SEIU.

 

[Plasmaball]

Why should family who take care of disabled family have to pay union dues? Gangsters.

because they didnt cry when the union fought for them. Dont want to pay, then the union doesnt need to fit for them for far wages and such..

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's actually a win for middle class workers already suffering. Now they don't have to pay unions who were just picking their pockets anyway.

BULLSHIT! Unions are needed because large companies USE people for profit then fire them when they try and get better wages,working hours,or working conditions. Like I said. This country has become a haven for 1% criminals who are now LEGALLY allowed to BUY any politician or judge they can and get things done their way. The people either stand up and put a stop to it or watch legalized slavery return. This time under the guise of "working" and they depend on suckers like you and the tea party and other morons to support them.

And those not represented by the Union will forfeit benefits from collective bargaining? I doubt it.

They do not receive any benefits. The argument SEIU raised was that since the workers pay is funded by the State that SEIU considered them to be public employees. That was the basis of their argument. SEIU did not prevail. That was the only logical conclusion

 

[Katzndogz]

Read the link I provided...the STATE considers them to be union workers yet they are considered union workers who are paying NOTHING to get that union protection and benefits.

They don't get union protection or union benefits. They aren't state employees, they are paid by the state but don't work for the state. The state didn't hire them. They didn't fill out an application for employment. The union doesn't regulate their hours, or give them holidays off, or negotiate vacation time. The union doesn't make sure their break times are protected. They don't make sure the workplace is safe. The unions intended to make private homes union shops. Name a single union benefit. Name one union protection these workers will get. What are these caregivers paying for when they pay union dues?

 

[Plasmaball]

There is no such thing as a part time care worker taking care of a disabled family member. It is 24/7. There is no such thing as a caregiver who is taking care of a disabled family member saying "It's 5 pm, time to kick off the shoes. I'm off duty."

The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Harris v. Quinn on Monday, saying partial public employees can't be required to contribute to unions.

go blow it out your ass you ignorant fuck

Uh oh...And there ya have it. Another lib with a big problem when things do not go their way...
Nice. Your credibility just dropped to zero.

this ruling doesnt bother me. The unions should stop protecting them...End of story..

 

[Katzndogz]

Unions never did protect them. These workers can't be fired. There no possibility of a discrimination claim. Their rights cannot be violated.