Supreme Court Ties 4-4: Non-Union Employees Must Now Pay Union Dues To Public-Employee Unions

[Steve_McGarrett]

And if Scalia was alive the ruling would have been 5-4.

Supreme Court: Non-Union Employees Must Now Pay Union Dues to Public-Employee Unions - The Gateway Pundit

 

[Freewill]

Will that now apply to the USPS?

 

[Agit8r]

Should have eaten his broccoli

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

I'

Will that now apply to the USPS?

I'm sure it will. At one time, I knew several Non-Union workers who were hired at the local UPS hub who were let go due to Union members filing grievances against them for not paying Union Dues.

 

[OldLady]

And if Scalia was alive the ruling would have been 5-4.

Supreme Court: Non-Union Employees Must Now Pay Union Dues to Public-Employee Unions - The Gateway Pundit

I thought if it was a tie that Court deferred to the lower court's ruling. How did a tie vote end up in a decision?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

And if Scalia was alive the ruling would have been 5-4.

Supreme Court: Non-Union Employees Must Now Pay Union Dues to Public-Employee Unions - The Gateway Pundit

I thought if it was a tie that Court deferred to the lower court's ruling. How did a tie vote end up in a decision?

It reverts back to the lower courts decision meaning the original ruling stands.

 

[Care4all]

And if Scalia was alive the ruling would have been 5-4.

Supreme Court: Non-Union Employees Must Now Pay Union Dues to Public-Employee Unions - The Gateway Pundit

I thought if it was a tie that Court deferred to the lower court's ruling. How did a tie vote end up in a decision?

It didn't, the tie means the lower appeal's court decision stays in place, whose decision ruled they had to pay.

 

[Freewill]

I'

Will that now apply to the USPS?

I'm sure it will. At one time, I knew several Non-Union workers who were hired at the local UPS hub who were let go due to Union members filing grievances against them for not paying Union Dues.

The USPS has been right to work as long as I have known. usps | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

 

[Freewill]

And if Scalia was alive the ruling would have been 5-4.

Supreme Court: Non-Union Employees Must Now Pay Union Dues to Public-Employee Unions - The Gateway Pundit

I thought if it was a tie that Court deferred to the lower court's ruling. How did a tie vote end up in a decision?

It didn't, the tie means the lower appeal's court decision stays in place, whose decision ruled they had to pay.

do they pay a lesser amount then a Union member?

 

[Tom Horn]

I'm not "pro-union" in other than dangerous occupations (auto, mining, steel etc.) but it seems to me if an employee is enjoying benefits a union got the workers, they should chip in to see that those benefits aren't taken away.

 

[whitehall]

It wasn't really a decision. It was more like the absence of a decision so the challenge remains moot. Look for the old farts to pick up more challenges to laws that they can pretend to address.

 

[depotoo]

Do you believe in an individuals right to fund the candidate of their chose? If so, remember this ruling is nothing more than a piggybank for candidates of the unions choice, since a portion of all dues is used to fund the union leaders candidate choice.

I'm not "pro-union" in other than dangerous occupations (auto, mining, steel etc.) but it seems to me if an employee is enjoying benefits a union got the workers, they should chip in to see that those benefits aren't taken away.

 

[OldLady]

I was in one of those unions. A few of my coworkers chose not to be members and they still had to pay PARTIAL dues to the union. I can see the point. The union has worked to get everyone the salary and benefits non-members enjoy and why is it fair they don't have to pay for it when most people do? The non members said the union was a waste of space and didn't do a good job of representing them. They didn't feel it was right to be forced to be a member.
I can see both sides, I guess.

 

[whitehall]

Why didn't the Court take up this case when Scalia was alive? I smell a rat in the Hussein administration.

 

[OldLady]

It wasn't really a decision. It was more like the absence of a decision so the challenge remains moot. Look for the old farts to pick up more challenges to laws that they can pretend to address.

It isn't the old farts' fault they have 8 justices and will have split (non)decisions. Guess whose fault THAT is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And if Scalia was alive the ruling would have been 5-4.

Supreme Court: Non-Union Employees Must Now Pay Union Dues to Public-Employee Unions - The Gateway Pundit

The headline is a lie. They are not required to pay Union dues. They are required to pay agency fees.

Yes, I know it's too complicated for the average RWnut to understand the difference.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why didn't the Court take up this case when Scalia was alive? I smell a rat in the Hussein administration.

If the Supreme Court had the option to take this up when Scalia was alive, how does that come back on the Obama Administration,

other than via your deranged hatred?

 

[TooTall]

I'm not "pro-union" in other than dangerous occupations (auto, mining, steel etc.) but it seems to me if an employee is enjoying benefits a union got the workers, they should chip in to see that those benefits aren't taken away.

Then you would not mind when a portion of your dues were given to elect politicians of a political party that you disapproved. Is that correct?

 

[depotoo]

And the difference is? Hat fee still is used to pay for political activities, whether you support those activities or not.

latimes#
Just like their counterparts in the private sector, government workers have long been able to join unions, which then charge dues to cover expenses for services that include negotiating wages and advocating for political action. And just like their private sector counterparts, public employees who don't want to join the union have been able to withhold dues while paying "agency fees" to cover just the cost of bargaining for wages.

And if Scalia was alive the ruling would have been 5-4.

Supreme Court: Non-Union Employees Must Now Pay Union Dues to Public-Employee Unions - The Gateway Pundit

The headline is a lie. They are not required to pay Union dues. They are required to pay agency fees.

Yes, I know it's too complicated for the average RWnut to understand the difference.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And the difference is? Hat fee still is used to pay for political activities, whether you support those activities or not.

latimes#
Just like their counterparts in the private sector, government workers have long been able to join unions, which then charge dues to cover expenses for services that include negotiating wages and advocating for political action. And just like their private sector counterparts, public employees who don't want to join the union have been able to withhold dues while paying "agency fees" to cover just the cost of bargaining for wages.

And if Scalia was alive the ruling would have been 5-4.

Supreme Court: Non-Union Employees Must Now Pay Union Dues to Public-Employee Unions - The Gateway Pundit

The headline is a lie. They are not required to pay Union dues. They are required to pay agency fees.

Yes, I know it's too complicated for the average RWnut to understand the difference.

No it isn't used for politics.

Management agrees to recognize a union as the negotiating agency for employees, and those employees, as a condition of their employment mandated BY management,

are required to pay a fee to that agency.