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

[ogibillm]

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

good of you to admit to his activism

 

[ogibillm]

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

wow. are you saying the executive branch dictates what cases the supreme court will hear and when they hear them?

 

[bodecea]

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

Non-union members should sign a contract stating that if they don't want to pay union dues for collective bargaining, they forego any wage benefits gained from such collective bargaining.

 

[bodecea]

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

wow. are you saying the executive branch dictates what cases the supreme court will hear and when they hear them?

whitehall doesn't have a very good grasp of how our federal government works.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

What do they have to offer? obama screwed them and there caddilac health care plans in 2018..

 

[depotoo]

Really? Lobbying activities sounds political in my world, and I would imagine most others world.
About the agency fee

What is an "agency fee?"

"Agency fee" refers to a union's ability to collect money from employees to pay for things such as negotiating a contract and representing employees in grievances and arbitrations, and lobbying activities to foster collective bargaining negotiations or secure advocates. The agency fee is also sometimes referred to as “fair share” and “agency shop fee.”

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really? Lobbying activities sounds political in my world, and I would imagine most others world.
About the agency fee

What is an "agency fee?"

"Agency fee" refers to a union's ability to collect money from employees to pay for things such as negotiating a contract and representing employees in grievances and arbitrations, and lobbying activities to foster collective bargaining negotiations or secure advocates. The agency fee is also sometimes referred to as “fair share” and “agency shop fee.”

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.

The law requires that employees be given an opt out option on paying any portion of the fees that would go to political lobbying.

 

[Wilbur Right]

The Law of Unintended Consequences seems to be about the ONLY law that republicans can get passed.

Oops.
LMAO.

 

[Tom Horn]

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?

No, that would aggravate me to no end.

 

[Tom Horn]

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.

Duh? Of course unions fund pols I detest but doesn't every JOB come with some consequences one has to put up with?

 

[FJO]

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

Paying union dues is probably cheaper than having tires slashed, wind shields busted, cars keyed and families threatened by union thugs.

 

[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.

What do they have to offer? obama screwed them and there caddilac health care plans in 2018..

I'll tell ya what the UAW offers.....that the line doesn't move when it's not safe to be around. And the UMW don't let miners go into holes that have methane in them. I don't put company profits ahead of worker safety. If you do then you and I don't have a damn thing left to talk about.

 

[depotoo]

Opt out, yet still pay the fee, which just gives them the ability to rob peter to pay paul, and then paul pays for all non political activities, while peter pays all political activites.

Who do you or they think they are fooling?

Really? Lobbying activities sounds political in my world, and I would imagine most others world.
About the agency fee

What is an "agency fee?"

"Agency fee" refers to a union's ability to collect money from employees to pay for things such as negotiating a contract and representing employees in grievances and arbitrations, and lobbying activities to foster collective bargaining negotiations or secure advocates. The agency fee is also sometimes referred to as “fair share” and “agency shop fee.”

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.

The law requires that employees be given an opt out option on paying any portion of the fees that would go to political lobbying.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

a second bite of the apple will come

after a republican nominates and congress confirms

the next supreme court judge

 

[AceRothstein]

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

The Court did take up the case when Scalia was alive, slappy.

 

[depotoo]

Unfortunately, probably true.

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

Paying union dues is probably cheaper than having tires slashed, wind shields busted, cars keyed and families threatened by union thugs.

 

[depotoo]

That is your answer? Seriously?
Are you like 10?

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.

Duh? Of course unions fund pols I detest but doesn't every JOB come with some consequences one has to put up with?

 

[FJO]

Unfortunately, probably true.

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

Paying union dues is probably cheaper than having tires slashed, wind shields busted, cars keyed and families threatened by union thugs.

I speak from experience. In my 37 years of service I was happy to be a "SCAB" every four years when the union came up each time with more and more outrageous demands.

In 1986 it caught up with them and the plant was shut down. I got a job elsewhere in the company and never looked back. I never asked the company to pay me what the union demanded, I only asked to pay me what I was worth and what I honestly earned. And therein lies the difference.

 

[depotoo]

No union corruption at all, is there.

That is a joke, by the way.

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.

What do they have to offer? obama screwed them and there caddilac health care plans in 2018..

I'll tell ya what the UAW offers.....that the line doesn't move when it's not safe to be around. And the UMW don't let miners go into holes that have methane in them. I don't put company profits ahead of worker safety. If you do then you and I don't have a damn thing left to talk about.

 

[Tom Horn]

That is your answer? Seriously?
Are you like 10?

No, I'm "like" 68, asshole and yeah, that's my answer and if you'd ever worked in a factory you wouldn't keep looking like a fucking idiot here.