I notice in all the hullabaloo over the Hobby Lobby case... an important one is getting missed:

Harris vs. Quinn

the Public Unions took a much needed hit on this one, and IMO, this one is as important if not more-so than the HL case. Keeps the PU's from stealing money from average Americans. (as they were trying to do).

My only question, how was this only a 5-4 decision?

(06-30-2014 09:17 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  My only question, how was this only a 5-4 decision?

How did this even get to the SS to begin with? What the SEIU was doing was outrageous.

Cause Illinois is a corrupt state that just kowtows to the Unions... that's how. Every court case was in the SEIU's backyard..

(06-30-2014 09:48 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Cause Illinois is a corrupt state that just kowtows to the Unions... that's how. Every court case was in the SEIU's backyard..

But this case was so GD stupid it's unimaginable that it got past one court case and all the way to the 9 black robes. I would be embarrassed to represent the SEIU in any of this.

The minority was hung up in large part by a 70s case where they said that if a group of people recieve a benefit then they can be required to pay.

(06-30-2014 10:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The minority was hung up in large part by a 70s case where they said that if a group of people recieve a benefit then they can be required to pay.

So the boy would have been a "group of 1"?? And what benefit did the stay-at-home mom get? Medicare and medicaid? And as such that means she was subject to union dues?

Quote:For him to continue receiving his Medicaid support and his mother to be his primary caretaker the Harris family would be forced to give part of their benefit check to either the AFSCME or another union, the Service Employees International Union.

This should have been a 9-0 shutdown... otherwise we'd have to put every elderly American on the Union payroll.

(06-30-2014 09:17 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I notice in all the hullabaloo over the Hobby Lobby case... an important one is getting missed:

Harris vs. Quinn

the Public Unions took a much needed hit on this one, and IMO, this one is as important if not more-so than the HL case. Keeps the PU's from stealing money from average Americans. (as they were trying to do).

My only question, how was this only a 5-4 decision?

Scary isn't it?

Like I said.. to me , this case was a million times more important that the Hobby Lobby case, because it prevents the unions from coming after any of your paychecks for (hopefully) any reason, as I think they were getting ready to try to do if this case had been successful.

(06-30-2014 10:36 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  This should have been a 9-0 shutdown... otherwise we'd have to put every elderly American on the Union payroll.

You would think - but I guess 4 activists thought this wasn't a right-to-work country. How can you make non-voting members of a union pay dues? And I don't recall any union ratifying a contract for the stay-at-home moms.

If employers treated their emplyees fairly in the first place, there would have never been a need for Unions.

And it looks like the other "big" case involving unions trying to collect fees from unwilling participants (abood), may be in serious trouble if someone challenges that rule.

Quote:The appellate court had found in favor of Illinois using Abood, which upheld the demand for “agency fees” from employees in a union shop that refused to join the union and/or objected to dues going to political activities.

The majority opinion seriously hints that this one is going to get murdered in the Supreme Court if it's brought up to a challenge.

Quote: The Abood Court’s analysis is questionable on several grounds. Some of these were noted or apparent at or before the time of the decision, but several have become more evident and troubling in the years since then.

The Abood Court seriously erred in treating Hanson and Street as having all but decided the constitutionality of compulsory payments to a public-sector union. As we have explained, Street was not a constitutional decision at all, and Hanson disposed of the critical question in a single, unsupported sentence that its author essentially aban­doned a few years later. Surely a First Amendment issue of this importance deserved better treatment.

The Abood Court fundamentally misunderstood the holding in Hanson, which was really quite narrow. As the Court made clear in Street, “all that was held in Hanson was that [the RLA] was constitutional in its bare authori­zation of union-shop contracts requiring workers to give ‘financial support’ to unions legally authorized to act as their collective bargaining agents.” 367 U. S., at 749 (emphasis added). In Abood, on the other hand, the State of Michigan did more than simply authorize the imposition of an agency fee. A state instrumentality, the Detroit Board of Education, actually imposed that fee. This pre­sented a very different question.

(06-30-2014 11:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If employers treated their emplyees fairly in the first place, there would have never been a need for Unions.

It's no longer the nineteenth century.

(06-30-2014 11:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If employers treated their emplyees fairly in the first place, there would have never been a need for Unions.

If unions are not run by corrupt money grubbing robbers I would be surprised.
Unions should be outlawed if this is an example.