https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/supreme-...-case.html

"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions."
_________________

Let the meltdown begin

It baffles me that this was even an issue.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!

9:11 AM · Jun 27, 2018



Bwahahahaha

Because non-union members get the benefit of union representation without paying dues.

(06-27-2018 09:29 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Because non-union members get the benefit of union representation without paying dues.

"We 'gave' you something you didn't ask us for............now pay us."

(06-27-2018 09:32 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 09:29 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Because non-union members get the benefit of union representation without paying dues.

"We 'gave' you something you didn't ask us for............now pay us."

Democrat logic

Winning

(06-27-2018 09:29 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Because non-union members get the benefit of union representation without paying dues.

Maybe if the unions spent more time representing said members via collective bargaining for pay and working conditions instead of funneling cash to union chosen politicians it wouldn't have become such an issue either.

(06-27-2018 09:26 AM)shere khan Wrote:  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/supreme-...-case.html

"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions."
_________________

Let the meltdown begin

That should ACTUALLY read.....

"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions that will eventually be donated to the DNC."

I find it hilarious that the very same people who will call this ruling bad for government employees (because this ruling only applies to public sector unions) are the same ones who want the government to have greater control over your everyday lives. Make up your rabbit-assed minds!

I'm sympathetic to the idea that this guts public sector unions.

(06-27-2018 09:29 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Because non-union members get the benefit of union representation without paying dues.

"Avoiding free riders, Alito wrote, "is not a compelling interest."

"Many private groups speak out with the objective of obtaining government action that will have the effect of benefiting nonmembers," he wrote. "May all those who are thought to benefit from such efforts be compelled to subsidize this speech?"

(06-27-2018 09:29 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Because non-union members get the benefit of union representation without paying dues.

I have continuously earned about 4x that of a union worker. Therefore, the unions have been benefiting from me without paying up, as my very high wages no doubt played a role in their wages also going up. Please send a check for a few billion dollars. Thanks.

(06-27-2018 09:32 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 09:29 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Because non-union members get the benefit of union representation without paying dues.

"We 'gave' you something you didn't ask us for............now pay us."

I thought we were discussing unions not Obamacare.

Mike Rowe doesn’t offer Givermint scholarships. The “union” has lost its way and ground. The forgotten jobs and forgotten workers.

The Dems coffers did indeed just take a big hit. Love it.

There was simply no excuse for compelling people to give money to a union which then made political donations.

IMO of equal importance in this ruling is the fact that the court says that public sector unions must be opt-in rather than opt-out. This now forces the unions to show their worth to attract prospective members instead of forcing employees to jump thru hoops to leave the union.

I don't know exactly how many 5-4 decisions have been handed down in the past 12 months, but virtually every one of them would've gone the other way if McConnell had allowed Garland to be confirmed.

I totally understand the need to go outside the union for legal representation. But I’d hate to be that first non due paying worker to go up against the man. Please see lawyer and PI fees.