Supreme Court rules in favor of

Sep 2016
1,652
625
Oregon
workers, in a case from Illinois. Public sector Unions can not collect "fees" from non-union workers. This could affect 22 other states that have the same thing happening. Court says the workers have the right of "free speech" and cannot be charged by a Union they are not a member of. The Unions tried to claim they needed the money for labor disputes and negotiations but everyone knows they give a lot of dues (fees) to one political party...the Dems.

The Dems are going nuts over this, seeing money support of their party going down hill. For a long time we have heard the complaints from Union members about this practice and not happy over it. Why should any non-Dem have their money taken to support candidates they do not???
 
Nov 2005
10,116
5,481
California
Unions say that reasoning is flawed. Nonmembers are already entitled to refunds of payments spent on political activities, like advertising to support a political candidate.

Collective bargaining is different, the unions say, and workers should not be free to reap the benefits of such bargaining without paying their fair share of the costs.

The decision could encourage many workers perfectly happy with their unions’ work to make the economically rational decision to opt out of paying for it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-unions-organized-labor.html

It would be the equivalent of deciding you didn't have to pay taxes, but then you still get to enjoy driving on government provided roads, utilizing government provided police force, etc.

The union will fight for improved conditions for the workers, and then non-union members will reap the benefits without contributing to the cause. :wacko:
 
Sep 2016
1,652
625
Oregon
Sounds good...but why should the workers money be spent on political parties or candidates? In 2016 Unions spent 167 million (according the the Huffpost) on the election...mostly to Dems. That sure was not spent on what you describe and the Court did not accept your argument.
 
Sep 2016
1,652
625
Oregon
I will add just how many do you think ask a Union to "refund" dues and how they would be treated in the future??? This is the real world....
 
Nov 2005
10,116
5,481
California
Sounds good...but why should the workers money be spent on political parties or candidates? In 2016 Unions spent 167 million (according the the Huffpost) on the election...mostly to Dems. That sure was not spent on what you describe and the Court did not accept your argument.
For the same reason that other business groups donate to political groups and politicians. To enact or protect policy that suits their goals.

And I haven't read the SCOTUS ruling yet. Have you read it?
If you haven't then you can't really say that SCOTUS rejected this argument. We just know what SCOTUS ruled. The reasons are in their ruling and shouldn't be assumed.
 
Feb 2014
3,378
1,598
Oregon
workers, in a case from Illinois. Public sector Unions can not collect "fees" from non-union workers. This could affect 22 other states that have the same thing happening. Court says the workers have the right of "free speech" and cannot be charged by a Union they are not a member of. The Unions tried to claim they needed the money for labor disputes and negotiations but everyone knows they give a lot of dues (fees) to one political party...the Dems.

The Dems are going nuts over this, seeing money support of their party going down hill. For a long time we have heard the complaints from Union members about this practice and not happy over it. Why should any non-Dem have their money taken to support candidates they do not???
Why should anyone get the benefits of a union without being due-paying members of the union? Actually, I much rather have a law making it mandatory for all industry to use the democratic model, outlawing the autocratic model for industry, but this requires years of education because it is not understood. In the meantime, the unions are the best empowerment of the people that we have, and I think it is a huge mistake to give this up or to weaken it. Failure to support unions is a failure to support democracy.
 
Last edited:

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
42,175
30,696
La La Land North
For the same reason that other business groups donate to political groups and politicians. To enact or protect policy that suits their goals.

And I haven't read the SCOTUS ruling yet. Have you read it?
If you haven't then you can't really say that SCOTUS rejected this argument. We just know what SCOTUS ruled. The reasons are in their ruling and shouldn't be assumed.
The BBC article on this gave some selected quotes from the arguments. The majority considered it a first amendment issue, primarily exactly the point of the union supporting issues (not limited to political issues) that the nonmember might not agree with.

The minority stressed the point about the unions losing power and the potential for other unforeseen negative effects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Feb 2014
3,378
1,598
Oregon
For the same reason that other business groups donate to political groups and politicians. To enact or protect policy that suits their goals.

And I haven't read the SCOTUS ruling yet. Have you read it?
If you haven't then you can't really say that SCOTUS rejected this argument. We just know what SCOTUS ruled. The reasons are in their ruling and shouldn't be assumed.
I have noticed the right or wrong of the decision at this point, depends on what slanted article you read. We need to get beyond these slanted explanations and treating them like reality. We need to watch and see if the SCOTUS decision proves the following "study conclusion" right or wrong. No one's opinion matter. It is the results that matter. How many of you will be here 5 years from now and ready to discuss the results of the ruling?

A Supreme Court ruling for Janus would be judicial activism at its worst - Chicago Tribune

The study concludes that if the court strikes down fee payer laws, the loss of bargaining power for 5 million affected public sector workers will translate to an average wage cut of about $1,800 per year. The corresponding loss of consumer spending could shrink the national economy by as much as $33 billion — and by more than $2 billion in Illinois alone. And union membership in affected states would drop by more than 725,000.
 
Apr 2017
1,306
70
Sweden
Democracy wants free speech. Communism dislike those things. It would been easier with one world free speechless what do otherwise thinker about 50 topics world leader !!?? It could been nicely even Race Relationship.
 
Apr 2017
1,306
70
Sweden
1.Sports
2.Debate Zone
3.Race and Relationship
4.Entertainment
5.Current News
6.Politics
7.Europe
8.Middle Easts
9.Africa
10.Canada
11.Military
12-35 topics could been excsatly!