Skip to comments.Court: Public union can't make nonmembers pay fees
Posted on 06/30/2014 7:13:31 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Supreme Court says public sector unions can't collect fees from home health care workers who object to being affiliated with a union.
The justices on Monday said collecting the fees violates the First Amendment rights of workers who are not union members....
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
“The Supreme Court says public sector unions can’t collect fees from home health care workers who object to being affiliated with a union. The justices on Monday said collecting the fees violates the First Amendment rights of workers who are not union members....”
So will the co criminals, Herrs Obozo and Holder ignore this like they ignore any law or court ruling that goes against their agenda or contributors?
Very scary that four justices said yes they can.
Wonder how they voted?
Man, that cripples up union forced membership. I don’t see how long-term survival is possible now with the unions.
This represents the death knell to public sector unions, something that even Franklin Roosevelt could not stomach. The unholy alliance of unions and Democrat politicians has worked against good government, fiscal responsibility, and the will of the people. A good day.
Wise latina fail.
What was the voting split?
That is scary. I will be interested in reading the dissent; how anyone justice could think it’s ok to take money out of a Medicaid check for a disabled child and give it to the SEIU.
It depends on how the decision is written. If it just applies narrowly to these home healthcare workers, then it will not be as widespread as you might think.
the O-hole in chief child will ignore this order. And he will lambaste the Court. “Don’t doubt me on this.”
Very good news. Abood was not overturned but this is a defeat to the union progressive plan.
Yeah, but also interesting that lower courts all threw the case out. At least the Supremes listened, even if they were only 5-4.
How does this affect states where the union can force you to join as a condition of employment?
HOBBY LOBBY WINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Does this mean that Rush Limbaugh can quit paying dues, or leave the union entirely?
Great win I thought the SC would come through!! Even they were appalled by the thieving money grubbing union thugocracy
This will kick the public sector unions right in the nuts!
5-4 is pathetic but I’ll take it!!!
The four libs were the desenters.
I thought I heard on the radio that PART-TIME members COULD NOT be compelled, but FULL-TIME workers COULD. Did anyone else hear that?
Terrible false headline.
Only applies to certain “partial” public employees.
It’s a “partial” win, which is better than any loss though.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The quicker they die off the better. A friendif mine is in a union. They got a new contract 15 months ago, the union has yet to actually provide their members with a copy. They keep blaming the printing company for a “printing error”
SCOTUS ruled on the specific Illinois program at issue ... unions can still collect dues from other public workers.
This is NOT a real victory against public employee unions.
Another win for the good guys.
So if the union negotiates a raise in their conract is the non-member exempt from the raise?
No, I wouldn’t think so. In right-to-work states the union negotiates for all employees and non-members are not paid differently.
The Obama Justice Department gets another loss as they had weighed in on the side of the public sector unions/state of Illinois. Solicitor General Verilli argued in an amicus curiae brief in 2012 that the USSC shouldn’t even hear the case.
Illinois is not a right-to-work state.
Good news bump
Is it a union printing shop?
That's the only way that a case gets heard by the Supreme Court. The are the Supreme "Appellate" Court.
"What justifies the agency fee ... is the fact that the State compels the union to promote and protect the interests of nonmembers in negotiating and admin- istering a collective-bargaining agreement and representing the in- terests of employees in settling disputes and processing grievances. Lehnert, supra, at 556. That rationale has little application here, where Illinois law requires that all PAs receive the same rate of pay and the union has no authority with respect to a PAs grievances against a customer.
Hard to believe it was ever a question
“This represents the death knell to public sector unions...”
I wish you were correct, but the ruling does NOT. The ruling only applies to “home healthcare workers” with even more conditions. This is a very narrow ruling.
Most SCOTUS rulings are narrow, but they establish a precedent that later applies more broadly. The broader implication here is good for right to work laws, it’s good for those who are trying to roll back the power of public employee unions, and it’s good for freedom and liberty. Small steps are sometimes good things.
I know the Supreme Court is an appellate court. But, often, the appeals are based on something that happened in the case... a faulty argument, or a procedural error, or some questionable evidence. This didn’t make it that far in the lower courts—”thrown out” to me means that it wasn’t considered at all.
I would assume so.
Yes, it is a chink in the armor, and surely to drive libtards ballistic.
Sure makes you think about voting for senate rinos. One more lib on the SC spells doom.
Not the kill-shot for public employee mafia, but a hell of a knee-capping!!