Posted on 06/27/2018 7:11:40 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that pubic sector unions for state and local employees can’t force non-members to pay a “fair-share” union fee.
In a 5-4 ruling Tuesday, the court said the extraction of agency fees from non-consenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment.
The case centers on an Illinois law, similar to those in 22 other states, that allow public-sector unions to collect a “fair-share fee” from employees for non-political activities like collective bargaining, regardless of whether those employees belong to the union or not. Mark Janus, a state child support specialist at the center of the case, argued against having to give up about $45 from each paycheck to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31. Doing so, he said, violates his First Amendment rights because it forces him to support the union’s messaging.
The union, AFSCME, argues it needs the “fair-share” funds to offset the significant costs it incurs negotiating working conditions for all employees. State laws allowing unions to collect these fees are justified, the union said, to avoid a situation where nonunion members get a "free ride."
A group of 15 public sector unions, warned the court in a friend of the court brief that eliminating fair-share fees would eviscerate public sector unions, depriving them of resources they need to perform their essential public functions.
“The elimination of fair-share fees would create an all-or-nothing choice for the workers whom unions represent: pay union dues or pay nothing but still receive the benefits a union provides,” they wrote.
“In that world, many rational employees will choose to become free riders.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Like being one of the primary causes of California's Leftist infestation.
Like pumping money into Leftist political campaigns.
Like sending out muscle men to attack anyone who doesn't spew the Leftist drivel, at public events.
Yeah, my heart really bleeds for the unions. LOL
Hey thanks, AFSCME.
You just shot SEIU in the heart!
LOL!
One of the best weeks ever!!!
Yep, this is a real blow to the Demonrat party across the entire country, how sweet it is.
What really baffles me is how the ‘4’ that supported the unions justify their stance?
**************
The Supreme Court is not really a court at all. It is nothing more than a political arbiter of legal disputes that reflect partisan ideological views. In other words, our Constitution and duly enacted laws often don’t matter. The Left uses the “court” to override the legislative process to get what they want.
Sign me up for the class action to recover past payments. I was an unwilling “fair shate” contributor for 10 years.
>>please pass the winnamins<<
I rarely LOL in RL.
You just made me do that!!!
In fact, I am stealing that as my tag!!
Oh and I award you the Interwebz for today!
>5-4 again?
5-4 Always my friend.
There are 4 that will ALWAYS vote in a bloc. We know who they are.
This is a big reason that Trump literally saved us from a horrible fate. If hillary would have won, there would still be 5-4 decisions, but not in a good way.
It’s a main foundation reason, why I hate and despise the never-trumpers. They’d have given over the SCOTUS for a generation, because trump said things that offended their delicate sensibilities.
>>What really baffles me is how the ‘4’ that supported the unions justify their stance? <<
Probably some sort of variation on the “free rider” argument. My guess.
One of the really cool things about this decision is that the public sector unions have all built up huge infrastructures based on compulsory dues. Now they suddenly have massive overhead they can no longer afford, all in an instant. When that happens to the ordinary business, it goes bankrupt. Same thing should happen here in a lot of cases, especially to the radical SEIU that has many low income members who will happily economize on dues they no longer can be forced to pay.
You are correct, sadly. If fact I heard a pundit yesterday say that the only reason The President won on his travel ban is because SCOTUS didn't want to remove that power [which is enumerated in The Constitution, by the way] for future presidents!
Woo-hoo!
I know. When I was working for a public employee union in California, of course the union was supporting the unions in Wisconsin, and I quietly donated to Scott Walker. :-)
Really? I thought they were private associations? Did we elect them?
One of the great scourges of the modern era is the extra-constitutional powers represented by NGOs. They have morphed into what in UK are called "Quango"s. They are a threat to constitutional government.
Yep...This is huge, all public sector unions will suffer
> > > many rational employees will choose to become free riders < < <
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GjYlTwWQHI
>>Public sector unions should not even exist.<<
When the members all abandon them to keep the dues money they will cease to be.
There are a ot of things that need to happen but I am pretty sure that is the upsjot.
Union bosses both private and public are in meeting rooms with big white boards outlining their options even as we speak/post.
But this could be it.
On average govt employees make more than private business workers anyway.
No real surprise, the dissenting 4 likely received millions of union dollars during their careers.
How bout refunds?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.