Skip to comments.
Supreme Court throws out ruling in case protecting unions from class-action lawsuits
Washington Examiner ^
| July 02, 2018
| Sean Higgins
Posted on 07/03/2018 7:00:04 AM PDT by GonzoII
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
1
posted on
07/03/2018 7:00:04 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
To: GonzoII
Wow. This could effectively break the unions.
2
posted on
07/03/2018 7:03:38 AM PDT
by
ealgeone
To: GonzoII
To: ealgeone
I thought last weeks ruling did not apply to unions in the private sector.
To: GonzoII
Big Unions are 0-2 this summer. Last week it was, “No longer can they require dues from those in the public sector who are not members and do not wish to pay.”
5
posted on
07/03/2018 7:05:31 AM PDT
by
Teacher317
(We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
To: GonzoII
6
posted on
07/03/2018 7:07:50 AM PDT
by
rjsimmon
(The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
To: ealgeone
Wow. This could effectively break the unions. Or, at the very least, slow the firehose funding to Democrats!
7
posted on
07/03/2018 7:08:42 AM PDT
by
rjsimmon
(The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
To: ealgeone
8
posted on
07/03/2018 7:09:23 AM PDT
by
GOP Poet
To: GonzoII
Whoo-hoo!
The union thugs may not get to keep all that money they stole from non-union members!
They should have thought of that years ago. This could be billions and billions of dollars having to be paid back.
This may bankrupt unions.
9
posted on
07/03/2018 7:12:14 AM PDT
by
CodeToad
To: GonzoII
10
posted on
07/03/2018 7:13:01 AM PDT
by
READINABLUESTATE
(A progressive liberalsÂ’ happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to)
To: shelterguy
"The case involved nonunion state-subsidized Illinois home healthcare workers seeking to be repaid the funds that for years they were forced to give to the union that ostensibly represented them." This is yuge!
To: Enterprise
Yes. But the ruling last week only applied to public unions. Daycare workers are not in a public union. Confusing. I do hope this expands to private sector unions.
To: GonzoII
13
posted on
07/03/2018 7:17:09 AM PDT
by
bgill
(CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
To: GonzoII
Wow, talk about a major ruling initially flying under the radar!
To: shelterguy
I see your point. The home healthcare workers might have been classified as state employees.
To: shelterguy
I thought last weeks ruling did not apply to unions in the private sector.
This action is against a public sector union. Rauner is the Governor of Illinois.
And this could bankrupt them.
L
16
posted on
07/03/2018 7:19:02 AM PDT
by
Lurker
(President Trump isn't our last chance. President Trump is THEIR last chance.)
To: Enterprise
I don’t believe so. Here in Minnesota there was a push to get the home daycare people to unionize. Governor Goofy Dayton was pushing it if I remember right. These would not be considered state employees.
To: shelterguy
Daycare workers are not in a public union.
Here in Illinois they were forced by law to pay dues money to a public sector union, most of them quite against their will. This suit seeks repayment of dues forcibly extracted from the plaintiffs.
L
18
posted on
07/03/2018 7:21:09 AM PDT
by
Lurker
(President Trump isn't our last chance. President Trump is THEIR last chance.)
To: GonzoII
WINNING!!!!!!!!........................
19
posted on
07/03/2018 7:21:46 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(July 2018 - the month the world discovered the TRUTH......Q Anon)
To: shelterguy
As I understand it, this is a different, separate case, and did not involve a "ruling" on the substance of it. The Supremes simply authorized the plaintiffs to bring their case as a class-action suit.
So that opens the door.
They still have to go through the whole appellate shebang. But they have permission to start.
So YAY and let's see what happens.
20
posted on
07/03/2018 7:23:16 AM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
(What people will submit to, equals the exact measure of injustice which will be imposed upon them.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson