Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $18,845
21%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 21% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Keyword: afscme

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Time to Repeal JFK’s Executive Order 10988

    01/01/2019 8:52:23 AM PST · by george76 · 45 replies
    WSJ ^ | June 7, 2018 | William A. Matthews
    President Trump should rescind EO 10988, decertify the federal employee unions, and drain more swamp. ... While any federal workplace reform is appreciated, President Trump missed an opportunity (“Fresh Air in the Swamp,” Review & Outlook, June 1.) He could have, and should have, simply rescinded President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10988 that recognizes the right of federal workers to bargain collectively. A strong case for its revocation can be made to the American public. Why should 2.2 million federal workers enjoy both robust civil-service job protection and union representation? No wonder why, according to the CBO, federal salaries are 16%...
  • Unions Defy Supreme Court on Mandatory Dues, Suit Says

    12/07/2018 7:40:06 AM PST · by george76 · 15 replies
    The Daily Signal ^ | December 04, 2018 | Kevin Mooney
    Labor unions are collecting dues from public employees without their “affirmative consent” in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling that state laws requiring nonunion government workers to make such payments are unconstitutional, a new lawsuit alleges. The Freedom Foundation, a free market think tank based in Washington state, joined with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to sue on behalf of 10 government employees in Oregon who argue that union dues or fees should not be deducted from their paychecks after they officially resigned from their union. “This is one of the biggest scandals I’ve ever witnessed from...
  • Despite Janus Ruling, Some Unions Still Forcing Public Workers to Pay Annual Dues

    11/16/2018 6:13:33 AM PST · by george76 · 12 replies
    Reason Foundation ^ | November 16, 2018 | Steven Greenhut
    In California, new lawsuits aim to make unions respect the Supreme Court's authority. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision from June in Janus v. the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was clear: Public employees no longer are required to pay union dues, even for collective-bargaining purposes. This was no technical or ambiguous point. The court declared it an infringement of the First Amendment when the government forces workers to financially support organizations that they don't want to support. Case settled, right? Not entirely. Public-sector unions, especially in California, aren't used to finding themselves on the losing end of...
  • Northeastern Workers Battle Forced Dues ( Unions )

    11/23/2018 5:45:17 AM PST · by george76 · 10 replies
    Washington Free Beacon ^ | November 20, 2018 | Bill McMorris
    Govt. healthcare employees in Penn. & Conn. allege coercive payments. A pair of healthcare workers in the Northeast have filed lawsuits alleging that labor leaders have blocked them from resigning even after the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory public sector membership is unconstitutional. William Neely, a Pennsylvania-based psychiatric aide, has accused American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 13 of refusing to honor his resignation. Neely was a dues paying member of the organization for 15 years before requesting to cut ties in July, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that government agencies could no longer require paying...
  • This state worker wants to quit her union — but it won’t let her go (Ca)

    09/06/2018 6:20:32 PM PDT · by aimhigh · 10 replies
    Sacramento Bee ^ | 09/06/2018 | ADAM ASHTON
    A new lawsuit from a University of California health worker says her union won’t let her quit. Liliana Hernandez, who works in patient billing for UC Irvine’s health system, argues in her lawsuit that AFSCME Local 3299 is still collecting dues from her despite her repeated attempts to separate. And she wants to kill a state law that requires government to defer to union rules on such matters. She and her attorneys contend the slow response from her union and her employer violates the Supreme Court’s June decision in Janus vs. AFSCME banning public-sector labor organizations from collecting any kind...
  • Time to Free Workers From Corrupt Unions

    07/24/2018 6:36:33 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 9 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | July 24, 2018 | Congressman Francis Rooney
    The recent Supreme Court ruling in Janus vs AFSCME ended a practice of abuse of public sector employees by their unions. The decision prevents unions from forcing the payment of dues by non-members and is a major victory for our civil servants. Now it is time to stop similar corrupt tactics used by unions to force private sector non-union employees to pay dues. Thanks to a hand-out by the Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), unions can collect involuntary dues from former members who recently cancelled membership. In 2013, the NLRB overturned the 1962 Bethlehem Steel decision, which set the...
  • Janus Is Only the Beginning

    07/19/2018 6:41:10 AM PDT · by lowbuck · 7 replies
    The Spectator ^ | 19 July 2018 | Steven Greenhut
    The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Janus v. AFSCME case has heartened conservatives throughout the nation, especially in non-right-to-work states such as California that require public employees to pay dues to their respective unions. Janus will, over time, reduce the power of these unions as they are forced to spend more time wooing members — and they will have less disposable cash to control state legislatures and city councils.
  • I respectfully disagree

    07/16/2018 10:26:53 PM PDT · by iowamark · 11 replies
    Catholic Times ^ | 7/8/18 | Thomas Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield, Illinois
    My dear brothers and sisters in Christ: The United States Supreme Court on June 27 decided that public sector employees can no longer be required to pay mandatory fees to support unions to which they do not wish to belong. This landmark case, Janus v. AFSCME, involved Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services in Springfield, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public-sector union. Janus refused to join the union because he opposes many of its positions, including those taken in collective bargaining. Despite his opposition, for...
  • Trump administration to dump Obama-era rule allowing unions to siphon Medicaid money

    07/10/2018 5:58:34 PM PDT · by ColdOne · 17 replies
    foxnews.com ^ | 7/10/18 | Gregg Re
    The Trump administration announced Tuesday it planned to end what it suggested was an illegal Obama-era rule allowing unions to collect dues from state subsidies intended for home health workers -- including family caregivers. Federal law generally prohibits states from skimming money from Medicaid payments bound for independent in-home personal care workers. But in 2014, the Obama administration created an exception, saying that states could divert some of that Medicaid money to unions, on the theory that these workers effectively were public-sector employees. Eleven left-leaning states have used that provision to raise more than $200 million a year for unions...
  • Supreme Court throws out ruling in case protecting unions from class-action lawsuits

    07/03/2018 7:00:04 AM PDT · by GonzoII · 70 replies
    Washington Examiner ^ | July 02, 2018 | Sean Higgins
    Organized labor, already reeling from a potentially major financial hit thanks to a Supreme Court ruling last week that could result in millions of public-sector workers cutting off funding, could be subject to another blow from the justices: class-action suits from those workers seeking to get paid back from the unions. In a little-noticed action, the Supreme Court invalidated a ruling last week by the 7th Circuit Court denying class-action certification in a case called Riffey v. Rauner. The case involved nonunion state-subsidized Illinois home healthcare workers seeking to be repaid the funds that for years they were forced to...
  • More Winning at SCOTUS!

    06/27/2018 7:04:17 AM PDT · by luv2ski · 174 replies
    SCOTUS ^ | June 27, 2018 | SCOTUS
    JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsi­ dize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bar­ gaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmem­ bers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern. We upheld a similar law in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977), and we recognize the importance of following precedent unless there are strong reasons for...
  • Supreme Court deals blow to public-sector unions, ruling against 'fair-share' fees

    06/27/2018 7:11:40 AM PDT · by jazusamo · 197 replies
    The Hill ^ | June 27, 2018 | Lydia Wheeler
    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,...
  • California public unions invent "airtime" for pension riches. Richard Epstein John Batchelor Show

    03/24/2018 7:02:29 AM PDT · by Voption · 5 replies
    The John Batchelor Show ^ | March 24, 2018 | Richard Epstein
    One of the main themes in the blockbuster case of Janus v. AFSCME—currently before the United States Supreme Court—is the risk of having unions sit on both sides of the table in public-sector contract negotiations. Nowhere is that risk more pronounced than in California, where the perverse and pervasive effects of union political influence are on display in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System, now before the California Supreme Court. Between 2009 and 2013, California law allowed state and local employees with over five years of service to purchase with their own funds up to five...
  • Requiring Union Dues is Coercing Support for Dems

    03/06/2018 8:04:19 PM PST · by Let's Roll · 10 replies
    Albuquerque Journal ^ | 03/06/18 | Marc Thiessen / Syndicated Columnist
    WASHINGTON – The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is ostensibly a public worker union. In truth, it is nothing more than an appendage of the Democratic Party. One hundred percent of its political contributions go to Democrats, and it works tirelessly to increase government spending and stop Republicans who want to reform state government.
  • Justice Post Blindfold

    03/04/2018 8:06:57 AM PST · by Kaslin · 6 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 4, 2018 | Paul Jacob
    While the Supreme Court heard oral argument, last week, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the court of public opinion focused not so much on the constitutionality of the law in question, i.e. justice, but instead on the partisan impact of the decision, i.e. politics. The case concerns Mark Janus, a child-care specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, who refuses to join the union. Nonetheless, by state law, Janus is forced to pay “agency fees” to AFSCME. Those agency fees are 78 percent of what a union member pays in...
  • Public-Sector Unions Deserve To Be Destroyed

    03/02/2018 1:31:18 PM PST · by Kaslin · 17 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 2, 2018 | David Harsanyi
    How does a public-sector union work? Easy. First, the state creates a monopoly. The monopoly forces taxpayers to fund those workers, whether they do a good job or not. The union then coerces workers to pay dues regardless of whether or not they want to. Then the union uses those dues to help fund political advocacy that perpetuates their monopoly and the union's influence. So, in other words: racketeering. Among many significant problems with this arrangement, the most obvious is that it's an assault on freedom of association. If there is another organization in American life that has a license...
  • Janus v. AFSCME: Perhaps This Time The Court Will Take The First Amendment Seriously

    03/02/2018 5:59:22 AM PST · by reaganaut1 · 6 replies
    Forbes ^ | March 2, 2018 | George Leef
    On February 26, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME. The issue in the case is whether public unions can compel workers who have declined to become members to pay them an “agency fee” that supposedly covers the union’s activities other than political action. Mark Janus is a public employee in Illinois and under state law, he must pay “his” union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees a fee that is 78 percent of the full membership dues. That is the amount that the union says is the “fair share” of workers who decline...
  • Supreme Court divided, Gorsuch mum in case that could deal blow to unions

    02/26/2018 9:16:44 AM PST · by jazusamo · 41 replies
    Fox News ^ | February 26, 2018 | Bill Mears, AP
    The Supreme Court was sharply divided Monday during high-profile arguments in a case that could deal a blow to public-sector employee unions across the country – and the justice seen as a key vote was not showing his hand. At issue are so-called “fair share” fees that nonmembers pay unions to help cover the costs of contract negotiations. Justices split on the issue 4-4 when it came up two years ago – but with Justice Neil Gorsuch now filling the vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia, all eyes were on him Monday morning in Washington. Gorsuch, however, said nothing...
  • As Unions Sound Alarm on SCOTUS Labor Case, Here's What Wisconsin's Experience Shows

    02/26/2018 12:31:02 AM PST · by lowbuck · 12 replies
    Townhall ^ | 26 February 2018 | Chris Rochester
    The Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in the case of Mark Janus, a child support specialist from Illinois, who is suing AFSCME because he has no interest in financially supporting the union’s political activities. Since Janus is not a member of the union, he doesn’t pay the same amount in dues as union members. But thanks to a Supreme Court decision in 1977, he is forced to pay the union “agency fees,” feeding the coffers of an organization he wants nothing to do with. The high court will determine whether these agency fees are unconstitutional. Since freedom of association is...
  • ‘Right to Work’ Is a Cynical Power Grab

    02/24/2018 2:58:19 PM PST · by mdittmar · 68 replies
    AFL-CIO ^ | February 23, 2018 | Stan Sorscher
    The effort to expand cynically named "right to work" laws says a lot about what is wrong with politics in our country. Disguised as protecting workers, the real goal is to silence workers’ voice, reduce our bargaining power and make our jobs more precarious. It’s about power—social, political and economic power.