One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
U.S. Supreme Court rules against unions over non-member fees
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
Jun 27, 2018 11:33:51   #
Radiance3
 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-rules-against-unions-over-non-member-fees/ar-AAzeUTn.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a blow to organized labor, ruling that non-members cannot be forced in certain states to pay fees to unions representing public employees such as teachers and police, shutting off a key union revenue source.

On a 5-4 vote powered by the court's conservative majority, the justices overturned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent that had allowed the so-called agency fees that are collected from millions of non-union workers in lieu of union dues to fund non-political activities like collective bargaining.
The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers who pay these fees will no longer have to do so.

The court ruled that forcing non-members to pay agency fees to unions whose views they may oppose violates their rights to free speech and free association under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Writing for the court, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said that while the ruling "may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term" that must be weighed against "how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment."
The four liberal justices dissented.

The decision was issued on the final day of the court's current term, which began in October, and came a day after the justices upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations.

Two dozen states require agency fees, and an estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments pay them. Federal employees and private-sector workers do not.
Unions contend that mandatory agency fees are needed to eliminate the problem of what they call "free riders" - non-members who benefit from union representation, for example through salary and working conditions obtained in collective bargaining - without paying for it.
Conservative activists took aim at the fees as they sought to curb the influence of unions, which often support the Democratic Party and liberal causes.

The ruling deprives unions of a vital revenue stream, undercut their ability to attract new members and undermine their ability to spend in political races.
The plaintiff in the case is Mark Janus, a child-support specialist for the state of Illinois who opted not to join the union that represents employees like him, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

lower court had ruled against Janus, setting up the Supreme Court showdown.
The justices heard arguments in a similar case in 2016 involving non-union public school teachers in California, and appeared poised to overturn the 1977 precedent. But the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia weeks later left the court with an even split of conservatives and liberals, and its 4-4 decision in March 2016 failed to resolve the legal question.

Republican President Donald Trump's appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch last year restored the Supreme Court's conservative majority, and Gorsuch's vote proved to be crucial.
Janus was backed in the legal fight by anti-union groups including the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Liberty Justice Center. Janus has said he is not a member of a political party and his objection to the fees was not based on politics. Janus had been forced to pay just under $50 a month in agency fees since starting his current stint working for Illinois in 2007.

AFSCME and other public-sector unions have called the case a well-funded attack by corporations and billionaires to undermine organized labor.
=============
This is great news.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was a blessing to the SC Justice. Without him, this will never win at the SC.
Labor Union orgs are in quid-pro-quo with democrats. The Union collects fees from all members, and give millions of dollars to the democrat party every year. In return the democrat party in power in every state, raise various taxes to offset costs of various benefits given to public employees like annual salary increases, benefits and lucrative retirement. But still costs out pace the amount put into the system, thus unfunded liabilities grow every year.

With limited members, I believe many will follow non-membership for it cost them at least $50 or more dollars monthly for the membership. AFSCME(American Federal of State, County, and Municipal Employees). I remembered when I audited a state during the 80's it was 3.2% of the salary each month. But that was the SEIU. (Service Employees International Union). I think this will be affected too. The Public Schools Teachers under this union contract was so adversely affected both in mediocre performance and costs.

Adverse effects of the labor union organizations.
1. The private United Auto Workers was bailed by president Obama in 2009 to keep their unfunded liabilities in several trillions of dollars. GM, Chrysler, and Ford.

2. SEIU, the Teachers and State Employees Union cost millions of taxpayers money every year. The democrat state increases property tax, sales tax, and other taxes to offset the cost of annual benefits given to union employees. These benefits include lucrative retirement benefits. More amount is given annually, thus the unfunded liabilities get higher every year.

3. Labor union's increase in salaries and benefits affect all consumers of goods and services, thus creating inflation. The companies under the labor union contract have to increase prices of commodities they sell, as well as the cost of servicing contract, to continue operations.

4. There are no benefits in salary increases. Though your income goes up, inflation also goes up. Therefore the price of commodities you buy, or assets you buy also go up, as well as services you hire. The purpose of this is to offset the high cost of salaries, wages, and benefits demanded by the labor union. Otherwise business will not be able to continue the on-going operations of their businesses.

5. In addition, with higher prices of our own products, people tend to buy the cheap quality, lower cost of imported goods. Who benefit from that? But China, and all foreign countries exporting their products to the US.

6. Our industries could not compete. E.g. Our car industries are now over taken by Korea, Japan, and other countries.

7. With inflation due to labor union demands, cost of real properties like homes go up as well. Now, are sky rocketing in prices, like California, and those democrat states with favored labor union.

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 12:32:26   #
kemmer
 
Radiance3 wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-rules-against-unions-over-non-member-fees/ar-AAzeUTn.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a blow to organized labor, ruling that non-members cannot be forced in certain states to pay fees to unions representing public employees such as teachers and police, shutting off a key union revenue source.

On a 5-4 vote powered by the court's conservative majority, the justices overturned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent that had allowed the so-called agency fees that are collected from millions of non-union workers in lieu of union dues to fund non-political activities like collective bargaining.
The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers who pay these fees will no longer have to do so.

The court ruled that forcing non-members to pay agency fees to unions whose views they may oppose violates their rights to free speech and free association under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Writing for the court, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said that while the ruling "may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term" that must be weighed against "how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment."
The four liberal justices dissented.

The decision was issued on the final day of the court's current term, which began in October, and came a day after the justices upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations.

Two dozen states require agency fees, and an estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments pay them. Federal employees and private-sector workers do not.
Unions contend that mandatory agency fees are needed to eliminate the problem of what they call "free riders" - non-members who benefit from union representation, for example through salary and working conditions obtained in collective bargaining - without paying for it.
Conservative activists took aim at the fees as they sought to curb the influence of unions, which often support the Democratic Party and liberal causes.

The ruling deprives unions of a vital revenue stream, undercut their ability to attract new members and undermine their ability to spend in political races.
The plaintiff in the case is Mark Janus, a child-support specialist for the state of Illinois who opted not to join the union that represents employees like him, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

lower court had ruled against Janus, setting up the Supreme Court showdown.
The justices heard arguments in a similar case in 2016 involving non-union public school teachers in California, and appeared poised to overturn the 1977 precedent. But the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia weeks later left the court with an even split of conservatives and liberals, and its 4-4 decision in March 2016 failed to resolve the legal question.

Republican President Donald Trump's appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch last year restored the Supreme Court's conservative majority, and Gorsuch's vote proved to be crucial.
Janus was backed in the legal fight by anti-union groups including the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Liberty Justice Center. Janus has said he is not a member of a political party and his objection to the fees was not based on politics. Janus had been forced to pay just under $50 a month in agency fees since starting his current stint working for Illinois in 2007.

AFSCME and other public-sector unions have called the case a well-funded attack by corporations and billionaires to undermine organized labor.
=============
This is great news.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was a blessing to the SC Justice. Without him, this will never win at the SC.
Labor Union orgs are in quid-pro-quo with democrats. The Union collects fees from all members, and give millions of dollars to the democrat party every year. In return the democrat party in power in every state, raise various taxes to offset costs of various benefits given to public employees like annual salary increases, benefits and lucrative retirement. But still costs out pace the amount put into the system, thus unfunded liabilities grow every year.

With limited members, I believe many will follow non-membership for it cost them at least $50 or more dollars monthly for the membership. AFSCME(American Federal of State, County, and Municipal Employees). I remembered when I audited a state during the 80's it was 3.2% of the salary each month. But that was the SEIU. (Service Employees International Union). I think this will be affected too. The Public Schools Teachers under this union contract was so adversely affected both in mediocre performance and costs.

Adverse effects of the labor union organizations.
1. The private United Auto Workers was bailed by president Obama in 2009 to keep their unfunded liabilities in several trillions of dollars. GM, Chrysler, and Ford.

2. SEIU, the Teachers and State Employees Union cost millions of taxpayers money every year. The democrat state increases property tax, sales tax, and other taxes to offset the cost of annual benefits given to union employees. These benefits include lucrative retirement benefits. More amount is given annually, thus the unfunded liabilities get higher every year.

3. Labor union's increase in salaries and benefits affect all consumers of goods and services, thus creating inflation. The companies under the labor union contract have to increase prices of commodities they sell, as well as the cost of servicing contract, to continue operations.

4. There are no benefits in salary increases. Though your income goes up, inflation also goes up. Therefore the price of commodities you buy, or assets you buy also go up, as well as services you hire. The purpose of this is to offset the high cost of salaries, wages, and benefits demanded by the labor union. Otherwise business will not be able to continue the on-going operations of their businesses.

5. In addition, with higher prices of our own products, people tend to buy the cheap quality, lower cost of imported goods. Who benefit from that? But China, and all foreign countries exporting their products to the US.

6. Our industries could not compete. E.g. Our car industries are now over taken by Korea, Japan, and other countries.

7. With inflation due to labor union demands, cost of real properties like homes go up as well. Now, are sky rocketing in prices, like California, and those democrat states with favored labor union.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court... (show quote)

We’re now going to see a plummeting wage scale all across the board.

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 13:07:03   #
Radiance3
 
kemmer wrote:
We’re now going to see a plummeting wage scale all across the board.

==============
Your fake news will not work her kemmer.
Not across the board. Those sky rocketing union wages will be under control. No more unreasonable increases that affect all population and consumers in the US. If that happens, inflation will be curtailed, benefitting all consumers.

Reply
 
 
Jun 27, 2018 13:18:48   #
JimMe
 
kemmer wrote:
We’re now going to see a plummeting wage scale all across the board.



Two points:

First, Unions were collecting fees from Non-Union Employees... The Non-Union Workers aren't receiving any of the benefits the Union Members get... Including guaranteed raises in pay... The Non-Union Workers have to rely on either State Law or the Employers to receive any pay increase the Unions receive...

Second, this affects only the States with the 5 million Non-Union, so, the wage scales will be affected in only those States...

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 13:32:16   #
Kevyn
 
JimMe wrote:
Two points:

First, Unions were collecting fees from Non-Union Employees... The Non-Union Workers aren't receiving any of the benefits the Union Members get... Including guaranteed raises in pay... The Non-Union Workers have to rely on either State Law or the Employers to receive any pay increase the Unions receive...

Second, this affects only the States with the 5 million Non-Union, so, the wage scales will be affected in only those States...
This is simply a lie. The scabs get the identical benefits and pay negotiated in the union contract and they are afforded the same grievance procedures and job protections as dues paying members. They are simply freeloaders.

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 13:59:25   #
mwdegutis Loc: Illinois
 
Kevyn wrote:
This is simply a lie. The scabs get the identical benefits and pay negotiated in the union contract and they are afforded the same grievance procedures and job protections as dues paying members. They are simply freeloaders.

You know Kevie why don't you STFU! You never fail to show how really ignorant you are. You aren't a scab unless you cross a picket line.

And by the way, my wife works for the State of Illinois and I worked for the UAW. We have both seen first hand the abuses of the unions so don't give me your sanctimonious BS.

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 14:24:40   #
Radiance3
 
Kevyn wrote:
This is simply a lie. The scabs get the identical benefits and pay negotiated in the union contract and they are afforded the same grievance procedures and job protections as dues paying members. They are simply freeloaders.

===============
Free loaders? They were forced to join membership against their will. The democrats and union contract was so pervasively unfair to those who want to receive benefits based on merits only.

But with the greed of union and the democrat party who are in alliance for material gain, they forced every body to join and pay the fees.

Adverse effects on this public labor union contract are:
1.The employees, no matter how dumb, lazy, and non-productive, could not be removed. It is because of the union contract. They stay in their jobs for 30 or more years until they are eligible for the lucrative retirement benefits. Who pay this? The taxpayers. Taxpayers are supposed to be the bosses but no, it is the labor union who demands all benefits they want to satisfy their greed. And then give portion of their dues to democrat campaign. Democrats and labor union are in alliance.

2. I am very aware of this because during the 80's I was assigned to audit state agencies. One of that was the Public School System. The audit resulted to various defective policies, procedures, and performances. That required me to prepare Audit Report that did not meet their performance expectations. I summarized that and documented each of them. The labor union sued me, but since I have all documents that supported my reports, they did not prevail. The thing I got was too much stress. So, I got out of that job, moved to the higher education upper management financial operations, where I enjoyed until I retired. There are too much politics in labor union.

Public School Employees performance worldwide is at the 40th out of 73 countries. They lagged so much in Math, Science, writing, and reading comprehension. This was in 2012, during the time of Mr. Obama. Teachers in the public system performance expectations third of them failed. Yet they collect huge salary, benefits, and retirement. Thus they stay for 30 or more years to get the full retirement benefits.

Currently the US unfunded liabilities are almost $205 trillion. This is mostly due to labor union costs carried forward for so many years.


Reply
 
 
Jun 27, 2018 14:28:52   #
kemmer
 
JimMe wrote:
Two points:

First, Unions were collecting fees from Non-Union Employees... The Non-Union Workers aren't receiving any of the benefits the Union Members get... Including guaranteed raises in pay... The Non-Union Workers have to rely on either State Law or the Employers to receive any pay increase the Unions receive...

Second, this affects only the States with the 5 million Non-Union, so, the wage scales will be affected in only those States...


This is a lie. Deadbeat workers who don’t pay dues get exactly the raises negotiated by the union they don’t support. Watch wages stagnate now.

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 14:36:51   #
Chocura750
 
If you want better school systems move to a state with highly unionized teachers. Massachusetts is highly unionized and if it were rated as a country, it would be ranked as number 4 in the world. New Jersey is close behind. The national ranking is brought down by states that have few unions.

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 14:42:42   #
kemmer
 
Chocura750 wrote:
If you want a better school systems move to a state with highly unionized teachers. If Massachusetts were rated as a country, it would be ranked as number 4 in the world.


Exactly right. School district administrations would treat teachers like docile slaves without their unions. I know from experience.

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 15:51:00   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Radiance3 wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-rules-against-unions-over-non-member-fees/ar-AAzeUTn.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a blow to organized labor, ruling that non-members cannot be forced in certain states to pay fees to unions representing public employees such as teachers and police, shutting off a key union revenue source.

On a 5-4 vote powered by the court's conservative majority, the justices overturned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent that had allowed the so-called agency fees that are collected from millions of non-union workers in lieu of union dues to fund non-political activities like collective bargaining.
The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers who pay these fees will no longer have to do so.

The court ruled that forcing non-members to pay agency fees to unions whose views they may oppose violates their rights to free speech and free association under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Writing for the court, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said that while the ruling "may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term" that must be weighed against "how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment."
The four liberal justices dissented.

The decision was issued on the final day of the court's current term, which began in October, and came a day after the justices upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations.

Two dozen states require agency fees, and an estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments pay them. Federal employees and private-sector workers do not.
Unions contend that mandatory agency fees are needed to eliminate the problem of what they call "free riders" - non-members who benefit from union representation, for example through salary and working conditions obtained in collective bargaining - without paying for it.
Conservative activists took aim at the fees as they sought to curb the influence of unions, which often support the Democratic Party and liberal causes.

The ruling deprives unions of a vital revenue stream, undercut their ability to attract new members and undermine their ability to spend in political races.
The plaintiff in the case is Mark Janus, a child-support specialist for the state of Illinois who opted not to join the union that represents employees like him, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

lower court had ruled against Janus, setting up the Supreme Court showdown.
The justices heard arguments in a similar case in 2016 involving non-union public school teachers in California, and appeared poised to overturn the 1977 precedent. But the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia weeks later left the court with an even split of conservatives and liberals, and its 4-4 decision in March 2016 failed to resolve the legal question.

Republican President Donald Trump's appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch last year restored the Supreme Court's conservative majority, and Gorsuch's vote proved to be crucial.
Janus was backed in the legal fight by anti-union groups including the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Liberty Justice Center. Janus has said he is not a member of a political party and his objection to the fees was not based on politics. Janus had been forced to pay just under $50 a month in agency fees since starting his current stint working for Illinois in 2007.

AFSCME and other public-sector unions have called the case a well-funded attack by corporations and billionaires to undermine organized labor.
=============
This is great news.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was a blessing to the SC Justice. Without him, this will never win at the SC.
Labor Union orgs are in quid-pro-quo with democrats. The Union collects fees from all members, and give millions of dollars to the democrat party every year. In return the democrat party in power in every state, raise various taxes to offset costs of various benefits given to public employees like annual salary increases, benefits and lucrative retirement. But still costs out pace the amount put into the system, thus unfunded liabilities grow every year.

With limited members, I believe many will follow non-membership for it cost them at least $50 or more dollars monthly for the membership. AFSCME(American Federal of State, County, and Municipal Employees). I remembered when I audited a state during the 80's it was 3.2% of the salary each month. But that was the SEIU. (Service Employees International Union). I think this will be affected too. The Public Schools Teachers under this union contract was so adversely affected both in mediocre performance and costs.

Adverse effects of the labor union organizations.
1. The private United Auto Workers was bailed by president Obama in 2009 to keep their unfunded liabilities in several trillions of dollars. GM, Chrysler, and Ford.

2. SEIU, the Teachers and State Employees Union cost millions of taxpayers money every year. The democrat state increases property tax, sales tax, and other taxes to offset the cost of annual benefits given to union employees. These benefits include lucrative retirement benefits. More amount is given annually, thus the unfunded liabilities get higher every year.

3. Labor union's increase in salaries and benefits affect all consumers of goods and services, thus creating inflation. The companies under the labor union contract have to increase prices of commodities they sell, as well as the cost of servicing contract, to continue operations.

4. There are no benefits in salary increases. Though your income goes up, inflation also goes up. Therefore the price of commodities you buy, or assets you buy also go up, as well as services you hire. The purpose of this is to offset the high cost of salaries, wages, and benefits demanded by the labor union. Otherwise business will not be able to continue the on-going operations of their businesses.

5. In addition, with higher prices of our own products, people tend to buy the cheap quality, lower cost of imported goods. Who benefit from that? But China, and all foreign countries exporting their products to the US.

6. Our industries could not compete. E.g. Our car industries are now over taken by Korea, Japan, and other countries.

7. With inflation due to labor union demands, cost of real properties like homes go up as well. Now, are sky rocketing in prices, like California, and those democrat states with favored labor union.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court... (show quote)


Good.

Reply
 
 
Jun 27, 2018 15:52:03   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
kemmer wrote:
We’re now going to see a plummeting wage scale all across the board.


Ooooooo!



Reply
Jun 27, 2018 15:53:20   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Kevyn wrote:
This is simply a lie. The scabs get the identical benefits and pay negotiated in the union contract and they are afforded the same grievance procedures and job protections as dues paying members. They are simply freeloaders.


We're just happy this ruling is HATED by liberals and Democrats.

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 16:35:23   #
CounterRevolutionary
 
kemmer wrote:
We’re now going to see a plummeting wage scale all across the board.


You couldn't be more wrong. Wages are going up and the unemployed now have new jobs and dignity, courtesy of President Trump.

Get it through your thick heads, liberals! Some of these labor unions are crooked up to the gazebo, live like fat cats and are literally sleeping with the enemy taking government political and corporate kickbacks, and do not represent their rank and file's political views nor their needs! They do not represent us at the bargaining table.

How the heck do we get rid of these crooked labor leaders and crooked unions if we cannot withhold our membership and forced dues? How do we replace this wretched scum with honest unions?

Please cut the commie propaganda!

http://nlpc.org/2018/01/18/top-ten-union-corruption-stories-year-8/
Top Ten Union Corruption Stories of the Year
Posted on January 18, 2018 by Carl Horowitz

Reply
Jun 27, 2018 17:53:53   #
kemmer
 
BigMike wrote:
We're just happy this ruling is HATED by liberals and Democrats.

Cons: “If yer fer it, we’re agin it”!

Reply
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.