[PROCON]

I'm pleasantly surprised that SCOTUS opted to rehear this important case.

The corrupt unions are the democrats most loyal donors.

Next I'd like to see mandatory union membership, (as required in many states), be overturned.

[jonno]

As long as Kennedy doesn’t switch sides...

[SharpRightTurn]

“they will get all the benefits of unionizing regardless of whether they reimburse the union for its costs.”

By “all the benefits” does this union mouthpiece mean like spending millions of dollars of union dues on campaigns of far left politicians? Or paying thugs from union dues to beat up or harass nonmembers or employers?

ThinkProgress = ThinkHardCoreLeftists.

[thorvaldr]

We’re linking to “Think Progress” now? But yes, this is huge. This sound exactly like the kind of stuff we hire Gorsuch to rule on.

[DoughtyOne]

...Supreme Court takes up case that will devastate public sector unions...

Well, we can hope.

[dogcaller]

Public sector unions should be illegal...it creates an inherent conflict of interest (government gives union what it wants in return for support and contributions at election time). In Virginia the NEA is a ‘professional association’ and has no collective bargaining rights. As a professional association they can still make political contributions...they cannot reach into the public till and they cannot force teachers to join. (Private sector unions are arguably different in that they have a theoretical ‘arms length’ relationship with private sector employers and can not directly steal money from taxpayers.)

[1Old Pro]

Time for unions to go the way of the defined benefit plan - almost gone.

[grcuster]

Government employees should never have been allowed to be formed whereas, taxpayers are the ones who are held hostage to cover the expense which in turn the dims use against the people.

[mass55th]

I belonged to a law enforcement union. They took out the dues every two weeks whether I was a member or not. Out of protest, I resigned from the union, only to find out that my vision care and dental plans were tied to the union contract. With two teen sons, I had no choice but to sign back up. The union never did a damn thing for me. Anything I ever won from any grievance I had, I did it on my own, without any representation from them. They were worthless then, and they’re probably still worthless now to the officers who are still working. When I retired in 2003, they tried to get me to join the Retiree’s Association. Screw them.

[ChessExpert]

The source is a pro-union source.

“The plaintiff in Janus asks the Supreme Court to declare these agency fees unconstitutional, at least in contracts involving public sector unions, under what can charitably be described as an aggressive reading of the First Amendment.”

I’m not familiar with this case. But I can imagine Republican workers contributing their time (evenings and weekends) to a Republican candidate, only to see their money (forced union dues) going to the opposing Democratic candidate. I think the Beck (1988 Supreme Court decision) addressed that, but was never enforced.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Even that Commie Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed public sector unions.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The flaw in the logic of the article is assuming that the union contract actually benefits the workers who don't belong. For example, seniority-based pay and retention/layoff systems may benefit some employees, but are generally a disadvantage to more capable employees who happen to be younger. Better workers also might prefer a disciplinary system that makes it easier to determine poor workers, yet the union will always push to make discipline as difficult as possible. Workers should not have to pay a government union that works against their individual interests

[Amendment10]

"The case presents an issue that was recently before the Court, and where the justices split 4-4 along party lines [emphasis added]."

The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect unions regardless what union bullies probably want low-information members to think.

So if all Supreme Court justices respected the 10th Amendment, which they take an oath to do when they swear to protect and defend the Constitution, then we’d probably be seeing more relevant Supreme Court cases concerning unions and everything else decided unanimously in the states’ favor.

And if we had a Congress that actually respected state sovereignty then we’d have a state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court sooner than “we” might think.

So patriots need to pink-slip as many incumbent members of Congress as they can in the 2018 elections, replacing them with state sovereignty-respecting patriots who will support Trump’s vision for MAGA.

In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting patriots on the primary ballots.

[libertylover]

a case seeking to defund public sector unions

I sure hope so.

[Chode]

and make the commie bastards collect their own dues too!

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Supreme Court takes up case that will devastate public sector unions

GOOD!

The union-thug bureaucRATs always "collectively bargain" against the taxpayers....who never have a seat at the table.

[SuperLuminal]

Awesome. The feds, in particular, need to disbanded...

[morphing libertarian]

The case that needs to be brought is that no union can contribute to a politician who can vote, approve or negotiate their pay or benefits or working conditions. That’s where the conflict of interest is.

[ridesthemiles]

Elizabeth Warren (Fauxahontas) has intorduced a bill in Congress that would BAN RIGHT TO WORK states.

That has to die & quickly.