Posted on 06/23/2012 7:35:18 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
COMMENTARY | Dianne Knox, a state employee in California, objected to paying her part of an assessment by the SEIU, the labor union representing many of her co-workers. She filed suit and started a legal battle than went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor on Thursday.
Knox's actions were selfish. The fee Knox objected to is called a "fair share fee." It's a fee paid by non-union employees in union shops to support the union. Right-wing politicians, pundits, big businesses and other union-busters object to these fees because they're charged to non-members. There's just one flaw with their objection, though, and it's a whopper.
The non-members, like Dianne Knox, are still getting all the benefits of the union's collective bargaining efforts even though they are not paying union dues.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Suddenly unions and their supporters are against freeloaders.
“Knox’s actions were selfish.”
Good. Then let’s raise a glass to the virtue of Selfishness.
Yahoo is just part of the dying mainstream media. The Handwriting is On the Wall.
Bwahahahahahaha! Stupid lefties do not understand the Constitution. A union is NOT the government it is not in a superior position.
A few more good decisions and a lot more votes like in Wisconsin and we may yet be rid of these darned commies
Can you IMAGINE the courage it takes to sue the SEIU. Their thugs had to have made her life hell since she filed suit.
“selfish” is one of the many buzzwords of the monkey collective, used to evoke hatred of the productive by the free riders. Once you learn a handful of the keywords, you notice that the “news” is full of them, and the bias of the presenter is laid bare.
Yeah, selfish. Pfffftttt....
We should all contribute our paychecks (or part of it) to the Obama campaign, you know, to celebrate the occassion that Lord Obama allow us to keep what we earned.
Having a union dimwit call her a freeloader is like a Democrat calling those who oppose Obama "racist". They always charge others with being what they have long demonstrated themselves to be...
Poor thugs! Someone called them out on their extortion racket.
“Yahoo is just part of the dying mainstream media.”
Just another Leftist mouthpiece that is withering on the vine. And when it goes, no one will miss it.
Everyone read post 4 again. This was an assessment to support political action. In other words a CONTRIBUTION TO THE RAT PARTY. The Supreme Court had already ruled that anyone in or out of a union could opt out of this kind of "assessment"
Spot on. Almost nothing in this “news” story has any factual basis.Nowhere in Ms. Knox’x claims does she deny the right of a union to assess an agency fee and the Court has upheld agency fee for decades and made no move in this decision to limit it. This was never about agency fee, but always about stealing the non member’s money to spend politically.
Good news from the High Court!
I've read the Knox opinion. The person who wrote the Yahoo article is an idiot or has intentionally distorted the court's decision. Perhaps both.
The Knox opinion has nothing to do with the money that the SEIU takes from non-union emploees who are in the collective bargaining unit that the SEIU uses for collective bargaining purposes. Prior SCOTUS decisions have upheld the right of unions to take money from non-union employees to cover their "fair share" of collective bargaining expenses. Rather, Knox concerns an SEIU surcharge that it assessed against union and non-union employees that it admittedly used, not for collectve bargaining, but for political purposes. The SEIU admitted that it improperly took the money from non-union employees who had not affirmatively agreed to subsidize political activities (known as the "opt-in"). Instead, the SEIU agreed to give the money back to the non-union employees that it wrongfully took in the first place only if the non-union employees asked for a refund (known as the opt-out). The court struck down the opt-out and held that the SEIU may only take money from non-union employees for political purposes if the non-union employee has affirmatively consented to the taking.
In other words, a union can't require non-union employees to opt-out of an assessment that is used for political purposes, rather the non-union employee must affirmatively opt-in before the union can take the money.
Yeah, sure they can. Perhaps in an office/mfg environment. I've read articles about the trade unions not being so particular about what the USSC says what the unions can and cannot assess.
In other words, if you're a tradesman and union rep hands out cards for a special assessment that you are not legally bound to sign, you'll find out that the job site no longer needs everybody, and the ones not needed are not-so-coincidentally, all the people that decline to ante up.
All sorts of things are called "fair" in contemporary American public discourse. Almost none of those that come to mind, however, are in fact fair. A prime example would be our tax structure, which penalizes those who succeed--often by very hard work--for the benefit of those who fail, even those who scarcely try, again in the name of "fairness."
To see what has been happening, here, one needs to look at the Federal Constitution, Article I, Sec. 9, to see what the Founders considered fair on the subject of taxation (any direct tax had to be per capita, not something based on income.)
The Union, with respect to the Plaintiff was no better than a meddling volunteer. That does not make the Plaintiff a freeloader, when she objects.
William Flax [Continuity, not "Diversity!"]
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.