Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Freeloading

Yahoo! Contributor Network ^ | Jun 21, 2012 | Andrew Riggio

[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.

[BigBobber]

Thank you for that explanation.

[expat_panama]

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.

That's what I was hearing too, and that a big part of the controversy had to do with notice and choice..

[VeniVidiVici]

The metrosexual author

[Paine in the Neck]

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.

Most normal people call it protection money. The unions' racket is plain for all to see.

[freedomfiter2]

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.

That’s called extortion. It’s time these thugs be brought to justice.

[ArmstedFragg]

These guys have strayed so far from reality, that now they just make stuff up. The issue before the Supreme Court was not whether a union with exclusive bargaining rights can charge non-members a so called “fair share” fee for the “services” the union’s providing. Those Agency Fees have been permissible for decades. The issue was whether the union could, under threat of getting the non-member fired, force the non-member to pay an additional fee to cover the union’s political activities.

There’s a long history here, and union members who are not in government service have long had the little-known right to establish so-called “core membership” where the union reduces their dues by the amount used for political activities.

This clown is arguing the agency shop issue, which has nothing to do with the Court’s decision. Doesn’t bother these dudes though, when reality doesn’t match their agenda, they just modify reality.

[juma]

Prevailing wage jobs that benefit non union workers were designed to protect the Unions. By requiring employers to pay their employees union wages and benefits, they can’t underbid the union employer based on wages. The employee of the non union company benefits ( since the govt pays the increased wages )but only because of Union Greed. Many Govt construction jobs would be completed much less if not prevailing wage forced to protect the Unions.

[TBP]

It’s not freeloading at all.

“Good unions don’t need compulsory unionism; bad unions don’t deserve it.”

[TBP]

A paid union hack makes an unconvincing argument that everyone should be forced to support the union because it provides wonderful benefits for everyone.

If that were true, then they wouldn't need to force anyone to join, would they?

[anoldafvet]

I understand your predicament and if I were in your position, I would probably sign also. I would then work even harder to defeat the rats.

[Chode]

[Tzimisce]

So the unions don’t like having to pay for things that others don’t?

But isn’t that why unions are backing Occupy Wall Street? Because they want others to pay the bill for unions?

funny.

[Nifster]

I am doing everything I can to deliver that message come November

[A Strict Constructionist]

“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.”

Not necessarily the case. One of my techs husband was in the teamsters union, his group voted to decertify the unions representation and they are now making more have less job problems and on top don’t have to pay dues.

[Rocky]

This is funny. Their only recourse now is whining.