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.
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.
Poor thugs! Someone called them out on their extortion racket.
Good news from the High Court!
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!"]
Most normal people call it protection money. The unions' racket is plain for all to see.
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.
It’s not freeloading at all.
“Good unions don’t need compulsory unionism; bad unions don’t deserve it.”
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.
“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.
This is funny. Their only recourse now is whining.