[sr4402]

Yahoo is being Yahoos. They left off the key point. That the union was assessing a Political Fee for their own purposes and not for the non-members of the Union. In other words extortion.

Yahoo is just part of the dying mainstream media. The Handwriting is On the Wall.

[txrefugee]

“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.

[anoldafvet]

Right on!!!

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"

[xkaydet65]

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.

[Labyrinthos]

Yahoo is being Yahoos. They left off the key point. That the union was assessing a Political Fee for their own purposes and not for the non-members of the Union. In other words extortion. Yahoo is just part of the dying mainstream media. The Handwriting is On the Wall.

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.