[widowithfoursons]

All the lawyers need is one state to set a precedent. This is a slippery slope.

[Kryptonite]

But last year the state's high court struck down the law, saying that requiring the union to get specific consent from each worker was burdensome and infringed on the union's First Amendment rights.

What about the nonunion workers' First Amendment rights? And the idea that it is too burdensome for the union to process refunds but not too burdensome for the nonunion workers to claim them is absurd.

[taxesareforever]

But states have considerable discretion in determining how to protect First Amendment rights, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said. "It seems to me [the] Washington [courts] acted quite properly," he said.

How many ways are there to protect First Amendment Rights? Shouldn't it be the same as how many ways are there to tie a square knot?

[GOP Poet]

Bookmark

[DB]

The real issue is why non union workers are forced to pay union fees. There's where the law has gone seriously wrong.

If they weren't collecting these fees this case would go away. And probably a lot of union "members" too...

[chiefqc]

What's the big deal, our elected offical do it every day. They really believe it's their money to do with and benifit them however they please, and the voters should not dare question them.

[chiefqc]

What's the big deal, our elected offical do it every day. They really believe it's their money to do with and benifit them however they please, and the voters should not dare question them.