Posted on 06/30/2014 7:53:07 AM PDT by rktman
The Supreme Court says public sector unions can’t collect fees from home health care workers who object to being affiliated with a union.
The justices on Monday said collecting the fees violates the First Amendment rights of workers who are not union members.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
This was a 'worker' that was staying home to care for a loved one and was getting assistance via 'Medicare'. They said since she was getting gov't money, she had to pay union dues, it's the Chicago way ... SCOTUS said no.
Yes,it's certainly good news.But remember...even the Chicago Cubs put together a 5 game winning streak every couple of seasons.
If I remember consumer law correctly, if a business does work for you without your consent to do it, then you are under no legal obligation to pay them for that work.
I think this applies to the union situation as well.
If your mechanic fixed your A/C when you only went in for an oil change and expected you to pay for it, forget it. That comes out of HIS pocket. If a union decides to represent you without your consent, they don’t get to charge you anyway. They can eat the cost, even if you benefit because you didn’t contract for their services.
LOL at your picture! That’s great! LOL!
So the union was just claiming these people as members just because, that there were not legitimate union workers? That does make it different.
Unions=Democrat Party. *evil grin*
To a degree, I can see your point, however, the principle of “freedom of assembly” automatically includes the freedom to not assemble with people you disagree with. Also, in this case, we had an ill-disguised attempt by SEIU to take over the labor of everyone who has a small health care or child care business. In effect, they could claim every babysitter as a member of their union.
Two good rulings from the SCOTUS...
Huh.
I hope this doesn’t mean they are going to screw us over on the next gun control case they see.
If public union contracts had to be ratified by the people who pay for them (taxpayers) probably very few would ever be put in place.
Definitely a great day!
I hear you!
This wasn’t about a union shop, it was about a mom that receives a Medicaid check from the State for taking care of her disabled child. SEIU along with the Governor decided it was ok to take money out of her check for union dues.
The left is saying this is about big corporations; can you explain that logic to me? Some of them are saying that she gets the benefit of SEIU fights against management, but my question is, who in this case is the management?
When I was a young lass I worked for AT&T. Back then AT&T was everything telephones; cell phones were a distant dream.
Anyway, we had a union, the CWA, communication Workers of America. When I was hired you did not have to “join” the union, or pay dues.
Exactly almost the day I started work a new ruling came down, I think it was a state thing. It was what was called, heh, at the time....an AGENCY shop.
You didn’t have to JOIN the union, so went the logic, but you HAD TO PAY DUES!
Well I got an attitude cause if I have to pay dues I for sure was going to JOIN the union.
I did and for the next 15 years I drove the company nuts....as a shop steward you must smile.
I guess the AGENCY shop is no more?
Heh....and trust there’s a lot of folks like me who don’t like the union but get involved cause they HAVE to pay dues.
Almost every teacher I know despises their union but that’s just anecdotal.
This is a major blow to the unions and come on, workers belonging to unions are no more than 10-15% of the population. It’s like these thugs own us.
The problem is that the Illinois law was just a sham to collect union dues from health care assistants. They were were excluded from group insurance for state employees, pensions for state employees, etc. The payments they received were not negotiated by the union but rather were a sub-section of Medicaid.
I think you may assume too much...that an employee’s interests are served by a union. Also, as a matter of basic fairness...why should anyone be required to pay for something they didn’t ask for and don’t want?
Life is good....
Unions expect to be ‘paid off’ by democrat for all that astro turf work they do... Sorry goons... the Supreme Court’s not on the take...
Good. Elections matter, folks...The ONLY constitutionalist justices on SCOTUS are there because of REPUBLICAN presidents.
I realize that Rs do MESS UP...but not all the time. DEMONRAT occupants of the Oval Office ALWAYS give us liberal SCOTUS clowns.
Consider: how often does a DEMOCRAT appointed justice provide the “fifth vote” in a decision? I am sure it happens, but I am also sure it is RARE.
It may be these decisions that cause him to stage a little “Reichstag” event.
Obama will become more obstinate than ever. We can put nothing past the Evil bastard.
The Chicago Cubs better watch themselves.
“Cubs” is a diminutive term for the young of Lions and Bears, indicating disrespect for minor children of same, and age discrimination. Its offensive nature is perpetuated by such terms as “cub reporter”, “Just a young cub”, etc, and indicates the relative immaturity and ineptitude of the Chicago Team. It is even possible that the self-fulfilling prophecy of ineptitude is the very reason that the Cubs lose all the time. The very name has become pejorative and indicative of LOSING! It has become a public joke, and Cubs Fans have become symbolic of the sad human tendency to hope and believe in a lie.
I am waiting for the Surge of Awareness on this issue! /sarc
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.