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 ...
Absent Union meddling, what makes you think a motivated individual freely pursuing his own self interest would be paid less?
If I was in a position to do so, I would pay a worker who eschewed the union MORE than a union worker because non-union people would probably be better workers anyway in the sense that they wouldn’t be relying on the union to protect them over their poor work habits.
This ruling has nothing to do with teacher’s unions or public employee unions. It is a very narrow ruling.
Agreed; I think the same of withholdings, too.
Either it is theft (taking w/o the other's consent), or forcing the employer to commit fraud (not paying the agreed upon wage).
More than likely sad but true.
Right to work. Google it.
What was at issue, in this case, was this particular union (SEIU), taking union "dues" from people who were home caring for their own disabled family members. These people were not only not union members, they weren't even "health care professionals" by any stretch of the imagination.
It was a naked money grab, nothing more. SCOTUS got it right...
the infowarrior
Indeed!
Let’s hope that whatever the evil ones have been holding over his head has somehow been neutralized.
The politicians who forced those people into the union should all go to jail.
union shop?
These were home healthcare workers who were basically their own boss, independent contractors.
The mere fact that some States allow closed union shops is a disgrace to private property and businesses. It says that if enough employees vote to form a union the business must do their labor business with that union, which violates the business rights to hire whomever they want.
“all the works in a union shop benefit from what the union negotiates”
That is a false assumption, that there was benefit. One could argue their pay was capped and no free market existed to fairly compete because of the union’s interference.
Hope she gets up off her butt before she uses the fingers.
And the unions never had a place, they didn't help raise wages, they only contribute to unemployment, which is what their purpose always was, to control who can be hired.
There is no union shop involved in this matter. These individuals are taking care of family members in their own homes. The care givers have gotten zero benefits from union negotiations anyplace. And the unions were going after a piece of their wages. At least you’re correct that unions have outlived their true beneficial purpose. Now they’re just fundraising arms of the dimokrat party.
One question..... Say I hired my sister in law to look after the child in my absence or perhaps a neighbor or perhaps an RN that works as a private contractor.
Must they pay union dues or they exempt if they are found out by the Union?
Tax payers are not fairly represented when it concerns public unions.
This ruling is a good start, but public sector unions need to be made unarguably illegal, and private sector unions should exist at the sole discretion of the company they are a part of. That unions are still soaking up tax dollars is still a cause of mourning for the American people.
The Court is headed toward making the United States a right-to-work nation. Maybe Senator Udall can propose another Constitutional amendment to try to rape the First Amendment.
HUH? The State said that RELATIVES of disabled people, who took care of those with disabilities in the home, had do join a UNION! Did you miss that point?
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.