SCOTUS rules AGAINST seicu

[AmericanFirst]

I just heard that. It is a serious blow to the unions who wanted the right to take money out of paychecks without telling anyone.

How is this a serious blow to the unions? This ruling is on one case, in one Local. I don't see it as a big deal?

Usually when people refuse to see the truth it is no big deal to them.

 

[Si modo]

I have always been against unions....ALWAYS. However, I still do not see this one isolated judgement against one Local, as some sort of "blow" as someone else proclaimed.

It sets a legal precedent for folks in other unions who are getting screwed over by their union a-holes.

IF that is the case, and those union workers can stop feeding the beast without their consent, then perhaps it is in fact the blow as originally stated. Thank you.

It IS the case. Here is the actual opinion.

The courts have already ruled that unions can yank funds from workers for chargeable expenses related to specific collective bargaining - minimum dues, basically. But, under the 1st Amendment (ruled on a while ago) unions cannot include in those dues any charges related to their promotion or opposition to any political persons or actions. One cannot be silenced in politics, nor can one be compelled to support.

So, that local SEIU broke the law by upping the minimum dues over 56% because of their "emergency" need to fight a California proposition in a special election.

SEIU can't do that. But, SEIU DID do that. And, although SEIU refunded those extra dues, the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, realized that because the SEIU STILL thinks they could raise those dues over 56%, that they will do the same thing again in the future.

And, in their wisdom, the SCOTUS knows that a blue collar worker, to defend his rights and pockets, should not have to come back to court for this again.

So, that's what happened. The SEIU bullied money out of workers when they could not legally do so AND in violation of those workers Constitutional rights, and the SCOTUS ruled that they cannot try that shit again.

 

[paulitician]

Bottom line is, most Americans don't want another hand in their pocket. Big Brother rapes their paychecks enough. Why would they want Union assholes raping them as well? Americans need as much of their paychecks as possible. Family comes first. To hell with Big Brother & Union assholes.

 

[VaYank5150]

It sets a legal precedent for folks in other unions who are getting screwed over by their union a-holes.

IF that is the case, and those union workers can stop feeding the beast without their consent, then perhaps it is in fact the blow as originally stated. Thank you.

It IS the case. Here is the actual opinion.

The courts have already ruled that unions can yank funds from workers for chargeable expenses related to specific collective bargaining - minimum dues, basically. But, under the 1st Amendment (ruled on a while ago) unions cannot include in those dues any charges related to their promotion or opposition to any political persons or actions. One cannot be silenced in politics, nor can one be compelled to support.

So, that local SEIU broke the law by upping the minimum dues over 56% because of their "emergency" need to fight a California proposition in a special election.

SEIU can't do that. But, SEIU DID do that. And, although SEIU refunded those extra dues, the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, realized that because the SEIU STILL thinks they could raise those dues over 56%, that they will do the same thing again in the future.

And, in their wisdom, the SCOTUS knows that a blue collar worker, to defend his rights and pockets, should not have to come back to court for this again.

So, that's what happened. The SEIU bullied money out of workers when they could not legally do so AND in violation of those workers Constitutional rights, and the SCOTUS ruled that they cannot try that shit again.

Without giving away to many details, as an employer, I am forced to pay into a PAC fund for my local union. Yes, my company has a National Union agreement, so even in a right to work state like Virginia, I have to hire union folks for a particular segment of my business. Would this ruling have any impact on what the union has been hitting me up for in their "package" of fees I pay as they pertain to their two separate PAC funds?

 

[buckeye45_73]

The Balls on those Union assholes. If Unions are so great, why do they have to try and force people to join, or try things like this. Unions in this country are destroying themselves. Greed has clearly gotten the best of em.

Unions suck...and harm the US.

They do, that's why China is getting all of our good paying low skilled jobs. Unions jacking up the cost of business. Thanks unions.

 

[Si modo]

IF that is the case, and those union workers can stop feeding the beast without their consent, then perhaps it is in fact the blow as originally stated. Thank you.

It IS the case. Here is the actual opinion.

The courts have already ruled that unions can yank funds from workers for chargeable expenses related to specific collective bargaining - minimum dues, basically. But, under the 1st Amendment (ruled on a while ago) unions cannot include in those dues any charges related to their promotion or opposition to any political persons or actions. One cannot be silenced in politics, nor can one be compelled to support.

So, that local SEIU broke the law by upping the minimum dues over 56% because of their "emergency" need to fight a California proposition in a special election.

SEIU can't do that. But, SEIU DID do that. And, although SEIU refunded those extra dues, the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, realized that because the SEIU STILL thinks they could raise those dues over 56%, that they will do the same thing again in the future.

And, in their wisdom, the SCOTUS knows that a blue collar worker, to defend his rights and pockets, should not have to come back to court for this again.

So, that's what happened. The SEIU bullied money out of workers when they could not legally do so AND in violation of those workers Constitutional rights, and the SCOTUS ruled that they cannot try that shit again.

Without giving away to many details, as an employer, I am forced to pay into a PAC fund for my local union. Yes, my company has a National Union agreement, so even in a right to work state like Virginia, I have to hire union folks for a particular segment of my business. Would this ruling have any impact on what the union has been hitting me up for in their "package" of fees I pay as they pertain to their two separate PAC funds?

Wow, in Virginia, no less.

I am sorry.

I am no attorney and certainly no expert - at all - on workers' rights, but I don't think you can ever be forced into paying into a PAC fund. They certainly can strongly hint to you that it is in your "best interests" to do so (which personally, I think is way out of line, too).

Now, my fiance does know a boatload about this stuff. My understanding is that if your company has such an agreement, look to see when that agreement expires. If your company entered into such an agreement, my understanding of what my fiance and I have discussed about this very subject in VA, is that you are under zero obligation to pay attention to anything the union says, regardless of the expiration of that agreement (and for the agreement to be a legally binding one, there MUST bean expiration date).

What you ARE obliged to do is to keep those employees, not as union employees though, and pay them at least as much as the union dictated - never less. (Unless they do something actionable, that is...of course.) Once your company owns that contract, your company is under no requirement to do shit with respect to what the union wants - if your company is VA based - just to keep the employees to the term of that original agreement.

Now, the cool thing is, most union employees, given the choice to keep working in their positions or stay loyal to their union, choose the former. Sure, they can still pay dues to the union, though. If they want to.

This pisses off the unions royally.

And, the cooler thing is that you are the incumbant whenever that union agreement expires and an incumbant with experienced employees and a track record (hopefully a good one). So, when the renewal time comes, you are in like Flynn and the union is out.

Anyway, that is my understanding, but if you would like, I will ask my fiance about this question.

Fight the PAC requirement. And, after reading your post again, if your company is VA based, they really do not have to use a union. But, if they willfully want to use a union, then yeah, you have to do what they say.

Except for that PAC thing, based on this SCOTUS ruling. If the union dues that you HAVE to pay include funds for that PAC, then they need to stop that shit right now. See if you can round up documentation that your contribution to a PAC is mandatory. I recommend you do that quickly before that proof disappears, too.

 

[VaYank5150]

It IS the case. Here is the actual opinion.

The courts have already ruled that unions can yank funds from workers for chargeable expenses related to specific collective bargaining - minimum dues, basically. But, under the 1st Amendment (ruled on a while ago) unions cannot include in those dues any charges related to their promotion or opposition to any political persons or actions. One cannot be silenced in politics, nor can one be compelled to support.

So, that local SEIU broke the law by upping the minimum dues over 56% because of their "emergency" need to fight a California proposition in a special election.

SEIU can't do that. But, SEIU DID do that. And, although SEIU refunded those extra dues, the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, realized that because the SEIU STILL thinks they could raise those dues over 56%, that they will do the same thing again in the future.

And, in their wisdom, the SCOTUS knows that a blue collar worker, to defend his rights and pockets, should not have to come back to court for this again.

So, that's what happened. The SEIU bullied money out of workers when they could not legally do so AND in violation of those workers Constitutional rights, and the SCOTUS ruled that they cannot try that shit again.

Without giving away to many details, as an employer, I am forced to pay into a PAC fund for my local union. Yes, my company has a National Union agreement, so even in a right to work state like Virginia, I have to hire union folks for a particular segment of my business. Would this ruling have any impact on what the union has been hitting me up for in their "package" of fees I pay as they pertain to their two separate PAC funds?

Wow, in Virginia, no less.

I am sorry.

I am no attorney and certainly no expert - at all - on workers' rights, but I don't think you can ever be forced into paying into a PAC fund. They certainly can strongly hint to you that it is in your "best interests" to do so (which personally, I think is way out of line, too).

Now, my fiance does know a boatload about this stuff. My understanding is that if your company has such an agreement, look to see when that agreement expires. If your company entered into such an agreement, my understanding of what my fiance and I have discussed about this very subject in VA, is that you are under zero obligation to pay attention to anything the union says, regardless of the expiration of that agreement (and for the agreement to be a legally binding one, there MUST bean expiration date).

What you ARE obliged to do is to keep those employees, not as union employees though, and pay them at least as much as the union dictated - never less. (Unless they do something actionable, that is...of course.) Once your company owns that contract, your company is under no requirement to do shit with respect to what the union wants - if your company is VA based - just to keep the employees to the term of that original agreement.

Now, the cool thing is, most union employees, given the choice to keep working in their positions or stay loyal to their union, choose the former. Sure, they can still pay dues to the union, though. If they want to.

This pisses off the unions royally.

And, the cooler thing is that you are the incumbant whenever that union agreement expires and an incumbant with experienced employees and a track record (hopefully a good one). So, when the renewal time comes, you are in like Flynn and the union is out.

Anyway, that is my understanding, but if you would like, I will ask my fiance about this question.

Fight the PAC requirement. And, after reading your post again, if your company is VA based, they really do not have to use a union. But, if they willfully want to use a union, then yeah, you have to do what they say.

Except for that PAC thing, based on this SCOTUS ruling. If the union dues that you HAVE to pay include funds for that PAC, then they need to stop that shit right now. See if you can round up documentation that your contribution to a PAC is mandatory. I recommend you do that quickly before that proof disappears, too.

Thanks for all of this. Let me clarify a couple of points. The company I work for is based out of Chicago. We have offices all over the US, inlcuding very strong union states like MY, NJ and IL. Hence, my company felt it was in their best interest to sign a National agreement with the union so as not to be blocked from work in those strong union states. My union employees are not being forced to pay into these PAC funds here for the Local. I am being forced to pay into them as one of the many add ons that I pay the union in addition to the hourly wages I must pay my union employees.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It sets a legal precedent for folks in other unions who are getting screwed over by their union a-holes.

IF that is the case, and those union workers can stop feeding the beast without their consent, then perhaps it is in fact the blow as originally stated. Thank you.

It IS the case. Here is the actual opinion.

The courts have already ruled that unions can yank funds from workers for chargeable expenses related to specific collective bargaining - minimum dues, basically. But, under the 1st Amendment (ruled on a while ago) unions cannot include in those dues any charges related to their promotion or opposition to any political persons or actions. One cannot be silenced in politics, nor can one be compelled to support.

So, that local SEIU broke the law by upping the minimum dues over 56% because of their "emergency" need to fight a California proposition in a special election.

SEIU can't do that. But, SEIU DID do that. And, although SEIU refunded those extra dues, the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, realized that because the SEIU STILL thinks they could raise those dues over 56%, that they will do the same thing again in the future.

And, in their wisdom, the SCOTUS knows that a blue collar worker, to defend his rights and pockets, should not have to come back to court for this again.

So, that's what happened. The SEIU bullied money out of workers when they could not legally do so AND in violation of those workers Constitutional rights, and the SCOTUS ruled that they cannot try that shit again.

Facts are stubborn things, as is the constitution

 

[Si modo]

Without giving away to many details, as an employer, I am forced to pay into a PAC fund for my local union. Yes, my company has a National Union agreement, so even in a right to work state like Virginia, I have to hire union folks for a particular segment of my business. Would this ruling have any impact on what the union has been hitting me up for in their "package" of fees I pay as they pertain to their two separate PAC funds?

Wow, in Virginia, no less.

I am sorry.

I am no attorney and certainly no expert - at all - on workers' rights, but I don't think you can ever be forced into paying into a PAC fund. They certainly can strongly hint to you that it is in your "best interests" to do so (which personally, I think is way out of line, too).

Now, my fiance does know a boatload about this stuff. My understanding is that if your company has such an agreement, look to see when that agreement expires. If your company entered into such an agreement, my understanding of what my fiance and I have discussed about this very subject in VA, is that you are under zero obligation to pay attention to anything the union says, regardless of the expiration of that agreement (and for the agreement to be a legally binding one, there MUST bean expiration date).

What you ARE obliged to do is to keep those employees, not as union employees though, and pay them at least as much as the union dictated - never less. (Unless they do something actionable, that is...of course.) Once your company owns that contract, your company is under no requirement to do shit with respect to what the union wants - if your company is VA based - just to keep the employees to the term of that original agreement.

Now, the cool thing is, most union employees, given the choice to keep working in their positions or stay loyal to their union, choose the former. Sure, they can still pay dues to the union, though. If they want to.

This pisses off the unions royally.

And, the cooler thing is that you are the incumbant whenever that union agreement expires and an incumbant with experienced employees and a track record (hopefully a good one). So, when the renewal time comes, you are in like Flynn and the union is out.

Anyway, that is my understanding, but if you would like, I will ask my fiance about this question.

Fight the PAC requirement. And, after reading your post again, if your company is VA based, they really do not have to use a union. But, if they willfully want to use a union, then yeah, you have to do what they say.

Except for that PAC thing, based on this SCOTUS ruling. If the union dues that you HAVE to pay include funds for that PAC, then they need to stop that shit right now. See if you can round up documentation that your contribution to a PAC is mandatory. I recommend you do that quickly before that proof disappears, too.

Thanks for all of this. Let me clarify a couple of points. The company I work for is based out of Chicago. We have offices all over the US, inlcuding very strong union states like MY, NJ and IL. Hence, my company felt it was in their best interest to sign a National agreement with the union so as not to be blocked from work in those strong union states. My union employees are not being forced to pay into these PAC funds here for the Local. I am being forced to pay into them as one of the many add ons that I pay the union in addition to the hourly wages I must pay my union employees.

Ah, OK. I suspected that your company had to be based out of state. Yeah, and your company probably does that to have an advantage in other non-right-to-work states. That makes sense.

So, I gather that you yourself are not union, rather management. And, the union gets around this by making management pay for their politics. Interesting.

See, I would fight that as a requirement for your company's VA operations. But, it also might cause more waves than your company is willing to bear.

Hard personal call, yank. But, if you were to fight it, this new case would help you, IMO. Not just in VA, but anywhere, now. But, I suspect that your company may not like those sorts of waves.

 

[whitehall]

Once more the 9th Appeals court is overruled. Maybe that's why they needed a vacation in Hawaii at taxpayer expense while Ca. is going down the drain.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Unions and government induced prevailing wages drove me out of commercial and govt contract work. Last large corporate job I did I was picketed daily for about 2 months.

Sad part of this story is all the negative publicity the union caused killed the jobs entirely for Americans. That company never hired another American after that. They now have an entire crew from Poland that travel the country doing all the work that I used to do.
**** THE UNIONS

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And it was top dollar work.

 

[old navy]

Unions had their purpose in the early 20th century and helped develop management-labor relations as we know it today. They have grown too big and too greedy. Their voice has deminished and they do more harm than good. The foolish Maryland governor signed off on the requirement that employees pay union dues whether they choose to be members or not. And to think he has national office aspirations. Thank God I live across the river.

 

[naturegirl]

We still need Unions in the private sector, we just don't need them in the public sector. Those people work for governments, do you really think they would be underpaid or have a crappy health care or retirement package?

Can someone please explain to me why public sector unions are even allowed??

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

We still need Unions in the private sector, we just don't need them in the public sector. Those people work for governments, do you really think they would be underpaid or have a crappy health care or retirement package?

Can someone please explain to me why public sector unions are even allowed??

Exactly.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why do we still need private sector unions?

Extortion is extortion be it private or public.

 

[naturegirl]

Why do we still need private sector unions?

Extortion is extortion be it private or public.

Unions built the manufacturing workers to a level they were proud to go to work every day. I would much rather have private sector unions than have those same people living off the government. JMO

 

[Jackson]

I just heard that. It is a serious blow to the unions who wanted the right to take money out of paychecks without telling anyone.

How is this a serious blow to the unions? This ruling is on one case, in one Local. I don't see it as a big deal?

It is a big deal against SEIU, who if not stopped, would have continued this unlawful dealings with its members. It is one step closer to members dues going to candidates without authorized consent from its members as well.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unions suck...and harm the US.

Your awakening has been an interesting one to watch.

I have always been against unions....ALWAYS. However, I still do not see this one isolated judgement against one Local, as some sort of "blow" as someone else proclaimed.

The judgment means that no union anywhere can do the same tactic. It inhibits their ability to forceably take money, as it should. Should any other union attempt to do this, the people who want to opt out can immediately cite this case as precedent.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why do we still need private sector unions?

Extortion is extortion be it private or public.

Unions built the manufacturing workers to a level they were proud to go to work every day. I would much rather have private sector unions than have those same people living off the government. JMO

Why would the collapse of the unions lead to people living off the govt? The collapse of the unions might hurt their benefits but no more so than my retirement as a non membe

I just don't get the hate for corporate America when unions are the worst offenders when it comes to money. Minus the few obvious criminal scandals.