Opponents of such fees say they violate the First Amendment by forcing government workers to subsidize unions they do not want to join. The argument could have a receptive audience among the court's conservative members, who have openly questioned the precedent the court set four decades ago allowing the fees.
If the court rules against the fees in the case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, unions across the nation would stand to lose a substantial amount of money, which would limit how much they can spend to support candidates. In Maryland, for example, the union that represents state government employees brings in $2.75 million annually in fees from nonmembers.
More
What the hell does the supreme court have to do with union dues?
ReplyDeleteWTF is happening?
6:36....since the SCOTUS has taken over its new role as a legislative body it must make new laws to justify its existence. The checks and balances of our system are essentially gone. The president does as he pleases without fear of accountability of law. Congress bitches and complains and does nothing. The SCOTUS and other appellate courts rule on a matter outside of scope of their intended function and the states are starting to ignore their rulings. This equates to chaos. Chaos will result in martial law in an attempt to re-instate some type of order. This will result in tyranny and rebellion.
ReplyDeleteWorkers should have a right to unionize, but workers should also have the right not to join or pay a union. Forced Union dues is just plain wrong. The Maryland State Education Association has forced Union dues in some Maryland counties with the goal of having all Maryland teachers pay them whether they are a member or not. The MD legislature gave them that ability with the passage of the Fair share Act which we all know was to help the Democratic Party stay elected. If unions actually did what unions were supposed to do, maybe more workers would join, but unions like the MSEA keep themselves and politics on top rather than their members.
ReplyDeleteUnions getting slammed from both sides,wonder if they will still put their money on democrats?
ReplyDeleteThe Unions knew in 1996 when MD State Workers got collective Bargaining that they had to represent all workers, Union and non - Union. That was the wording in the contract agreement which became law. They became greedy and seen how to get more money without providing complete benefits. That is why the Unions are declining. Members see they are being short changed while the Unions are getting richer.
ReplyDelete