Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
SCOTUS deals a blow to Unions..
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="deerwhacker444" data-source="post: 3128735" data-attributes="member: 9117"><p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/JhkXscS.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p>The Democrats will be reeling<strong> <a href="http://abc7chicago.com/politics/scotus-strikes-down-union-fees-with-janus-vs-afscme-ruling/3662484/" target="_blank">from this for years..</a></strong></p><p></p><p>The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that non-union public-sector workers who are nevertheless represented by a union for bargaining purposes cannot be required to pay union fees. <em>Janus v. AFSCME</em> hinged on the case of Mark Janus, a child-support specialist in Illinois who argued that he should not be forced to pay fees to his union. Existing law, as determined by the 1977 decision in <em>Abood v. Detroit Department of Education</em>, states that all employees must pay a fee to account for the benefits of collective bargaining that unions offer. Janus argued, however, that the law violates his right to free speech, because it requires him to fund an organization that speaks on his behalf and is designed to shift policy on salary, benefits, and pensions. This ruling is expected to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-decision-janus-v-afscme-likely-permanently-weaken-public-ncna851376" target="_blank">devastate labor unions</a>, which rely on non-member dues to stay afloat. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Gorsuch; Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan dissented. Kagan, writing for the minority, wrote that the decision will have “large scale consequences,” and that “judicial disruption does not get any greater than what the court does today.”</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="deerwhacker444, post: 3128735, member: 9117"] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/JhkXscS.jpg[/IMG] The Democrats will be reeling[B] [URL='http://abc7chicago.com/politics/scotus-strikes-down-union-fees-with-janus-vs-afscme-ruling/3662484/']from this for years..[/URL][/B] The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that non-union public-sector workers who are nevertheless represented by a union for bargaining purposes cannot be required to pay union fees. [I]Janus v. AFSCME[/I] hinged on the case of Mark Janus, a child-support specialist in Illinois who argued that he should not be forced to pay fees to his union. Existing law, as determined by the 1977 decision in [I]Abood v. Detroit Department of Education[/I], states that all employees must pay a fee to account for the benefits of collective bargaining that unions offer. Janus argued, however, that the law violates his right to free speech, because it requires him to fund an organization that speaks on his behalf and is designed to shift policy on salary, benefits, and pensions. This ruling is expected to [URL='https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-decision-janus-v-afscme-likely-permanently-weaken-public-ncna851376']devastate labor unions[/URL], which rely on non-member dues to stay afloat. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Gorsuch; Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan dissented. Kagan, writing for the minority, wrote that the decision will have “large scale consequences,” and that “judicial disruption does not get any greater than what the court does today.” [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
SCOTUS deals a blow to Unions..
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom