First major consequence of Scalia's death: Public sector unions survive.

bearkat42 · Mar 30, 2016

Supreme Court’s Tie Vote Upholds Public Employee Fees For Unions

The Supreme Court announced a tie vote today in what labor law experts had called a "life-or-death" case for public employee unions.

The split decision preserves a long-standing rule that requires about half of the nation's teachers, transit workers and other public employees to pay a "fair share fee" to support their union.

The tie vote will come as a relief to union officials who feared the conservative court was on the brink of striking down the pro-union laws that authorized these fees.

But the death of Justice Antonin Scalia left the court without a majority to rule on the issue.

It's also the strongest sign yet that the court's conservatives cannot muster a majority to rule in their favor. At the oral argument in December, it looked as though the mandatory union dues would be struck down.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/supreme-courts-tie-vote-upholds-public-employee-fees-for-unions/

Jimdamick · Mar 30, 2016

Just the 1st nail in the coffin of the conservative SCOTUS. It shows all the support for union breaking is over, and the party has just begun, because if they (GOP CUNTS) refuse to hold hearings on Obama's nominee, they won't be treated so kindly when Sanders get elected as the POTUS..(that one is for you schuylaar)

UncleBuck · Mar 30, 2016

i'd like to see scalia brought back to life, just so that his death and subsequent shitting of himself can be recorded for our amusement this time.

bearkat42 · Mar 30, 2016

UncleBuck said:
i'd like to see scalia brought back to life, just so that his death and subsequent shitting of himself can be recorded for our amusement this time.

I'd pay extra for the 3D version.

Fogdog · Mar 30, 2016

The conservative case was ridiculous. Public employee unions are required to represent all public employees in that field regardless of membership. $650 bucks a year for membership is not unreasonable cost for that representation. Yet, the conservative court was on track to rule in the favor of lunacy rather than common sense, just like it did in the case of Citizen's United. Only this time, Scalia's intestine reached up and cut off blood flow from the heart because it couldn't stand to live with that dumpster fire of a brain. Freedom and Democracy owes a big thank you to Scalia's intestine. A true hero. A statue should be installed in Washington Square.

This could be the nexus where this country begins the return to a true democracy.

doublejj · Mar 30, 2016

SCOTUS nomination alone should be enough of an incentive to bring out the vote this election. We must get the Supreme court back in order.

Jimdamick · Mar 30, 2016

doublejj said:
SCOTUS nomination alone should be enough of an incentive to bring out the vote this election. We must get the Supreme court back in order.

As long as the order includes legalization of the mother Ganja!
Yea mon, the time is right!
Legalize NOW!

schuylaar · Mar 30, 2016

i'm still trying to figure out how you're going to work "poor black me' into this.. :mrgreen:

ThickStemz · Mar 30, 2016

I find it absurd that anyone can force someone to pay dues to an organization they would rather not be in.

Many of you happy at requiring this often say a business that doesn't do well enough to be able to afford to pay its employees a living wage deserve to go out of business.

How can you claim consistency of logical positions on this? If these organizations couldn't survive without forcing people to pay for their representation then perhaps their representation isnt worth having.

doublejj · Mar 30, 2016

ThickStemz said:
I find it absurd that anyone can force someone to pay dues to an organization they would rather not be in.

Many of you happy at requiring this often say a business that doesn't do well enough to be able to afford to pay its employees a living wage deserve to go out of business.

How can you claim consistency of logical positions on this? If these organizations couldn't survive without forcing people to pay for their representation then perhaps their representation isnt worth having.

I have work both union & non-union jobs........=union better

UncleBuck · Mar 31, 2016

ThickStemz said:
I find it absurd that anyone can force someone to pay dues to an organization they would rather not be in.

Many of you happy at requiring this often say a business that doesn't do well enough to be able to afford to pay its employees a living wage deserve to go out of business.

How can you claim consistency of logical positions on this? If these organizations couldn't survive without forcing people to pay for their representation then perhaps their representation isnt worth having.

is there a union for telemarketers?

ThickStemz · Mar 31, 2016

doublejj said:
I have work both union & non-union jobs........=union better

I've worked in union places too. Membership was not mandatory. The union survived. No one is saying ban the union. The point is make them earn their dues.

bearkat42 · Mar 31, 2016

ThickStemz said:
I find it absurd that anyone can force someone to pay dues to an organization they would rather not be in.

Many of you happy at requiring this often say a business that doesn't do well enough to be able to afford to pay its employees a living wage deserve to go out of business.

How can you claim consistency of logical positions on this? If these organizations couldn't survive without forcing people to pay for their representation then perhaps their representation isnt worth having.

I find it absurd that anyone not wanting to pay union dues would still expect to receive the same union fought pay and benefits as those who are paying members. If you don't want to pay, that's fine, but fight for your own benefits package and see how far that gets you. For profit corporations by their very nature are going to fuck their employees as often as they can get away with it. The union is there to, at least, provide some Vaseline.

ThickStemz · Mar 31, 2016

bearkat42 said:
I find it absurd that anyone not wanting to pay union dues would still expect to receive the same union fought pay and benefits as those who are paying members. If you don't want to pay, that's fine, but fight for your own benefits package and see how far that gets you. For profit corporations by their very nature are going to fuck their employees as often as they can get away with it. The union is there to, at least, provide some Vaseline.

The benefits were won with dues paid long ago.

bearkat42 · Mar 31, 2016

ThickStemz said:
The benefits were won with dues paid long ago.

No, benefits are won and lost with every subsequent contract. Union membership and representation is a living organism.

Fogdog · Mar 31, 2016

ThickStemz said:
I find it absurd that anyone can force someone to pay dues to an organization they would rather not be in.

Many of you happy at requiring this often say a business that doesn't do well enough to be able to afford to pay its employees a living wage deserve to go out of business.

How can you claim consistency of logical positions on this? If these organizations couldn't survive without forcing people to pay for their representation then perhaps their representation isnt worth having.

The case before the Supreme Court was regarding public employee unions that by law must represent non-union workers in the same field of work, for instance the teachers union. Those contracts are huge binding legal documents. What you say is that the state can hire the best lawyers and advocates for its cause but workers have to do it on their own. Collective bargaining allows access to the same level of legal representation that the state has. It's also not cheap.

The union is required by law to represent the non union worker and its only right that those workers share the cost of legal representation. This is nothing like what you are talking about. The Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with unions in private industry. Right to Work law for private industry is a different topic altogether.

Just saying, $650 for representation is not out of line. Try hiring your own contracts lawyer and find out how much it costs.

ttystikk · Mar 31, 2016

Rather than chipping away at various bricks in the wall of corporate power, let's bring the whole thing down around their ears; outlaw political cash, completely, except for a token, universally accessible amount by actual registered voters- and no one and nothing else, to include corporations, wealthy individuals or even foreign nations.

ThickStemz · Mar 31, 2016

Fogdog said:
The case before the Supreme Court was regarding public employee unions that by law must represent non-union workers in the same field of work, for instance the teachers union. Those contracts are huge binding legal documents. What you say is that the state can hire the best lawyers and advocates for its cause but workers have to do it on their own. Collective bargaining allows access to the same level of legal representation that the state has. It's also not cheap.

The union is required by law to represent the non union worker and its only right that those workers share the cost of legal representation. This is nothing like what you are talking about. The Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with unions in private industry. Right to Work law for private industry is a different topic altogether.

Just saying, $650 for representation is not out of line. Try hiring your own contracts lawyer and find out how much it costs.

Workers can. This isn't about the union. Its about mandating union membership.

If membership declined and the next contract wasn't as good then the employees could decide if the dues were worth it.

Since unions are tax free the same rules should apply to them as churches with respect to enforcing political parties and candidates. That's where the issue really was.

whitebb2727 · Mar 31, 2016

ThickStemz said:
I find it absurd that anyone can force someone to pay dues to an organization they would rather not be in.

Many of you happy at requiring this often say a business that doesn't do well enough to be able to afford to pay its employees a living wage deserve to go out of business.

How can you claim consistency of logical positions on this? If these organizations couldn't survive without forcing people to pay for their representation then perhaps their representation isnt worth having.

doublejj said:
I have work both union & non-union jobs........=union better

I've worked union and non union. Union pays better.

Thickstems, you can't say otherwise. If you did have a non union job that had better pay, it is the exception to the rule. Not the rule.

Fucking right to work state, more like right to fire state. No job protection.

The state I live in is a perfect example. Right to work and damn temp services moved in. All companies that use them are non union and work you until its about time to get hired full time then replace you. They also fire employees that have seniority and higher pay to save money.

That shit doesn't happen at an union job.

UncleBuck · Mar 31, 2016

ThickStemz said:
Workers can. This isn't about the union. Its about mandating union membership.

If membership declined and the next contract wasn't as good then the employees could decide if the dues were worth it.

Since unions are tax free the same rules should apply to them as churches with respect to enforcing political parties and candidates. That's where the issue really was.

You're a confused little kid.

Leave this to the adults.

First major consequence of Scalia's death: Public sector unions survive.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member