quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by dsmack:
As a retired State employee, I wonder where I can get my retroactive reimbursement?

Don

Actually, why isn’t this an option? How does the law apply to situations like this?

The law is almost never retroactive. You have to take the law as it stands. How would you feel if the the government tried to raise taxes retroactively? Or made something a crime and then arrested you for it when it wasn't illegal when you did it?

Is this just for government workers? this apply to all union employees? Does this ruling have any effect on closed shop unions in private industry?

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
4 Justices voting against freedom.Better be glad Clinton never got to nominate a Justice.This shows how perilously close we were and still are,
vulnerable to having our most cherished freedoms removed.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The significance and importance of Trump's election couldn't be more clear with these last few days. I wonder if any one of these never trumpers can admit that fact to himself even now.

Agreed!!

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
Wonderful! Check out the National Education Association's web site this morning. Oh my, the wailing and the gnashing of tooths.

It makes my heart glad.

Don't forget to read the comments!

http://neatoday.org/2018/06/27...039411260.1530116736

I smile a tad.

I teach at two colleges in Silicon Valley (represented by two different teachers unions) and have been required to have union dues withheld from my paychecks, regardless if I officially acknowledge union membership. So I guess this means they can't do that anymore.

However, I give my last final exam in a few hours, turn grades in by the end of the week, then I am retired.

Just heard Rush say that is will be absolutely devastating for the Democrat Party and throws a giant wrench into their fundraising.

I LOVE IT!

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
Wonderful! Check out the National Education Association's web site this morning. Oh my, the wailing and the gnashing of tooths....

From the NEA website

quote:

. . . “A strong union and collective bargaining agreements are what help to ensure students receive the tools and resources they need to succeed in school and in life,” says NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. “We’ve seen it in the resources available to our students, and we have felt it in our paychecks.”

The NEA representing the best interests of students is a bogus facade. Students are merely pawns for union leaders to gain money and power for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
Is this just for government workers? this apply to all union employees? Does this ruling have any effect on closed shop unions in private industry?

No effect on private industry. This case impacts state and public sector unions exclusively.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
Wonderful! Check out the National Education Association's web site this morning. Oh my, the wailing and the gnashing of tooths.

It makes my heart glad.

Don't forget to read the comments!

http://neatoday.org/2018/06/27...039411260.1530116736

From the article: "while robbing teachers, education support professionals (ESP), higher education faculty, corrections officers, sanitation and other workers of the freedom to join together "


Um, you keep using that word (rob). I don't think it means what you think it means. Lol.

Not taking money from their paychecks without consent is "robbing"?

Farging iceholes.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Why do you think they got the job, and Dershowitz didn’t?

Scalia type judges believe they are not there to make policy choices, but to decide Constitutional issues, i.e. is this within the power of Congress, or an “establishment of religion,” or “an infringement...”

Progressive judges believe progressive policies are Constitutional, unprogressive ones are not.

JALLEN, you sum up the problem pretty well.

I sometimes tell my "progressive" friends that when conservatives win, they protect everyone's rights, including theirs. When progressives win, they take my rights away.

Best decision of the term in a term full of great decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
I smile a tad.

I teach at two colleges in Silicon Valley (represented by two different teachers unions) and have been required to have union dues withheld from my paychecks, regardless if I officially acknowledge union membership. So I guess this means they can't do that anymore.

However, I give my last final exam in a few hours, turn grades in by the end of the week, then I am retired.

I had to chuckle at this post. Congrats on the retirement and too bad, so sad about the union dues.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by dsmack:
As a retired State employee, I wonder where I can get my retroactive reimbursement?

Don

Actually, why isn’t this an option? How does the law apply to situations like this?

The law is almost never retroactive. You have to take the law as it stands. How would you feel if the the government tried to raise taxes retroactively? Or made something a crime and then arrested you for it when it wasn't illegal when you did it?

But that's not what we're talking about. Unions are by definition private rather than public actors - after all, in this case they're supposed to be representing the interests of workers as private citizens in negotiating with governments for paychecks.

Here, per the decision, "It is hard to estimate bow many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment." Between Abood and the agreements governments formed with unions, the non-union-members had no choice but to pay over these monies. The unions received all of those monies, so there's a clearly identifiable source for restitution and union records can be used to identify which agency fees were collected from which non-members of unions.

This decision just screams for a return of the agency fees that non-members were forced to pay.

We didn't have to pay the fees for a few years - then the governor at the time, Gray Davis, signed some back-room agreement that enabled the "unions" to collect fair-share fees. The regular fee was about $1 less per month than the full membership. When the ability to disengage from paying the non-germane fees, that reduced the monthly fee by about 30%. State employees have historically paid a percentage of their wages per month, up to a maximum of $90, to the "union".

There were some attempts to vote down the fees, but only members of that "union" were able to vote on it.

I'm putting that word in quotes because state employee associations don't have some of the abilities to strike and a few other things.

I'm waiting to see what paperwork and hurdles they want for us to go through to stop them from taking money each month. I'll be retired in a couple of years at the latest.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
I smile a tad.

I teach at two colleges in Silicon Valley (represented by two different teachers unions) and have been required to have union dues withheld from my paychecks, regardless if I officially acknowledge union membership. So I guess this means they can't do that anymore.

However, I give my last final exam in a few hours, turn grades in by the end of the week, then I am retired.

I had to chuckle at this post. Congrats on the retirement and too bad, so sad about the union dues.

Sidenote on union dues. When in college I worked part time, was in the AFL-CIO. We went on strike for a month or so, I got ~$50 "strike fund" payment from the union, the union boss came around the picket line in his new union owned luxury car. After the strike was over the union assessed me something like $100 to replenish the strike fund. I asked the union boss for the union audited financial statements to see how/where my money was spent. He refused, told me to pay up. I didn't, but quit the job (which I was going to do anyway).

If you don't think this has the potential to have a huge impact on the political landscape, take a look at the public sector union contributions in recent years. I can't vouch for how accurate it is but OpenSecrets.org has charts and a table showing long-term contribution trends by such unions to Democrats and Republicans between 1990 and 2018 (estimated year to date). For instance, for the 2016 election (latest complete cycle shown), direct union contributions (as opposed to contributions from individuals, PACs, and other outside sources, i.e., soft/outside money) included $15.7 million to Democrats and $1.7 million to Republicans. That's 90% to the Democrats. I hope that those who don't agree with their unions' political stances will take advantage of this opportunity to use their money as they see fit and to undermine these unions who've been taking advantage of them.

https://www.opensecrets.org/in...04cycle=2016&ind=P04

quote:

Originally posted by dsmack:
As a retired State employee, I wonder where I can get my retroactive reimbursement?

Don

Call up a class action lawyer, offer to be the lead plaintiff in a suit against the union to recover all funds wrongly deducted. Might wind up with more than what they withheld.

quote:

Originally posted by SigSAC:
I'm waiting to see what paperwork and hurdles they want for us to go through to stop them from taking money each month. I'll be retired in a couple of years at the latest.

Keep us posted because the decision was clear that they were prohibited from taking anything without affirmative consent. In other words members MUST opt-in rather than be in by default and having to opt-out.

25 or so years ago, some California lawyers were unhappy that the State Bar spent money advocating political positions these members were opposed to.

There was a huge big fight, I think a court suit, lots of hate and discontent. Finally, the State Bar was forced to disclose what it spent on these objectionable activities, and members would be allowed to deduct that amount from their annual dues bill, usually ~$450 or so. When the statements came out, the deduction was $1 per member.

The abolition of mandatory public sector union dues payment in Wisconsin had a devastating effect on union membership. Here’s an article about that:

quote:

Nationally, no state has lost more of its labor union identity than Wisconsin since 2011, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis found. Union members made up 14.2% of workers before Act 10, but just 8.3% in 2015. That was nearly double the drop of Alaska, the runner up.

Graphic: Wisconsin union membership in sharp decline
The bottom line: 132,000 fewer union members, mostly teachers and other public workers — enough to fill Lambeau Field and Miller Park, with thousands more tailgating outside.

The decline has put Wisconsin, the birthplace of public-employee unions, near the bottom third of states for unionized workforce. Southern and western states make up most of the lowest tier.

Link