quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

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?

What? Like a 30 round mag?

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

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?

What? Like a 30 round mag?

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

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?

What? Like a 30 round mag?

Interesting point. I suppose the legal notion is that possession offenses like possession of heroin and possession of firearms by felons occur in the present and are ongoing regardless of whether they were not offenses in the past.

Although not exactly the same, punishments for certain crimes have been applied retroactively. This was an issue when it became illegal for individuals convicted of domestic violence to possess firearms. It was pointed out that when it was considered to be minor offense, men were often convinced to plead guilty, but that they might not have if they’d known what the future held. It was a serious matter for law enforcement officers and members of the military.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:


Because most people aren't like Dershowitz ... he is intellectually honest.

Yes he is. I cannot think of another liberal on the national stage that I respect, but I do respect Dershowitz.



.

So our ALPA National office (pilot union) is all up in arms about this because they're saying that, and I quote..."[this decision] is just the latest in a long series of attacks against unions by those who desire to undermine workers' wages, benefits, and bargaining power."

I say ALPA is full of the fecal matter, as this decision has absolutely NOTHING to do with a private sector union such as the Air Line Pilots Assoc. I think ALPA National is just trying to spread hysteria and FAKE NEWS. Is that accurate???

When party zeolots manage to wrangle their way into leadership of an organization they claim to speak for the entire membership and commence shifting efforts and monies from the membership’s stated needs towards those of the democratic party. Maybe republicans pull the same stunt but I’m not aware of any examples whereas democrats have become legenday for it at this point.

Between this and Kennedy's announcement, I swore I was going to see some heads explode at work yesterday. And I had to sit there and just smile and not say a word.

quote:

When party zeolots manage to wrangle their way into leadership of an organization they claim to speak for the entire membership and commence shifting efforts and monies from the membership’s stated needs towards those of the democratic party.

That's exactly what has happened.

Many of these unions are mostly about supporting:
1. Union leadership
2. The Democrat Party

They give lip service to the needs/desires of their membership, of course, but they have become political organizations more so than workplace safety organizations.
Wages are debatable. They "collectively bargain" for higher wages, but how does that work out when it results in a failure of the organization, such as in the case of GM?

One of the largest unions in the U.S. may have to pay back millions to workers after the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory agency fees to public-sector unions are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ordered a district court to reconsider a ruling Thursday in Riffey v. Rauner, a case in which a group of Illinois home care providers sought to recover $32 million in forced dues from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The district court ruled against the workers in June 2016, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) which represented the workers in the case.

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in Janus v. AFSCME that forcing public-sector workers to pay dues to unions they are not members of infringes on the workers’ First Amendment right to free speech.

NRTW appealed Riffey v. Rauner to the Supreme Court earlier this year. After ruling in Janus, SCOTUS responded to NRTW and vacated the district court’s ruling while sending it back for review and a new ruling.

“With the Supreme Court remanding Riffey, we are one step closer toward vindicating the rights of the tens of thousands of victims, many whom are family members caring for disabled children in their own homes,” NRTW President Mark Mix said in a statement. “It is long past time that the over $32 million illegally seized by SEIU union bosses be returned.”

If the district court rules against SEIU and the union is forced to pay back years of dues, the case could be the first of many similar suits costing unions millions. The Janus decision released roughly 5 million public-sector workers from paying mandatory dues.

Eight class action lawsuits are pending across the U.S. where groups of workers are suing unions for taking dues from non-members paychecks.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06...supreme-court-wages/

^^^ Holy cow. The SEIU could be done in the same way that the Southern Poverty Law Center did in the United Klans of America.

quote:

The Supreme Court ordered a district court to reconsider a ruling Thursday in Riffey v. Rauner, a case in which a group of Illinois home care providers sought to recover $32 million in forced dues from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

SEIU, huh? Couldn't of happened to a nicer bunch of thugs.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

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.

The State Controller's Office (SCO - they issue all the paychecks) announced that they will not withhold fair share fees effective next month (end of July). The checks for this month had already been produced prior to the court's ruling.

An "acting" law professor at UC Davis has already published an article that would allow for the collective bargaining groups to still be paid - have the state reimburse them.

The Janus ruling doesn’t have to be fatal for public sector unions. Here’s how.
By Aaron Tang
Special to The Sacramento Bee

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion...rticle213925464.html


More than 7 million public sector union members in America are asking the same question now that the U.S. Supreme Court has forbidden their unions to collect mandatory fees: Is this the end of public employee unions?
Not in the least. Pro-labor states can undo the Janus ruling by adopting a simple legislative workaround.

Opinion
Before Wednesday’s decision, pro-labor state governments financed their public sector unions indirectly by paying wages to workers and then deducting mandatory fees from all worker paychecks to send to unions for their bargaining-related costs. In the Janus ruling, a 5-4 majority on the court said this violates the First Amendment rights of objecting workers.

So here’s the fix: Government employers can just reimburse unions directly for the exact same bargaining-related costs. Doing so would eliminate any compulsion on anti-union workers to give financial support to an objectionable cause. Direct reimbursement would also increase take-home pay for public sector workers.
Single workers making $50,000 a year would get roughly $200 more each year under the reimbursement approach because the removal of union fees from their paychecks would reduce their federal tax burden.

At the same time, direct reimbursement would provide unions the same level of financial security as before, while public employers can offset reimbursement payments during future wage and benefit negotiations. The result would be a win-win-win: more money for workers, the same resources for unions and no negative impact on state and local budgets.

There is, however, one major objection to direct union reimbursement: A public sector union cannot advocate zealously on behalf of its members if it is reliant on their employer for its financial security. Or as the state of California put it in a brief in the Janus case, unions cannot be “funded by the employer or the State and retain the credibility and independence needed to make the system work.”
At first blush, it’s a forceful argument. But the key is to recognize that there are different ways to design a system in which a government reimburses a union for its bargaining-related expenses. Some ways would be
Bad; for example, if public employers were allowed to reduce reimbursements in retaliation for a union’s wage or benefit demands.

But what if public employers were required to reimburse unions for all bargaining-related expenses? And what if disputes over certain expenses were resolved by independent labor law experts? That would eliminate the employer’s ability to pressure a union into sacrificing worker interests.

Would it be difficult to create these independent panels? No. Public employment relations boards already exist in the pro-labor states affected by Janus, including California, New York and Illinois. In fact, these same boards have heard challenges to union fees brought by objecting workers for decades.

The bottom line, then, is that there is nothing particularly fatal about Janus. Pro-labor states can drive the decision to irrelevance simply by amending their labor laws to authorize direct union reimbursement.

Aaron Tang is an acting professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.

quote:

Pro-labor states can undo the Janus ruling by adopting a simple legislative workaround.

Why go to all of that trouble?

If the unions are so great, won't the members be paying the dues voluntarily?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Pro-labor states can undo the Janus ruling by adopting a simple legislative workaround.

Why go to all of that trouble?

If the unions are so great, won't the members be paying the dues voluntarily?

You just don’t get it.

Even if every single worker would join and pay voluntarily, it wouldn't be right. The essential quality of the collective is compulsion, force. You can’t have people doing things by their own choice!

The essential quality of freedom is choice. Everyone chooses for themselves, as they like. You can’t make me!

https://hotair.com/archives/20...escape-labor-unions/

Out in Washington State, a number of state employees have been attempting to quit their public sector union and stop contributing dues to the organization ever since the Janus ruling was handed down. Surprisingly, they were told that the answer was no and they would have to remain dues-paying members for a longer period of time.

The union is demonstrating that they signed a contract agreeing to be members and it doesn’t allow for them to change their status until a designated “escape period” which doesn’t come around until next year.

So the unions definitely could have a point, holding a signed contract in their hands. But attorneys for the plaintiffs are making a strong argument in response. First of all, it wasn’t exactly optional for the workers to join and sign whatever contract was required because it was basically a condition for employment.

And second, they signed the contract prior to the Janus ruling, which they describe as being a time when “the right to not fund union advocacy was yet to be recognized.” Let’s stop for a moment and think about what that means. I’m already assuming this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court if the workers lose in the first round. But if they prevail, the courts will essentially be saying that workers have an established right to be free of unions if they wish. Considering how many public sector jobs around the country right now make union membership a condition of employment, the establishment of such a right would be massive.

I understand they signed a contract, but if a contract provision has been found to violate the First Amendment since the contract was signed, then doesn't the contract provision become unenforceable in the courts as being against public policy?

quote:

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

Don

I got a modest refund from AFSCME (Harrisburg Pa) in the early 1990's. AFSCME was using compulsory union dues to support all Democrat candidates in local elections.

Pa court said that was a "no-no".