• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules against SEIU in dispute over union fee hike

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is a huge blow for the DNC! It was a dirty way for them to extort money from union members and I stood up and cheered when I heard it. The reason this is so important is that unions were raising dues during election cycles in order to fund democrat candidates.

The Supreme Court says a union must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.
The court on Thursday ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.
The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.


Read more: Supreme Court rules against SEIU in dispute over union fee hike | Fox News
 
Last edited:
All I can say is - give it a big standing "O". :applaud:applaud
 
What? How can unions charge ANY fees to non-member employees? Is this saying that non-members must pay SOME union dues, but not others? I am very confused by this story. Can someone help explain this?
 
What? How can unions charge ANY fees to non-member employees? Is this saying that non-members must pay SOME union dues, but not others? I am very confused by this story. Can someone help explain this?

Its called agency fee in a closed shop. It is where nonmembers pay for the benefits of collective bargaining if the job is covered in under the union contract.
 
This is a huge blow for the DNC! It was a dirty way for them to extort money from union members and I stood up and cheered when I heard it. The reason this is so important is that unions were raising dues during election cycles in order to fund democrat candidates.

The Supreme Court says a union must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.
The court on Thursday ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.
The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.


Read more: Supreme Court rules against SEIU in dispute over union fee hike | Fox News

The political part of the analysis in the OP is probably not worth paying attention, however I agree with the SC on this one.
 
Its called agency fee in a closed shop. It is where nonmembers pay for the benefits of collective bargaining if the job is covered in under the union contract.

Thank you. WOW. Taxation without representation at its finest. I am glad that Texas is a right to work state. So a non-union employee is the same as a union employee except that ONLY the union employee votes in union matters? This sounds like an INSANE system. The SCOTUS should have made the whole whacky scheme illegal, as it violates equal protection, forcing you to accept union "taxation" as a condidtion of employement. I suppose if people feel the need for adding another layer of "gov't" at work it is their business, but I would NEVER allow that to be mandatory for any new hire, especially for a "public" position that is already a "gov't" job.
 
Last edited:
labor donations to the DNC are not going to matter anymore cuz of the US Supreme Court ruling of the Citizens United case...
 
I don't see the correlation .

11ch7r6.jpg
 
Nice. So the rest of the Dem contributors are where again? Dishonest graphic is lying by omission.

How is it lying?
This is all of 2012 political contributions thus far to both candidates thus far...
 
This ruling is no surprise. The right wing war against working people and their unions is in full bore and will continue. Eventually the pendulum will swing too far as the right wing overreaches. Then there will be a correction as it swings back.
 
I look at this graph and I feel sad. All those people supporting the republican party, but according to this list, only labor unions alone support the DNC.

I agree, that's pathetic to only have one group that supports you, it just happens to be union thugs.
 
Last edited:
Those statistics, need to be thrown into the face of every single liberal that complains about the Koch brothers, every single time they do it.

Great find.

Yea but those same Libs don't complain about Soros, Buffet, Moyer and Clooney's donations to the Dems because ALL LIBERALS are lying hypocrites. That's just this Independent's FAIR and BALANCED observation on the situation.
 
This ruling is no surprise. The right wing war against working people and their unions is in full bore and will continue. Eventually the pendulum will swing too far as the right wing overreaches. Then there will be a correction as it swings back.

Out of curiosity, how exactly does prohibiting a union from forcing people to contribute to the union's political action fund as a condition of employment constitute a "right wing war against working people"?
 
Back
Top Bottom