Supreme's rule unions can't make non-members pay!

[SMS]

Not on the fed side. Non-union do NOT get the same representation.

From a billboard at work:

 

[TedKennedy]

Not on the fed side. Non-union do NOT get the same representation.

From a billboard at work: View attachment 40207

That makes sense. Didn't work that way when I was there, don't know if it's still that way.

 

[twoguns?]

Not on the fed side. Non-union do NOT get the same representation.

From a billboard at work: View attachment 40207

I cant really read the article , Ill see if I can find it.
But it seems , only in certain circumstances, can the Unions refuse.

 

[loudshirt]

The part that most people here missed is this applies to one group of people. With the reasoning being that the group does not receive any benefits of union representation. They do not get paid vacations, and they can not file grievances. So the group does not get any of the benefits of union representation and was still required to pay their "fair share". It was a very narrow ruling.

 

[SMS]

Here's a link to AFGE that gives more info: http://www.afge1456.org/afge/doc_info.cfm?doc_id=16

https://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?page=OrganizingDocuments&Fuse=Document&DocumentID=4018

So, folks like to repeat the mantra that Unions are being forced to represent non-dues payers....meanwhile the unions are recruiting using the opposite position.

 

[twoguns?]

"partial-public employees"
"are different from full-fledged public employees"

It sounds like its more about the politicks....who gives a monkeys but ...vote for who you want

 

[twoguns?]

Here's a link to AFGE that gives more info: http://www.afge1456.org/afge/doc_info.cfm?doc_id=16

https://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?page=OrganizingDocuments&Fuse=Document&DocumentID=4018

So, folks like to repeat the mantra that Unions are being forced to represent non-dues payers....meanwhile the unions are recruiting using the opposite position.

Thanks , Yep ....shoulda paid them dues.

Its actually cheaper than a Barrister, not that I would deny Barristers....

 

[n2sooners]

The part that most people here missed is this applies to one group of people. With the reasoning being that the group does not receive any benefits of union representation. They do not get paid vacations, and they can not file grievances. So the group does not get any of the benefits of union representation and was still required to pay their "fair share". It was a very narrow ruling.

Missed, misled, or intentionally misleading? There are millions of uninformed people out there who now think employers can block employees from getting birth control. Most are sheep, but many are wolves spreading those lies. Same thing in this case.

 

[loudshirt]

Missed, misled, or intentionally misleading? There are millions of uninformed people out there who now think employers can block employees from getting birth control. Most are sheep, but many are wolves spreading those lies. Same thing in this case.

I read some of the Hobby Lobby thread. Very few news reports from anywhere reported that the case about about 2 or so types of birth control.

 

[Raoul Duke]

As a gun owner, the NRA represents you and lobbies on your behalf whether you are a member or not (for the sake of argument...)

As a gun owner, should you be forced to pay NRA membership fees? Of course not. Therefore your argument/example is self defeating.

But, but I want to be a freeloading cheese eating rat. I want all the rewards and none of the responsibilities. Just like all the other rat bastard Union haters out there.