Okay, I’m done here.
Unions are political enterprises, more by necessity than choice. There are massive efforts on behalf of business interests to degrade the power of unions, kill them if they can. The very fact of this struggle (“class struggle”, if you want to go total Marxist about it…) makes union activity inherently political.
Hence, it follows that any action to hinder unions has a political dimension, it favors one side of the debate. Lately, the Supremes have been Santa Claus on steroids when it comes to protecting business interests, this is merely another sweet little gift.
But the playing field isn’t level, and everybody with two cells to rub knows it. The corporate interests have all of one political party at their beck and call, and about half of the other. Its the Golden Rule, the guys with the gold, make the rules.
The standard tighty righty exalts property rights above all else, possession is nine tenths and they’re working on the rest. But where is it written that property rights exceed human rights? To oversimplify, why do we assume that the people who own a company have more rights than the people who work there?
Because I can read…and have read the decision. How about attacking their public reasoning vs inferring they have some super secret magical reason. It would seam if they were basing their arguments on lies you could show how it is proper for the government to selectively charge some associations with a crime for exercising their 1st amendment rights while at the same time arbitrarily allowing others to speak?
Why was SEIU or the ACLU gagged when Fox news was free to speak.
Is there any indication in the 1st that congress is free to split citizen associations groups where some that had the rights removed while not restricting others?
Why should Rush Limbaugh have the right to broadcast while at the same time denying the right from the occupy movement? What Federal standard allows the government to deny fundamental rights to groups in that way? In your mind would a ban on negro political speech been allowed, or is it only when they organized that you thought it was right for the government to shut them down?
I know that is not what you directly claim but that is also an effect of the law.
That is the effect of your precious law, the fact that it is politically advantage to you in this point in time to quell the rights of groups to speak did not make it right or good or lawful.
Did you actually Google what an “activist court” was or did you run out of arguments or are you admitting your claim was wrong??
You may not like the words in my mouth, but I still prefer them to yours. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address what I actually say without improving upon it? It may be a poor thing, but it is mine own…
You the one that was claiming there was an underling alternative cause, the burden of proof in that claim is yours.
Can I assume by the fact you hand waved my response that your statement was purely a non sequitur?
Oh, you may assume whatever you like! Freak freely! I always say…
How do you claim that by allowing an individual to avoid contributing to political causes they do not support yet still compelling them to pay dues for union activities is giving more rights to the company? You do realize that as to if a shop is an “agency” shop is by law the choice of the employer?
If the Union chose to subject all employees to dues it would be a closed shop and illegal under the The Taft-Hartley Act.
So please expand on your logic here…unions do have a right to compel dues for union activities but not for political reasons.
Where does this hand more rights to the companies?
And with that I assume you have no argument of substance in this debate.
You have my permission. Want me to sign something?
Said it upthread. Union activity is inherently political. Did you miss that part?
So are you advocating for the odd agency dues collection right unions have should be overturned too?
Or are you saying because they have that exception it is fine to compel people to join in other forms of political speech against their will?
See this is why I think unions are failing, it is so hard to de-certify a union that they have little to no reason to be responsible to their members.
Now they will have to appeal to their base vs. funding their politicking by force or apathy.
Not really
I don’t know, because I cannot parse the sentence. Straight up, no snark intended or implied, I have no idea what “odd agency dues collection right” means.
If the church catches fire, does the tax payer funded Fire Department not come put it out?
If the church or its staff is robbed, or otherwise imperiled by criminal active do the police not intervene?
Does the church not depend on paved and maintained roads?
Peopling being literate to read the Bible?
How about reliable sanitation systems?
No, churches depend on tax payer funded programs, but aren’t charged taxes. Therefore all tax payers put something in the collection plate.
However in the US churches tend to be right wing, rest assured if it were otherwise Republicans would attack them as well.
It’s very specific. I applaud rebukes delivered to public sector unions that are DESERVED. Surely this case qualifies.
An opt out for non-union members makes sense. But union members do not get to opt out of paying dues, for any reason. It’s their union, and they run it, and they choose the leaders. They can’t just go along with decisions they don’t like. Much like you can’t just not pay taxes for programs you don’t like.
Nope, not all union activity is political. Most isn’t.
LOL! That’s absurd. Union representation is at an all time low.
All non-profits are similarly subsidized. It’s not just churches.