Kos is completely mistaking this decision like it and almost every liberal in the world (and I speak as a liberal) misunderstood Citizens United.
As far as I can tell, the decision in the OP does nothing more than reaffirm that unions have to let NON-members who are required to pay a fee to the union in lieu of joining as a condition of employment the ability to not pay for political activity, a right they have from the Beck v. Communication Workers decision. This case may have something to do with the timing and method and notice of reimbursements or require unions to not charge special assessments in the first place, but that’s about it.
Just as Citizens United had nothing to do with campaign contributions or corporate personhood, this decision has nothing to do with union members.
How is this absurd, that actually fits in with my argument, if organized labor wants to attract more people they need to make it worth those peoples time and money.
If they can’t fund their political work with non-members funds who failed to opt-out in the right way they will need to be more responsive to the workers to raise the money.
It contradicts your argument because if you couldn’t decertify, unions would have alot more members.
The REASON they don’t have many members is because it is so hard to organize now. The number of workers who say they would join a union if they could has grown steadily. In 2004, the last date for which I found a poll, it was at above 50%!
But this isn’t about union members complaining about paying it.
The ruling that allows unions to force non-members to pay into the system in an agency shop is an odd decision, it is unlike other laws in the same area. so word soup
Why should I be forced to pay money to an organization which fights against gay marriage rights and women reproductive rights.
I understand the concept of the “free rider”
But why should I as an individual, be subject to the whims of a unions political aspirations. Why should they have the right to garnish wages from my payroll check to fund political campaigns that are morally repugnant to me?
In what other case is a compelled payments to lobbing groups forced upon a person by default?
I understand that people who make mistakes on their opt-out, miss the application date etc…shoves an important amount of money into the pockets of these special interests but why do they get an exception?
I am unaware of any other law where a private organization which I do not belong to can garnish wages to further their special interests through politicking without consent.
if not unions, who? Who is going to protect workers rights as a political function? The Republicans? The Chamber of Commerce? Wal-Mart? Who?
Are we to imagine that heartless greed is now banished from our nation? Working people can simply trust their employers to protect their best interests? Republicans will protect them? They should maybe place their faith in the sacred Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it…)?
When you dance on the grave of unions, you’ll be dancing on your own.
But the Catholic Church is not getting your dollars in nearly the same way. Any non-profit organization gets a tax exemption. And this is done to encourage non-profits’ work. But an individual’s dollars don’t flow directly to a particular non-profit through tax exemptions. The effect is thus attenuated, and distinguishable from the unions’ reaching into the pockets of workers and taking their dues.
Well, no, you don’t have to hire a lawyer, you are one. And your parsing skills are of such a high degree, you could work as a professional semanticist. If they have such.
Now, let it be noted, for the record, that the Lily Ledbetter case was argued by a pro bono lawyer, may the Goddess bless him and keep him snug to Her bountiful bosom all the days of his life, amen. But how many are there? Enough, do you think?
(And lest I be misunderstood, I wasn’t referring specifically to you, Bricker. I haven’t the slightest doubt that you are the very embodiment of rugged individualism, John Galt with a briefcase.)
So what we’re saying here is that the GOP has passed a law that prevents Unions from giving out campaign contributions, even if the majority of the members have decided to spend the funds like this.
But does this apply to the Corporations? They can still give $$ to the GOP, even if individual shareholders oppose them, right?
See how unfair these laws are? They are done only to attack the Democratic party. They have nothing at all to do with “fairness”. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
Now what the Dems have to do in the states they control is pass the opposite law.
The Catholic Church receives significant benefits from the same tax funds I, and the very people the church seeks to make the state oppress, pays into.
Why is the work of preaching mindless bigotry against gays something that should be encouraged?
Why not renounce the church, which you feel is being immoral by accepting tax supported services financed in part by the people they seek the state to oppress, and become a Lutheran or a Buddhist or something? Why support your own hypocrisy?
Sure does. And again let me thank you for your support. The Bishop and I both appreciate it greatly.
Well, the First Amendment doesn’t really permit the government to prefer one message over another. So it should be encouraged because it can’t be culled out from the general category of political advocacy.
Well, I don’t agree with two of the Four Noble Truths.