SCOTUS: freedom rings - manditory unions dues defeated

[DJofSD]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_UNION_FEES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-08-45

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover the union's costs of collective bargaining.

In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.

[Tom]

The correct decision.
Unions have this idea the non-union people have to subsidize them.

[DJofSD]

Refunds any one?

[Clocker]

The correct decision.
Unions have this idea the non-union people have to subsidize them.

This one was slimier than that. A number of (liberal) states have tried to pass this law, under heavy pressure from unions. Under some versions of the law, if you are caring for a disabled family member in the home, and that person is getting state benefits, you are considered a state employed care-giver, and would have to pay union dues.

[DJofSD]

This one was slimier than that. A number of (liberal) states have tried to pass this law, under heavy pressure from unions. Under some versions of the law, if you are caring for a disabled family member in the home, and that person is getting state benefits, you are considered a state employed care-giver, and would have to pay union dues.
So, if a person is receiving benefits from being disabled, and, they pay some one to help take care of their needs, that care giver automatically becomes an employee of the state? Do I have that logic correct?

[Robert Goren]

The real freedom comes when the employers don't have to pay their non-union employees the same as their union ones. By the way, anybody who thinks they will pay them as much or more is crazier than a scab who thinks he will have job when the strike is over.

[tucker6]

The real freedom comes when the employers don't have to pay their non-union employees the same as their union ones. By the way, anybody who thinks they will pay them as much or more is crazier than a scab who thinks he will have job when the strike is over.
why do you call them scabs in this day and age?? Aren't they allowed to care for their families in any way legally possible??

[Clocker]

So, if a person is receiving benefits from being disabled, and, they pay some one to help take care of their needs, that care giver automatically becomes an employee of the state? Do I have that logic correct?

Logic? We don't got no logic. We are SEIU, we don't need no stinking logic (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/012214-687214-seiu-forced-unionization-of-home-caregivers.htm?ven=rss).

Illinois resident Pam Harris is a 55-year-old mom earning less than the minimum wage who cares for her son Josh Harris, 25. He has Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome, a muscular degenerative disease, compounded by physical disabilities and mental illness.

Josh and his family qualify for an Illinois home-based support-services program that lets disabled adults live at home. He gets $721 each month from Medicaid to cover the costs of the constant supervision he requires.

To the Service Employees International Union and Illinois' Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, the fact that Josh's mother receives a small government stipend given to home health-care workers makes her a state employee subject to forced unionization.

Under an Illinois law crafted by the incarcerated former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and enforced by his successor Quinn, home caregivers like Harris are designated state employees required to pay dues whether they join the union or not.



This is the law that SCOTUS shot down today.

[classhandicapper]

How could this not be 9-0?

Do we have 4 people on the Supreme Court in need of home care from a non unionized care giver due to mental incapacity? ;)

[Clocker]

How could this not be 9-0?

Do we have 4 people on the Supreme Court in need of home care from a non unionized care giver due to mental incapacity? ;)

For starters, Gov. Quinn should be sharing a cell with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

I understand SEIU putting forth this insanity. I understand Gov. Quinn rolling over for $5 million (it is a sacred political tradition in Illinois). I cannot conceive of any "logic" that would justify a Supreme Court Justice saying that a mother caring for her son is a state employee and needs to join a union. I look forward to the minority report on this one.

[Tom]

How could this not be 9-0?

We have 4.5 idiots on the bench.

[MONEY]

I think that Illinois is lucky that their law was struck down.

If it wasn't, then 20 years from now, all of those that were forced to
work for the state might want to sue for state pensions.