Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p="
If it was a simple check box, how did it become an such issue with the SCOTUS? They have been ripping not only teachers but all the California State Employees Unions have been doing the same thing. Take your money, whether you agree with were it goes or not, they were forced to pay. So don't try to paint as merely nothing with your liberal BS.
|
You're a little challenged in the details and facts department, aren't you? You may consider it "liberal BS," but the nine justices of the Supreme Court wouldn't agree with you. There were two issues before the Court. One was the issue of "opt in" or "opt out" of authorizing political action from agency fees. The other was the state's power to regulate the procedure. The Court made no finding on the first issue and gave the State of Washington the power to decide. Feel free to argue with them if you like.
As far as California is concerned, there is no comparable law to Washington's. In fact, in November 2005, the voters rejected Proposition 75 which would have instituted a similar law in the state. So feel free to argue with the majority of voters in California if you like.
Apparently, in fact, you seem to have trouble both with a unanimous decision by the US Supreme Court and the whole idea of majority rule. See, the way it works is that if you have a job whose pay and benefits are negotiated by a union, you are required either to be part of the union or to pay the equivalent amount to dues in the form of an "agency fee."
Of course, no one is forced to join a union. But if you want a voice in what the union does via elections, you have to be part of that union. It's through union elections decisions about how to bargain and what political stands the union takes are decided. You're familiar with "elections," aren't you? Those procedures for determining policy by majority vote. I'm sure you know what they are.
As for the rest of your diatribe, you're simply wrong to say that public employee unions in California simply "take your money whether you agree where it goes or not." If you are a non-member, you may, just as in Washington, require that the union return a portion of your agency fee used for poliltical purposes. Of course, if you object to having any of your money taken for negotiating your pay and benefits, you're out of luck. Of course, you're free to work in a non-union job at much lower pay and benefits.
It is interesting that when Wingnuts can't get their facts straight, they so often resort to claims of "liberal BS" and other name calling in place of a coherent argument. It's always worth taking a few moments to watch folks like you sputter and fume when you can't defend your position.