06-18-2007, 01:37 PM
|
 |
Guru
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The socialist republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 4,695
|
|
I completely understand
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
Bronco, Jake: Jsh1120 has explained it pretty clearly something like three times now. What about his posts are you failing to understand?
The unions lost the right to be the sole decider on whether dues used for political activity are "opt-in" or "opt-out." Unlike Jsh, I think "opt-in" is appropriate. But all the court did is say that the matter was something for states, not unions, to decide.
Unions can still collect dues-equivalents from nonmembers -- a variation of "closed shop" rules. Unions can still use member funds for anything they want, subject to the votes of those members.
It is, frankly, a fairly uncontroversial ruling. Which would explain why it was unanimous.
|
When I originally made my post the article was read as to be a opt in or out, then it was later updated in the LA Times. I still think unions stink for taking money from those that disagree with them.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=2&cset=true
__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.
|