Teachers' free speech trumps union politics - Page 3

jsh1120 · #21 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

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When I originally made my post the article was read as to be a opt in or out, then it was later updated in the LA Times.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

Golly, Gee, Billy, as I read your "original" post, the LA Times wasn't cited at all. Rather it was a propaganda piece from World Net Daily. It only took about 2 minutes to google a sufficient number of articles about the decision to determine it was bogus. My guess is that it took the readers of the LA Times about that long to come to a similar conclusion. Had you not taken World Net Daily as gospel, it would have taken you about that long to reach the same conclusion.

BroncoBilly · #22 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsh1120";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

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

Golly, Gee, Billy, as I read your "original" post, the LA Times wasn't cited at all. Rather it was a propaganda piece from World Net Daily. It only took about 2 minutes to google a sufficient number of articles about the decision to determine it was bogus. My guess is that it took the readers of the LA Times about that long to come to a similar conclusion. Had you not taken World Net Daily as gospel, it would have taken you about that long to reach the same conclusion.

I searched after I read your post and found the LA Times article with the correction. So what is the problem?

Jake · #23 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

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.

This is AMAZING, you just don't get it! The state had LEGISLATION mandating opt-in. The result of the USSC decision is that that statute stands! In Washington state, you now cannot take pay from non-union members paychecks unless they opt in - no ifs, ands buts, maybes or perhapses! Geez!

jsh1120 · #24 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

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.

This is AMAZING, you just don't get it! The state had LEGISLATION mandating opt-in. The result of the USSC decision is that that statute stands! In Washington state, you now cannot take pay from non-union members paychecks unless they opt in - no ifs, ands buts, maybes or perhapses! Geez!

Sorry, you're still wrong. The state legislature changed the law in the last legislative session as I mentioned at least twice in the earlier posts. Since the Supeme Court decision gave states the power to legislate as they see fit in this area, that also means that the state is free to change the law from the previous "opt in" provision (which in fact was ambiguous in whether it applied generally to political actions or to specific issues) to the current version which comes into play only if the union has exhausted its funds from the contributions of union members.

In effect, the result is more favorable to the union than the previous practice.

Ready to give up yet?

http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2007/05/...ort_v_wea.html

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode