Supreme Court declines to rehear union fees dispute

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request by public school teachers in California asking the justices to rehear a major challenge to fees that unions collect from non-members on which the court split 4-4 in March.

The non-union teachers, represented by the Washington-based Center for Individual Rights conservative group, launched a long-shot effort to get the court to reconsider its decision. That request was denied without comment.

The decision in March was a victory for unions, preserving a vital source of cash for organized labor.

The 4-4 split, which left intact lower court rulings in favor of a teachers’ union in California, was made possible because the court was shorthanded after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-unions-idUSKCN0ZE1O3

---

World | Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:51am EDT
WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Well, I appreciate the favor Scalia did us.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. .

See? He was capable of doing one good thing.......

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Yep ...

3rd time I've found myself saying that in the last couple of days ... but I credit it to the universe, not scalia.

[winstars]

5. Its amazing really how much one "man" could help the COUNTRY so much by his.........absence

[AllTooEasy]

4. Why do non-Union members have to pay union fees???

So if I want to be a teacher in Cali, I must give up part of my check even if I don't want the union negotiating benefits on my behalf???

Just tell non-union members "No money, no benefits". "Good luck negotiating that compensation package by yourself, jackass".

[AwakeAtLast]

9. That's just it

They want it both ways. Which makes them automatic Repukes.

[StoneCarver]

10. What a silly reply

Unions cover job titles. If non-Union people, fair share, didn't pay any dues but got the same benefits, it would be the end of unions. Unions have to defend and apply the contract equally, or else they'll get sued.
God if non-Union people could not pay dues And the company could give higher benifits to the non-Union folks until they broke the union, and then they'd slash benifits to all in the job class or title! No offense but you obviously have no idea how this works, and you're probably terrible at chess.
Stonecarver

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. I swear ... I wish the next time this type of whiner suit is brought ...

A legislator would draw up legislation and call it "The Freedom from Collective Bargaining" bill, wherein ... all employees of companies operating under a collective bargaining agreement shall have the right to avoid paying union dues by opting out of the terms of the agreement. At which point, the employee shall have the right to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment on an individual basis ... assuming the employer is will to bargain with an individual employee.

[Dhantesvz]

7. The law would have the opposite effect

If such a law was passed any intelligent employer would offer the non-union employee a rate/benefit comparable to the union so as to discourage union membership. Trying to save a few bucks on a single employee compensation will matter less to the employer than getting individuals to leave the union. Union contracts are primarily about the bylaws established; these dictate the interaction between the employer and employee in regards to grievances, punishment, bonuses, termination, pace of work, etc. Often these rules prevent the employer from managing the business in the optimum way, and can harm the consumers. Therefore every business should do what it can to prevent a union from ever forming. This is coming from a former union member who will always support union membership.

[Coventina]

8. To quote Mr. Potter, "You're worth more dead than alive!"

Republicans are just shooting themselves in the foot, over and over again, by refusing to seat Obama's SCOTUS pick.

Dead Scalia - the gift that keeps on giving.....