Supreme Court rules in Janus labor union case - CNBC.com
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/.../supreme-court-rules-in-janus-labor-union-case.html
7 mins ago - Supreme Court rules non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees … in favor of Janus would be the most significant court decision affecting …
…
The court is on a roll. A good one I think. 
LOL! The left is going to lose their looney minds.
404 page not found
Nation reacts to Supreme Court ruling in favor of Janus | Chicago Sun …
1 min ago - “Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without …
…
OK lets try this one.
Seems to work.
Why?..
As a union member myself, I have no problem with this ruling. Just as long as the union is not forced to represent non union members in any way shape or form. No representation for disciplinary action, and they do not reap any benefits due to new contracts. That’s between them and the employer.
The reason they had to pay something is because the union provided them with both, so it stands to reason they would need to contribute. So if they need not contribute, they’re on their own. Good luck.
Why generalize? Doesn’t affect me one bit.
Also as a Union member I understand that this is a tactic to reduce the power that labor has.
Now unions are going to have to make it explicit in their by laws and enforceable law that if one does not pay the dues, one does not get the benefits.
The unions have to be hard on free riders.
The unions are required to represent all workers, regardless of membership.
I have to double check that actually - that might just be public unions.
The unions should lobby to change the laws that require that they do.
Except the ruling literally says they still have to represent people who don’t payback union dues in collective bargaining sooooo
Since the unions must represent everyone, the AFSMCE brief said, “the suggestion that collective bargaining is no different from political lobbying cannot be squared with the fact that state law literally requires bargaining to set employment terms.”
This is exactly what i wanted to say. If you don’t want to be in the union, fine. Just don’t expect to enjoy any benefits they negotiate for.
The law requires the union bargain for all employees soooooooo
Seems to me that this is a way to lessen Union power in the work force.
So the more people refuse to join the Unions they unions will make less money even though they are still required to represent all the employees when it comes to collective bargaining.
Very interesting to see how this plays out in the future.
Why not? I would think lefties wohld be happy that folks can get benefits without having to pay for them! Shouldn’t it be free for everyone? Isn’t that the lefty/socialist way? Why so much anger for folks reaping benefits that others have to pay for? I would think you guys would be high-fiving them!
As a union member myself, this decision makes me worried about the future of my union.
You should be.
We all should be.
