http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...0UP0FW20160112 for the full article, but the summary is below.
Big surprise that voting was along party nominated lines.
So What do you think.
While Unions have provided some good things for workers does that mean that they can extort fees from those that don't want to join?
While I do agree that those that don't join still enjoy the benefits of those that do, I don't think anyone should be coerced to join or pay fees.
Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday voiced support for a legal challenge that could erode organized labor's clout by depriving public-employee unions of millions of dollars in fees that many state laws force non-union members to pay.
Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia indicated during an 80-minute oral argument that they could join the nine-member court's two other conservatives to overturn a 1977 high court precedent allowing the fees, a vital source of funds for the unions.
Legal experts had thought Scalia might be sympathetic to the union position due to prior votes and statements on the subject, but his questions signaled support for the 10 non-union California public school teachers who challenged the fees.
U.S. conservatives have long sought to curb the influence of unions representing public employees like police, firefighters and teachers that often support the Democratic Party and liberal causes.
A ruling allowing non-union workers to stop paying "agency fees" equivalent to union dues, currently mandatory under laws in about half the 50 states including California, could strip public sector unions of millions of dollars, reducing their income and political power.
Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia indicated during an 80-minute oral argument that they could join the nine-member court's two other conservatives to overturn a 1977 high court precedent allowing the fees, a vital source of funds for the unions.
Legal experts had thought Scalia might be sympathetic to the union position due to prior votes and statements on the subject, but his questions signaled support for the 10 non-union California public school teachers who challenged the fees.
U.S. conservatives have long sought to curb the influence of unions representing public employees like police, firefighters and teachers that often support the Democratic Party and liberal causes.
A ruling allowing non-union workers to stop paying "agency fees" equivalent to union dues, currently mandatory under laws in about half the 50 states including California, could strip public sector unions of millions of dollars, reducing their income and political power.
Big surprise that voting was along party nominated lines.
So What do you think.
While Unions have provided some good things for workers does that mean that they can extort fees from those that don't want to join?
While I do agree that those that don't join still enjoy the benefits of those that do, I don't think anyone should be coerced to join or pay fees.
Comment