SCOTUS: Public union can't make nonmembers pay fees

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    To All,

    I agree that people should not be forced to pay for an organization they do not agree with.

    That said, only limiting my scope to home health workers, I have met many of them who seem to be treated very poorly by employers here in Fort Wayne.

    For example, say you have to accompany your client to the doctor and your employer has you down for only working 9AM - 5PM. Your clients doctors visit is scheduled for 3:30PM. Well, on a rare fluke the doctor doesn't even see your client until 4:30PM. You both wind up arriving back at the clients home at 6:00PM. The employer doesn't pay for the extra hour you were forced to work.

    In looking into this there are some strange legal loopholes for home health workers, nannies, and other caregivers who may spend a great deal of time in the clients home. I must admit I am ignorant of such things.

    This is one area where I think a union may(?) produce positive reform to a current status quo. However, the union should be forced to "sell their case" and recruit members voluntarily just as the NRA does. All gun owners benefit from their lobbying and they fight very hard to sell us on why we should pay our "organization" dues.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    PistolBob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Oct 6, 2010
    5,387
    83
    Midwest US
    Illinois is going to be so PO'd...hahaha....I wonder if the public employee union in Illinois has to refund the dues they stole from over 100,000 health care workers?
     

    rockhopper46038

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    89   0   0
    May 4, 2010
    6,742
    48
    Fishers
    I haven't read the ruling, but I would suspect that is the next lawsuit.

    With tho the exception if what I thought was the non-sensical ruling against the guy who "lied" on his 4473, I think SCOTUS has gotten this session mostly right.
     

    singlesix

    Grandmaster
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 13, 2008
    7,197
    27
    Indianapolis, In
    To All,

    I agree that people should not be forced to pay for an organization they do not agree with.

    That said, only limiting my scope to home health workers, I have met many of them who seem to be treated very poorly by employers here in Fort Wayne.

    For example, say you have to accompany your client to the doctor and your employer has you down for only working 9AM - 5PM. Your clients doctors visit is scheduled for 3:30PM. Well, on a rare fluke the doctor doesn't even see your client until 4:30PM. You both wind up arriving back at the clients home at 6:00PM. The employer doesn't pay for the extra hour you were forced to work.

    In looking into this there are some strange legal loopholes for home health workers, nannies, and other caregivers who may spend a great deal of time in the clients home. I must admit I am ignorant of such things.

    This is one area where I think a union may(?) produce positive reform to a current status quo. However, the union should be forced to "sell their case" and recruit members voluntarily just as the NRA does. All gun owners benefit from their lobbying and they fight very hard to sell us on why we should pay our "organization" dues.

    Regards,

    Doug

    :dunno: So if the person is in such a situation they can join a Union. The ruling didn't say they couldn't join, they just can't be forced to join.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    :dunno: So if the person is in such a situation they can join a Union. The ruling didn't say they couldn't join, they just can't be forced to join.


    To Singlesix (et alia),

    I agree.

    I was simply pointing out that this may be an area where the presence of a union has the potential to be positive and not necessarily abusive.

    I don't think many on this board would think it fair that an employee was forced work without pay. As such, the presence of a union for domestic workers could be a tool to balance an injustice.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    And once again - another 5 to 4 decision. Boy, that tipping point sure is close, ain't it?

    If this ruling had gone the other way, I wonder how long would it have been before we ended up talking about, for example, teachers in private religious or charter schools being forced to have union dues deducted from their paychecks and handed to the teachers' unions...to lobby against, say, voucher programs?

    Another election in two years.

    Another election in which unmotivated voters who don't give an excrement about educating themselves on issues in the world will be given THREE WEEKS of early voting to get their lazy kiesters to the voting booth, and pull the "D" lever.

    Another election which appears close until after Labor Day - then ends in a landslide for the Return of the Cling(t)ons.

    ...Another election ushering in an 8-year period in which we have to hope/pray/beg one of the 5 justices on the correct side of this decision doesn't have a stroke, and all future decisions like this flip the other direction (and we start living in the world created by the result).
     
    Last edited:
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 3, 2008
    3,619
    63
    central indiana
    To All,

    I agree that people should not be forced to pay for an organization they do not agree with.

    That said, only limiting my scope to home health workers, I have met many of them who seem to be treated very poorly by employers here in Fort Wayne.

    For example, say you have to accompany your client to the doctor and your employer has you down for only working 9AM - 5PM. Your clients doctors visit is scheduled for 3:30PM. Well, on a rare fluke the doctor doesn't even see your client until 4:30PM. You both wind up arriving back at the clients home at 6:00PM. The employer doesn't pay for the extra hour you were forced to work.

    In looking into this there are some strange legal loopholes for home health workers, nannies, and other caregivers who may spend a great deal of time in the clients home. I must admit I am ignorant of such things.

    This is one area where I think a union may(?) produce positive reform to a current status quo. However, the union should be forced to "sell their case" and recruit members voluntarily just as the NRA does. All gun owners benefit from their lobbying and they fight very hard to sell us on why we should pay our "organization" dues.

    Regards,

    Doug

    Wage & labor law already covers this issue, if the health care worker works overtime, they must get paid.
     

    ryknoll3

    Master
    Rating - 75%
    3   1   0
    Sep 7, 2009
    2,719
    48
    Wasn't the actual rub of the case that a MOTHER who took state money to care for her disabled son was forced to unionize and be represented by SEIU? I didn't think it started just from someone who's hired to take care of someone, but family members who get state pay for caring for relatives having to unionize?
     

    PistolBob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Oct 6, 2010
    5,387
    83
    Midwest US
    Will SEIU have to refund the union dues they stole from the nearly 100,000 health care employees in Illinois? That's what I want to know. Want to bet the state refund the money in the form of an income tax credit....letting the SEIU off the hook? Stick it to the taxpayers.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    Wage & labor law already covers this issue, if the health care worker works overtime, they must get paid.


    To Singlestacksig,

    I am not talking about overtime, I am talking about being paid AT ALL!

    A home health aide is "issued" a shift of 0800 - 1700 (1 hr unpaid lunch) with three (3) clients, the third client being from 1400 - 1700. The aide must accompany the client to a medical appointment at 1530. The client goes over their appointment and BOTH of them return home at 1800. The time from 1700 through 1800 goes unpaid. $0.00. Nada. Zip. Nothing.

    I have heard the above scenario from several home health aides. Now, maybe it is illegal, but they are afraid of speaking out and losing their job while at the same time being blackballed.

    There are also loopholes within Federal Employment law that allow home health care workers to work overtime WITHOUT being paid an overtime wage. They are exempted from Federal minimum wage and overtime. Link: Home Health Aides: In Demand, Yet Paid Little : NPR

    As I understand it part of the problem is Medicaid. They only pay so much for home health care. As such companies are forced to squeeze as much as they can from whomever they can. The home health workers are required to do a range of duties from bathing the client, cleaning their living space, cooking, monitoring health condition, etc yet are treated like dirt.

    I am someone who does not like government laws and mandates forcing companies to do certain things. Therefore, a private organization such as a union negotiating is a superior solution to dealing with such issues, much like a plumbers and steamfitters union, or the electricians union.

    It is often mentioned that in many places unions have become unnecessary, and I agree. Many, but not all. This may(?) be an area where a union could be a beneficial tool.

    I am very ignorant of the details of this area of law. I freely admit that. But what I have heard on the surface over the last ten (10) years leads me to believe that these workers are not, overall, treated very well.

    Regards,

    Doug
     
    Top Bottom