Yeah

why do we call anthony kennedy a swing vote.

i dont

i hope mr janus likes worse healthcare and getting paid less

The thing is that Unions will probably still be prohibited to treat union/non-union members differently. It seems like a cut your nose to spite your face.

slugsrbad wrote:The thing is that Unions will probably still be prohibited to treat union/non-union members differently. It seems like a cut your nose to spite your face.

This is my main question. Will they still be forced to do this? I feel like if some people don't want to take part, fine. You don't get the 10% raise when the union negotiates it.

Probably impractical.

guess the idea is that all the union people would be fired and companies would look to hire people who dont want to unionize

CalvinBall wrote:guess the idea is that all the union people would be fired and companies would look to hire people who dont want to unionize

This is for public sector unions only, isn't it? I don't know how it transfers to private unions.

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:guess the idea is that all the union people would be fired and companies would look to hire people who dont want to unionize

This is for public sector unions only, isn't it? I don't know how it transfers to private unions.

It probably doesn't.

No bench retirements today, not that Justices normally/only retire from the bench.

this will make it harder for public sector unions to say they represent workers. if the campaign to get enough workers to drop out works then come contract time SEIU or AFSCME or AFSCUP or whoever may not be recognized as representation. then it all goes away for everyone. the ruling doesn't immediately affect private sector but it plants the seeds and hurts the power of all workers by attacking the growth.

then private sector is next since that's been stagnant and it doesn't have the people power and energy the public unions have had over the past several years. they'll fall under a wave of legislation and apathy.

Donald Trump wrote: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 having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!

Hm.

he just spells out what they all just whisper

and how dumb does he think we are? he thinks rank and file vote the way their union says? if they did we wouldn't have seen the upsets in NYC or in Pittsburgh or his own fucking win

yeah pretty sure a bunch of white union folk voted for him. he has had some pretty bad political takes over the past 24 hours.

He's saying (and the republicans are saying) that the unions spend money politically that the members may not agree with.

Well, he's probably saying votes because he's an idiot, but the republicans are saying that.

Of course corporations never spend money politically that the shareholders and employees may not agree with.

pacino wrote:he just spells out what they all just whisper

and how dumb does he think we are? he thinks rank and file vote the way their union says? if they did we wouldn't have seen the upsets in NYC or in Pittsburgh or his own fucking win

Pretty dumb but to be fair, we more or less are.

House just voted down an immigration bill 301-121.. I'm sure it's the Democrats fault.

100 or so Rs voted against it.

100 or so Rs voted against it.