To Light and Liberty:May I suggest a study of the history of
progressive politics, especially where it began, here in Wisconsin. I think
that many of those who post here do not know what it means to be progressive.For starters, try reading up a bit on Robert M. La Follette, Sr. He is
much admired and revered today for his service to our state and the nation.
I will be an ardent obstructionist until I am listened to by the progressives!
I have no qualms with waiting until I die! Until then I will happily go my
merry way obstructiing and supporting leaders who obstruct anything from
government that isn't constitutional. That makes life simple, beautiful,
and happy. With so much in commotion and confusion these days, it really is
nice to know one can fall back on tried and true principles for life's
No one should be forced to have their equity, nor their legitimate call on
profit,s taken from them because the Chief Executive wants to use company money
for political purposes. That is theft of moneys, the same as those of you
against unions seem to be saying.Why do you approve of Corporate
theft from their stockholders? And to answer one critic...unions
have votes to elect leaders and to decide political causes on a local and a
national level. As a corporate stock holder, I have no such democratic
measures. Shameful you have to resort to false analogies.
Re: ". . . as I understand it, unions do hold votes to see how some, not
all, of their dues get spent on political actions."You
don't understand it.Political decisions are made by union
bosses, with hot the slightest required input from the rank and file. In many
cases, notwithstanding the fact the bosses know the rank and file don't
support their political actions.In trade unions, the rank and file
are told what to think about politics by the bosses, not the other way around.
I am a stockholder in some large corporations. Some of these corporations
donate to political causes I don't like. I voice my objections regularly,
but the Board of Directors will not take action to even allow a vote on my
motion to cease funding the activities.Just another example of the
hypocrisy of the right. They would say that this is just democracy in action,
and that I should get out of those stocks. Well, as I understand it, unions do
hold votes to see how some, not all, of their dues get spent on political
actions. Union leadership does allow dissident votes. But not corporate
America.Hypocrisy yet again.
I don't support a employer's right to ban certain birth control
products from insurance that I may get from said employer. Insurance is part of
my compensation, and I don't get a say in it. And do not forget, I have to
pay a portion of that insurance. That is a double whammy against my personal
choices.So, why does my employer have a right to use his/her voice
in a say in my life? This is even more important that the union dues issue.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservative.
Marxist mentioned the importance of unions in three union-friendly industries:
steel, oil, and railroads. Need I point out the decline in these three
industries. America was once the world leader in steel production. Go check
out Geneva Steel. America once shipped nearly everything, including passengers,
by rail. No more. The rails are rusting. We can no longer compete with other
oil producers in oil refining. Unions have been such a blessing to these
declining industries and the declining number of workers they employ.
@ RGunions are needed more than ever.Unfortunately,
corporate CEOs have destroyed unions through the "free speech" of
bribing our congress. If you think that unions aren't needed
anymore then I don't think you've been paying attention to the way
workers are treated and compensated today.
@Shaun. It shouldn't matter whether unions supported republicans or
democrats. It's just plain wrong to force someone to financially support
opposing views and beliefs.
It is appalling to see that four justices would rule against freedom and rights
of the individual.Why on earth should someone be forced to financially support
an organization that goes against their basic core beliefs. It is a clearly
ugly, fascist behavior rooted bipartisan political beliefs and that completely
disregards basic freedom of choice.
To Marxist and all in agreement,I am amazed at how much control you would
cede to govt. If you want a larger and larger govt. to control your life, there
are plenty of nations that you can move to. But the US was set up on the idea
that individual freedom would be maximized. This does not mean anarchy. It does
mean not being forced to pay dues to unions you disagree with. Speaking of unions, they once had their place. Employees used to have unsafe
conditions, etc. But now, the unions that used to be the champion of the little
man, are the MAN themselves. They treat their own members thugishly, while the
union bosses make out like bandits, and in many cases, actually are bandits.
@ Irony GuyMy comment was based on the DN article alone. jsf's
comment made me realize my error. I should've known better than to think a
single article could capture the detail and complexity often seen in
SCOTUS-level cases. So I change my opinion on this decision to "no
opinion." I don't have enough information.For what
it's worth re: my original comment, I thought later that a more apt analogy
would be my homeowner's association. Membership is voluntary and I pay my
dues knowing full well that most of my neighbors due not, yet reap the benefits.
But there are payoffs for me, just as there are for unions to do what they do.
The fact that our efforts happen to benefit more than just those who pay is
simply how it goes sometimes. But to presume that this entitles me to demand
payment from those who also benefitted when the choice on my end was freely
made...No. Can't agree with that.
The arguments here miss the point of the case, which has limitations in
it's application. The case arises in the state it occurred, when a home or
individual caregiver provides medical care for a member of their own family. In
some of these cases because the healthcare provider gets some government
assistance, and because of the government assistance in the care, SEIU demanded
the federal government reduce the payment to the caregiver as union dues, and
remit those fees directly to SEIU. This is the equivalent of the SEIU demanding
dues from every welfare recipient for every kind of welfare payment and having
the government skim the dues off the top.These would be like irony
guy posts, since you could call on the authorities to fix the problem, and they
being SEIU union members, they if you do the same work on your lot you should be
paying SEIU union dues.
Re: "But the growing top heavy distributions of wealth and income reflect
the weakening status of unions and also reflect the importance of unions in
protecting worker rights."What really reflects the weakening
status of unions is the fact that real people are fleeing them and their corrupt
practices in droves.When the heavy heel of a government boot on
their neck is required to force real people into submission to cynical
trade-union political demands, you know unions have become the problem, not the
I should never have had to pay taxes while bush was president.
Justice Alito wrote: "Except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no
person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party
that he or she does not wish to support.”You either agree with
Alito, or you don't.If you agree with Alito, then your
CONSERVATIVE employer CANNOT use your wages to support his favorite causes
without your permission. If you disagree with Alito, then your
CONSERVATIVE employer CAN use a portion of your wages to support his favorite
causes.That's the essence of the ruling. Union dues come from
YOUR wages. The ruling simply says that if you do not agree with the political
use of some of those funds, you do not have to give your wages to the union.If unions supported conservative candidates, what would you say about
the use of union funds?
@Karen R. Although analogies prove nothing, let me extend yours. If your
neighbor neglects his own property, your values are degraded. So you call the
authorities and they rectify the situation. You pay the authorities with your
taxes, so, yes, you are "obligated" to maintain the value of
Interesting comments here. conservative, "a person who is
averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in
relation to politics."So how do you claim to be a strict
constructionist, and a conservative, and claim belief in any of modernity? Only
through hypocrisy. Conservatives have been brought to civil rights, work place
safety, environmentalism, a more fair economy etc. etc. kicking and screaming
how the world will end and the Lord said. Conservatism has jumped
parties a few times depending on where they could influence the most. Further
proof of it's intent not affiliation.Point is Republicanism is
about a smaller government, and a fiscally responsible government. Conservatism
is pure obstructionism. Republicans and those affiliated with the
Republican party (DN), have been blinded by the shiny penny of conservatism
(voters, and claimed moral standing). However you can't exist in this
world of dynamics by doing nothing and or undoing what has been done before.
Current claimed "conservatives" need to take a hard look at
what they've associated themselves with and decide if this really is who
I would expect such an editorial from this right wing newspaper.
@ MarxistThe value of my home has increased in part to the efforts
of my neighbors to maintain and beautify their properties. Does this obligate
me to help pay for their work? I make similar efforts myself. Does this
entitle me to go door-to-door and demand a contribution?I agree with
the ruling. I found it the height of presumption for the Union to reach into
the pockets of non-members and take their money.
Hmmmmm, DN, where in the 1st amendment is it stated we have freedom of
association. I have always thought that the DN was an advocate of strict
constructionism of the Constitution.There is mention in the 1st
amendment of freedom of assembly, and assembly does begin with an a. However,
it is not the word association. How do you square that circle. Please, explain
to us in strict constructionist terms just how do you interpret this to mean
union dues are not compulsory when explicitly so by law in a particular
state.I think this points out how hypocritical the Conservative mind
is when it comes to Constitutional considerations. Only liberal ones are made
up from nothing, and only conservative ones adhere to the strict meanings and
definitions of the Constitution. Hogwash.
In the case in question, the home health care aides who brought the suit have
benefited from the union representation, their pay being raised from poverty
level to just inside middle class. Yet they don't want to support the
union which has helped them so much. Does this seem right to you? The Deseret
News on multiple fronts just can't seem to look at the world through a
different set of eyes.
I wonder what those Justices opinions would be if Unions supported Republicans?
The employer - employee relationship is an unequal one. Typically the employee
needs the job more than the employer needs the would be employee. To provide
some degree of parity unions which negotiate contracts in a union shop have been
allowed to collect dues from non-union employees. If the employer and employee
were equals your argument and attitude would have more merit. But
the growing top heavy distributions of wealth and income reflect the weakening
status of unions and also reflect the importance of unions in protecting worker
rights. Your attitude will accelerate the decline of unions until they will not
exist. We will then have the labor relations of the 1880's which most of
us don't want to return to, but for some reason the Deseret News does.In the past the best jobs have been union jobs, in petroleum refining,
steel making, coal mining, and on the railroad to mention several union friendly
industries. These were good jobs because they were well paid, had benefits, and
job security - and those features were present because of UNIONS, often with
union shop arrangements. What is the matter with that?