A Complete Waste of Space

Supreme Court ruling on union dues could cost SEIU millions in payback

One of the nation's most powerful labor unions could face a costly onslaught of lawsuits seeking tens of millions of dollars in dues, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the money was collected improperly, legal experts said.

In a ruling Monday, the high court held that Service Employees International Union cannot force people who care for loved ones to be union members and deduct dues from the government checks of those they care for. The practice has gone on for several years in a handful of states, creating a lucrative stream of cash for the powerful labor organization, which represents more than 2 million workers and takes in about $300 million per year.


bye bye SEIU.
bye bye "Demo" funds.
bye bye Senate.
Hello.....2016.

uh, no payback called for in the ruling. It also, as one should note, ONLY applies to the home-workers, not those in offices. Once again, crowing without the whole story, or crowing and hoping no one is smart enough to have found out the whole story. Oh, and I likely have given more money than the SEIU has given from the home care workers funds, to the Dems.

Once again, lots of hot air, no substance.

Thank you for your link...to your opinion.

The money was illegally collected and you're saying it don't have to be returned....
I suppose "legal recourse" via Civil Suit has no meaning or import to you?
No more than this ruling from the SCOTUS....seemingly does?
Just know/no that you're gonna have to reach a little deeper in yer pockets to pay for the failure this fall.

Pudfark wrote:Thank you for your link...to your opinion.

The money was illegally collected and you're saying it don't have to be returned....

no money was collected after the suit was filed, from those in the plaintiff group.

I suppose "legal recourse" via Civil Suit has no meaning or import to you?

that minority, and it was a minority within the Home Care workers, can indeed sue for what they may have paid. My point was that it clearly isn't all that much in the whole scope of that Union.

No more than this ruling from the SCOTUS....seemingly does?

it was interesting, and very specifically written to be limited(thus subject to possible reversal in the future, based on history). The insurance thing was really wierd, because they limited that to a very specific organization, and only to some,but not all contraceptives. Odd trend, don't really know what it means.

Just know/no that you're gonna have to reach a little deeper in yer pockets to pay for the failure this fall.

we'll see.

callmeslick wrote:

Pudfark wrote:Thank you for your link...to your opinion.

The money was illegally collected and you're saying it don't have to be returned....

no money was collected after the suit was filed, from those in the plaintiff group. "No shit Sherlock"

I suppose "legal recourse" via Civil Suit has no meaning or import to you?

that minority, and it was a minority within the Home Care workers, can indeed sue for what they may have paid. My point was that it clearly isn't all that much in the whole scope of that Union. "That's what I said dummy"

No more than this ruling from the SCOTUS....seemingly does?

it was interesting, and very specifically written to be limited(thus subject to possible reversal in the future, based on history). The insurance thing was really wierd, because they limited that to a very specific organization, and only to some,but not all contraceptives. Odd trend, don't really know what it means. "WTF does this have to do with what I wrote? Are you an overnight retard? "

Just know/no that you're gonna have to reach a little deeper in yer pockets to pay for the failure this fall.

we'll see. "It'll be easier to dig deep...after ya hock yer watch"

Just total nonsense you wrote above...

what part, your total quote fail?

I still see yer embedded in a rut on the nonsense trail.