Supreme Court News

Serial Killers, Mass Murder, Unsolved Mysteries, Terrorism. (Description & Links Only)

Re: Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches

Postby GFunkMoneyDog » Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:55 pm

The court of appeals has handed the IRS their ass for targeting tea party groups. They have been ordered to hand over the list, so a class action suit can begin. The panel said that lawyers who represented the IRS from the Justice Dept acted in Bad Faith.
"The darkest souls are not those which choose to exist within the hell of the abyss, but those which choose to break free from the abyss and move silently among us." - Dr. Samuel Loomis
User avatar
GFunkMoneyDog
The Godfather
 
Posts: 20945
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches

Postby Demon Hunter » Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:49 pm

GFunkMoneyDog wrote:The court of appeals has handed the IRS their ass for targeting tea party groups. They have been ordered to hand over the list, so a class action suit can begin. The panel said that lawyers who represented the IRS from the Justice Dept acted in Bad Faith.


Bad Faith?! I suppose they couldn't call them dirty son of a bitches who were defending the practice of quieting anti Obama White House citizens.
User avatar
Demon Hunter
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:17 am

Re: Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches

Postby CrissyAlwaysSunny » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:43 am

Demon Hunter wrote:
GFunkMoneyDog wrote:The court of appeals has handed the IRS their ass for targeting tea party groups. They have been ordered to hand over the list, so a class action suit can begin. The panel said that lawyers who represented the IRS from the Justice Dept acted in Bad Faith.


Bad Faith?! I suppose they couldn't call them dirty son of a bitches who were defending the practice of quieting anti Obama White House citizens.


Good to see they ruled on the side of justice.
CrissyAlwaysSunny
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:07 am

Re: Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches

Postby upallnight » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:06 am

The Constitution needs no interpretation. Our founding fathers meant every word they wrote just as it was written.
upallnight
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby GFunkMoneyDog » Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:54 pm

The Fed's have dropped the lawsuit against Apple claiming that a third party cracked the phone for them. I personally believe they knew they they couldn't win the case so they "claimed" to have hacked the phone. The government forcing a private business to work for it. It surprises me that some of you support that.
"The darkest souls are not those which choose to exist within the hell of the abyss, but those which choose to break free from the abyss and move silently among us." - Dr. Samuel Loomis
User avatar
GFunkMoneyDog
The Godfather
 
Posts: 20945
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby Political Plague » Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:57 pm

The Supreme Court split the vote 4 to 4 in a law challenged by California teachers who were forced by state law to pay union dues even if they were non-union. The law calls for non-union members to pay their fair share. So sad we lost Justice Antonin Scalia. We know how he would have voted. How is it fair and legal to force a group who doesn't belong to a union to pay union dues? It's not fair, and that's why the GOP must stand strong and not accept President Obama's nomination.

Since the case was not decided by a majority, rather a decision from a lower court was allowed to stand, it would seem, the case could be considered again, once a 9th judge is seated on the failed and discredited supreme court.
Political Plague
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:36 pm

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby ScArEcRoW » Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:48 am

Political Plague wrote:The Supreme Court split the vote 4 to 4 in a law challenged by California teachers who were forced by state law to pay union dues even if they were non-union. The law calls for non-union members to pay their fair share. So sad we lost Justice Antonin Scalia. We know how he would have voted. How is it fair and legal to force a group who doesn't belong to a union to pay union dues? It's not fair, and that's why the GOP must stand strong and not accept President Obama's nomination.

Since the case was not decided by a majority, rather a decision from a lower court was allowed to stand, it would seem, the case could be considered again, once a 9th judge is seated on the failed and discredited supreme court.


Let's get this straight. They aren't union members, but the state is forcing them to pay union dues? Did Bernie Sanders write that law?
User avatar
ScArEcRoW
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby Cate McCalley » Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:34 am

ScArEcRoW wrote:
Political Plague wrote:The Supreme Court split the vote 4 to 4 in a law challenged by California teachers who were forced by state law to pay union dues even if they were non-union. The law calls for non-union members to pay their fair share. So sad we lost Justice Antonin Scalia. We know how he would have voted. How is it fair and legal to force a group who doesn't belong to a union to pay union dues? It's not fair, and that's why the GOP must stand strong and not accept President Obama's nomination.

Since the case was not decided by a majority, rather a decision from a lower court was allowed to stand, it would seem, the case could be considered again, once a 9th judge is seated on the failed and discredited supreme court.


Let's get this straight. They aren't union members, but the state is forcing them to pay union dues? Did Bernie Sanders write that law?


I haven't read the individual opinions of SCOTUS, so I don't know the arguments or law cited in for their consideration and opinions.

I think the objection to employees required to contribute to the Union, is based on the fact they did not elect union representation. Therefore they should not be forced to pay for representation they have neither elected, or received.

The argument for mandating a union contribution is based on the fact that these employees are required to pay a greatly reduced contibution (a fraction of full union dues) for benefits they would not be entitled to, minus union bargained contracts. Proposing that although they did not elect union representation and are not afforded union grievance procedures in the case of employer dismissal, senority privilege, etc., these employees are beneficiaries of union negotiated contracts. They receive full union scale pay and benefits such as paid sick time, holidays, overtime and union bargained safety regulation.

They do not receive legal union representation, because they are not paying the full membership dues, a union member requirement. And they are not required to participate union member meetings, or a ratification of proposed contracts. As such they are beneficiaries of union brokered labor contracts, not excluded management employees.

Both arguments have validity. The current policy does not force union member participation, and permits equal pay for equal work and equal employee benefits, minus a union grievance procedure. A step up from old old union policies that demanded full participation of all non-management employees, and required union representation for all employee grievances.

I think it might be good thing for these non-union, non-management employees to leave well enough alone. If unions are forced to step back into old policies, it would eliminate the choice of non-management employees ability to benefit from union bargained benefits altogether. But that's just my opinion.


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10111
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby Legion » Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:01 pm

You should have a choice to pay, and join, or not pay and not join.
Legion
Always A Bride
 
Posts: 3164
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:23 am

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby Cate McCalley » Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:33 pm

quote="Legion"]You should have a choice to pay, and join, or not pay and not join.[/quote]

The teachers that filed the case do have a choice to pay the full union dues and benefit from full union representation. Or not join and pay a service fee for only for the wage protection benefits they receive from the union's collective bargaining.

The lower Appeals Court based their ruling to allow the service fee, on a precedent set by SCOTUS that ruled unions requiring a service or agency fee did not violate First Amendment Rights. The SCOTUS underlying opinion differentiated monies union spent on lobbying for laws to reinforce collective bargaining rights, from monies unions spend to collectively bargain for their membership.

If I lease a fleet of cars to employees that an employer mandates they have to meet their duties, the company has contracted me to aggregately provide reliable transportation to their workforce. If the employer passes on the cost of driving and maintaining reliable transportation to their employees, the company has met it's responsibility and agreement to provide reliable transportation for their employees that require them to perform their job duties.

The terms of the lease agreement as to what I, as a fleet company will do and the obligations an employer must meet, are negotiated by me and the employer. The milage limits, servicing requirements, how the lease payments and service fees will be paid, etc. are all a part of the bargained agreement. At minimum, I offer every employee the service of reliable transportation.

Whether or not some employees want reliable transportation is not my concern. I am providing an aggregate service to their employer for fee mutually agreed upon. If the employee does not see the benefit in the aggregate service provided, it does not relieve them of participating in the service. No more than it would if an employer paid for employee training that an employee did feel they wanted or needed. Leased cars are a benefit an employee would not have, except for the employer negotiating an agreement with an auto leasing company to provide it. This is no way violates a First Amendment right, as employers maintain the right to enforce employee compliance to fulfill their employee duties, as do brokers of tangible employee benefits have a right to charge a service fee for them.

Teachers not wanting the benefits of collective bargaining have the right to pursue careers in private educational institutions. No one is forcing them into employment with public schools where employees are represented with collective bargaining agreements.


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10111
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby upallnight » Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:46 am

In this day and age with so many labor laws are unions even needed?
upallnight
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:55 am

upallnight wrote:In this day and age with so many labor laws are unions even needed?


Unions today and have always been brokers of labor. Unions have been very effective and largely responsible for the laws we have today that protect labor. Part of the dues organized labor pays are used to lobby lawmakers to write and advance laws that protect it. To keep human labor somewhat indisposable. Just as brokers of any tangible product are needed to protect the integrity of their product, it's the same with human labor. The difference is all tangible products with the exception of human labor, are indeed completely disposable.

Without an organized voice to speak for labor, those whose wealth is multiplied through it's exploitation of it have no opposition or limit to exploiting it. Like any useful product, high performance, durability and long term longevity keep it marketable along with strategic control in the ability to eliminate competitors.

Organized labor came about during the height of this nations industrialization. John L. Lewis took his fight for miners beyond the coalfields and joined the AFL (American Federation of Labor) with the CIO (Congress of Industrialized Organizations). This was strategically important as it strengthened organized labor in the U.S by joining organized labor internationally. At the time organized crime had a stranglehold in some of the larger unions. Joining labor internationally weakened the threat of an internal organized criminal network takeover.

The AFLCIO power to effect government policy has been steadily shrinking, along with the our shrinking industrial base. A couple of years ago, the International Long Shoreman's Union dropped it's AFLCIO affiliation, stating the AFLCIO had compromised key policies on labor law, immigration and health care reform. Since losing it's industrial base, organized labor has moved on to organizing the service industry where it has greater international support. Until the past decade or so, the service industry was largely ignored by organized labor. Low wages of this sector did not provide enough incentive for organized labor to pursue it. Now that our country's economy is more than 90% service based, organized labor cannot survive without it.

The same economic problems our country is facing by globalization, are the same problems organized labor in this country are facing.

Labor will always need an organized voice to speak on it's behalf. Whether that's through organizations that broker it like unions, or Congressional political bodies, like those of in parliments of European countries.


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10111
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby Gopher » Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:32 pm

Who's more crooked, union officials or corporate execs?
User avatar
Gopher
Carl The Groundskeeper
 
Posts: 3473
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby Angry Whiteguy » Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:54 pm

Gopher wrote:Who's more crooked, union officials or corporate execs?

Union officials, by a 'yuge' margin.!!
Your government is your master!!! Resistance is illegal, and futile!!!
User avatar
Angry Whiteguy
ReSiDeNt EvIl
 
Posts: 15725
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:25 pm
Location: The Dark Side Of The Moon

Re: Supreme Court News

Postby GFunkMoneyDog » Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:49 am

Angry Whiteguy wrote:
Gopher wrote:Who's more crooked, union officials or corporate execs?

Union officials, by a 'yuge' margin.!!


I'm going to have to agree with ya.
"The darkest souls are not those which choose to exist within the hell of the abyss, but those which choose to break free from the abyss and move silently among us." - Dr. Samuel Loomis
User avatar
GFunkMoneyDog
The Godfather
 
Posts: 20945
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Crime & Punishment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest