The Janus decision is just now sinking in for the public sector unions.
They are dragging their feet, but more members are asking for their dues back. Teachers, public safety officers, and other public workers have chosen to leave their unions.
They don't serve their workers, so people are best serving themselves by leaving.
And in Oregon, the first public employee on record broke away from her public sector union and got all her dues back:
An employee at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has won the
first refund of mandatory union fees stemming from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling
that public employees cannot be required to pay unions dues or fees if they opt
out of membership.
first refund of mandatory union fees stemming from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling
that public employees cannot be required to pay unions dues or fees if they opt
out of membership.
Debora Nearman filed a lawsuit in April challenging the mandatory union
costs as a condition of her employment at the agency. After the Janus decision
was issued June 27, the Service Employees International Union Local 503 moved
to settle the case and return more than two years of fees to Nearman, or
$2,959.81.
![]("https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZdBDUvNaLMA/W5NRIToIjJI/AAAAAAABKo4/lnrkpqZSU8kiJ9hTwW4G81UpMx5dYxC0wCLcBGAs/s1600/Thomas%2BJefferson%2BRight%2Bto%2BWork.jpg")
costs as a condition of her employment at the agency. After the Janus decision
was issued June 27, the Service Employees International Union Local 503 moved
to settle the case and return more than two years of fees to Nearman, or
$2,959.81.
Imagine if every public employee in the Service Employees International Union filed lawsuits against their union. They would go belly up in a matter of weeks!
Nearman, the wife of Oregon Rep. Mike Nearman, R-Independence, said the
SEIU actively opposed her husband's election efforts, forming a political
action committee and spending some $53,000 to campaign against him, including
distributing disparaging fliers.
Not only is that employee in the fish and fame business, but she is married to an elected official, and the union actively opposed her husband's election. Can anyone imagine being in such a situation in which a portion of their paycheck is taken away, and that money attacks their spouse?
SEIU actively opposed her husband's election efforts, forming a political
action committee and spending some $53,000 to campaign against him, including
distributing disparaging fliers.
Not only is that employee in the fish and fame business, but she is married to an elected official, and the union actively opposed her husband's election. Can anyone imagine being in such a situation in which a portion of their paycheck is taken away, and that money attacks their spouse?
Nearman also said she is a devout Catholic and strongly opposes SEIU's
position on abortion and its financial support of pro-choice political
candidates and legislation. Finally, she said, SEIU takes policy positions that
conflict with her political beliefs, including its support of a ballot measure
that sought to impose a gross receipts tax on corporations. The SEIU spent
millions lobbying in support of Measure 97, which was ultimately defeated.
That's the whole argument. The free rider argument was a false argument, since millions of interests and groups argue for issues that we care about, and none of us pay anything for them to do what they do.
position on abortion and its financial support of pro-choice political
candidates and legislation. Finally, she said, SEIU takes policy positions that
conflict with her political beliefs, including its support of a ballot measure
that sought to impose a gross receipts tax on corporations. The SEIU spent
millions lobbying in support of Measure 97, which was ultimately defeated.
That's the whole argument. The free rider argument was a false argument, since millions of interests and groups argue for issues that we care about, and none of us pay anything for them to do what they do.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision ended a provision in Oregon and 21
other states that required public employees to pay what's known as "fair
share" fees as a condition of their employment, even if they opted out of
union membership. The fees are supposed to cover bargaining and contract
administration, including handling grievances.
For eight years, the American people listened to President Obama talk about making other people pay their fair share. Now working people are getting their fair share back from the abusive, bullying, yet useless public sector unions which stole the money from working people.
other states that required public employees to pay what's known as "fair
share" fees as a condition of their employment, even if they opted out of
union membership. The fees are supposed to cover bargaining and contract
administration, including handling grievances.
For eight years, the American people listened to President Obama talk about making other people pay their fair share. Now working people are getting their fair share back from the abusive, bullying, yet useless public sector unions which stole the money from working people.
"Nearman's refund represents the first of what should ultimately
be hundreds of millions of dollars or even more returned to public employees
for union fees seized from them in violation of the First Amendment," Mark
Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, said in a news
release.
be hundreds of millions of dollars or even more returned to public employees
for union fees seized from them in violation of the First Amendment," Mark
Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, said in a news
release.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is handling some
200 other cases across the country, including a class-action lawsuit in
California by 30,000 state employees, Patrick Semmens, the group's vice
president, told the Associated Press.
Wow! A class action lawsuit of this size, and in California, could yield unprecedented dividends not just for frustrated workers, but for the frustrated citizenry which pays more in taxes, and sees less in services rendered from the California state legislature and bureaucracy.
![]("https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mm0NYiY7W1g/W5NREeOgydI/AAAAAAABKo0/1ifhlpIqJd8j4ROkEq3a27yFHcsQx-sGwCLcBGAs/s1600/Right_to_work_campaign_badge%252C_c.1976.jpg")
200 other cases across the country, including a class-action lawsuit in
California by 30,000 state employees, Patrick Semmens, the group's vice
president, told the Associated Press.
Wow! A class action lawsuit of this size, and in California, could yield unprecedented dividends not just for frustrated workers, but for the frustrated citizenry which pays more in taxes, and sees less in services rendered from the California state legislature and bureaucracy.
If the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of the
plaintiffs in the California case, they stand to be refunded more than $100
million, Semmens estimated.
WOW! This is huge!
plaintiffs in the California case, they stand to be refunded more than $100
million, Semmens estimated.
WOW! This is huge!
Union advocates say public employees recognize the benefits of union
membership and will continue to support them.
membership and will continue to support them.
SEIU's settlement with Nearman was explicit that the union has not
admitting wrongdoing and was settling "for no other reason" than
"to avoid the expense and inconvenience of further proceedings."
Keep telling yourself that, SEIU, and watch as they go bankrupt for good.
admitting wrongdoing and was settling "for no other reason" than
"to avoid the expense and inconvenience of further proceedings."
Keep telling yourself that, SEIU, and watch as they go bankrupt for good.