After the Supreme Court Said Unions Can't Force Non-Members to Pay Dues, Almost All of Them Stopped

After the Janus ruling, AFSCME lost 98 percent of its agency fee-paying members, while the SEIU lost 94 percent.

Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Given the choice of no longer paying to support unions they didn't want to join in the first place, lots of public sector workers took it.

Two of the largest public sector unions in the country lost more than 210,000 so-called "agency fee members" in the wake of last year's Supreme Court ruling that said unions could no longer force non-members to pay partial dues. That case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, effectively freed public workers from having to make "fair share" payments—usually totaling about 70 to 80 percent of full union dues—in lieu of joining a union as a full-fledged member.

Now, annual reports filed with the federal Department of Labor show that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) lost 98 percent of it's agency fee-paying members during the past year. Another large public sector union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), lost 94 percent of their agency fee-paying members.

Even though unions were preparing for a mass exodus in the wake of the Janus ruling, the numbers are staggering. In 2017, AFSCME reported having 112,233 agency fee payers (compared to 1.3 million dues-paying members), but that figure dropped to just 2,215 in the union's 2018 report. The SEIU reported having 104,501 agency fee-payers in 2017 (compared to 1,919,358 dues-paying members), but just 5,812 of them at the end of 2018.

Not being able to rob the paychecks of non-members will likely dent the powerful public sector unions' bottom lines. Compared to 2017, AFSCME reported a $4.2 million drop in revenue from fees and dues in 2018. The SEIU reported an $8.6 million gain in revenue during 2018, according to its Department of Labor filing, but Bloomberg Law reports that "accounting lags" resulted in some 2017 revenues being reported in 2018, so those numbers may be unreliable.

Still, the good news for those unions is that overall membership levels remained roughly the same—which means most full-fledged members decided to stay with their unions even after Janus opened the door for them to leave, while non-members seem to have almost unanimously wanted to get out.

And that's exactly why the Janus case was so important for worker freedom. Individuals who choose to support a union can continue doing that, and those that do not want to fund union activities are no longer forced to do so. Far from being an outright attack on the right of workers to unionize—which is exactly what unions claimed the Janus case was—the Supreme Court's decision allows all workers to do as they please.

Comments

[chipper me timbers]

This is the feel-good story of the year.

[Joe M]

Indeed. Nice to see a free market in union dues.

[Brandybuck]

I just wish my father were alive to see it. He was forced for four decades to pay dues to a union to which he was not member, only to get a rag in his mailbox every month explaining how they were spending his money on candidates he did not support.

[farec]

This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
Check For info Here,
CLICK HERE???????? http://www.Theprocoin.com

[hackajar]

Not really. It fails to note that members can only leave the union on the second blood moon of the year (if any exists), and notification of that window is given only on the third blue moon, in spring, on odd numbered years.

[sammyk]

As a former postal union member,you are corrrect.

[Lee Moore]

A wicked outsider might take it upon himself to mail out to all members, reminders of the process and the deadline - two or three weeks before the second blood moon of the year.

[CptNerd]

The written notice will be found posted in the cellar, with no steps down and no light, in an unused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of Leopard".

[Brett Bellmore]

What do you want to bet that the drop in voluntary members shows up in next year's statistics? They were likely just waiting to see if the union would find some way to retaliate.

[a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf]

I think so too. Too easy to just go along with dues deduction to avoid rocking the boat. Once they realize the dues don't actually do anything, such as fund a strike pay account, the easy money to be regained will be mighty attractive. It's not like Democrats will turn their back on the unions, even if union campaign funds shrink and shrivel up.

[Brett Bellmore]

They might actually do that; They really only value the unions as a way to launder government funds into their campaigns, and that's done through the dues.

If the unions aren't getting enough dues to pass any of them on, they'll stop being of any use to the Democrats.

[LarryA]

It's not like Democrats will turn their back on the unions,

True. Even without campaign slush funds, Democrats will never turn their backs on unions. They'll value them just like their other core constituencies.

IOW, "Vote blue, but don't pester us with your petty problems between elections."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Right-wingers apparently believe there should be a free lunch for union freeloaders.

I expect the liberal-libertarian mainstream to demonstrate that there will be no free lunch for parasitic malcontents. Just as shareholders who don't like a corporation's conduct are free to find another investment, employees who don't like a position's conditions are free to find another job.

[esteve7]

how can you freeload on something that provides no value?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get an education, you bigoted rube.

[CDRSchafer]

With an education you might be able to provide something other than boring, tired prog insults.

[NM Dave]

Why do liberals like you resort to insults when someone doesn't agree with you? Just what sort of "Rev." are you, that this is your default tactic?

[CptNerd]

They left off the version number, it's "Rev 0.01a" of a very poorly-designed posting script.

[OneSimpleLesson]

And I suspect that if you're incorrect in your assumption, you'll reexamine your whole worldview, and publicly post how you were wrong...

Or maybe not. Carry on!

[Rockabilly]

The Rev has hate speech and white privileges.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

F off troll; you contribute nothing to any discussion I have ever witnessed here. Unless you consider insults, diatribe, and vituperation contributory.

[Kevin Smith]

Does that "free to find another job" logic apply to people who work for non-union companies that want to unionize? Or is it only people who disagree with you that have to go do something else?

[BearOdinson]

Since this applied to PUBLIC SECTOR unions, that it doesn't really matter.

But since you bring it up, if 51% of the people who work for company A want to form a union, why should that mean that the 49% have to join? Or pay dues in any way?

[BearOdinson]

I think I misinterpreted your comment. Please go on about your business.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE!

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Just as shareholders who don't like a corporation's conduct are free to find another investment,

Or free to get a motion placed on a proxy ballot. I'm sure that was an just an oversight on your part.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Union members are free to attempt to influence union conduct.

Other than that, great comment, you half-educated malcontent.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

A fact that you conveniently ignored in your original comment.

And I'm a fully-educated malcontent.

[NM Dave]

More insults. You really do need to talk to someone about your anger issues.

[FlameCCT]

That behavior is normal for RAK (Royal Arse Kisser). Possibly too much methane inhalation from kissing near the exit of the alimentary canal.

[Juice]

union freeloaders

The unions can't freeload on non-members anymore. Try to keep up.

[ToddP]

Free loading on what? They don't help me at all. If anything they hinder everyone.

[0x1000]

This confirms it. Kirkland is a very angry parody. It's parodies all the way down.

[Agammamon]

You apparently didn't read the article.

Dues-paying members are saying 'the union isn't doing anything for me anymore. I don't need it any longer'. That means the unions *won*. They did their part - getting employees their 'fair share' and now that that has happened . . . they aren't needed anymore.

When they are, when the 'kkkorporations' start 'mistreating' workers again, the unions can be reformed. If the 'kkkapitalists' have learned their lessons, they won't need to be.

[Sevo]

"Right-wingers apparently believe there should be a free lunch for union freeloaders."

Bigoted assholes make up stories, asshole bigot.

[DeleteGrossLiberals]

I hope you get HIV, you fairy.

[John C. Randolph]

union freeloaders.

Fuck you. Unions have no more right to my money than the panhandlers who spit on my window and streak it up with their greasy rag after I've told them to fuck off.

-jcr

[FlameCCT]

Does it hurt being that ignorant RAK?
Or just normal for a Progressive serf?

BTW: Prior to this ruling, I worked in a State that did not allow agency fees however the State also did not mandate the union to provide any services to the non-union member. I would also note that the non-union member was stuck with whatever the union bargained for salary and benefits. That alone cost me 3 years of no pay increases as the union refused to accept a deal while continually going to court where they lost twice at the State Supreme Court. Truly sad that the unions have become more about supporting Progressives than about their own workers.

[Scott Free2016]

AFSME is a public sector or government union. People who work for the government, especially the Federal and State Governments, don't need a union. Those are easy jobs that you can keep for a lifetime with minimal effort.

SEIU is just the union bosses stealing from waiters, waitresses and maids. I was a part-time bartender, many years ago, and had to join the SEIU - they did nothing for me.

[Slocum]

The way to stop the 'freeloading' would be to force non-members to negotiate their own wages rather than automatically get the union negotiated wage. Would you favor that? And do you think the unions would favor kicking non-members out of their negotiated deals?

Answer: Hell, no! Why? Because they don't want non-members to be free to individually negotiate lower wages and under bid them. The unions would much rather have 'freeloaders' than actual competition.

[Dillinger]

>>>After the Janus ruling, AFSCME lost 98 percent of its agency fee-paying members, while the SEIU lost 94 percent.

so, yay.

[Wanderer]

This may limit the role of blue collar trade unionists in the Democrat Party, with Open Borders Billionaires , the Teaching lobby, Racialist colored groups and various grains of SJW gaining the corresponding party share.

But this is a victory nonetheless

[Wanderer]

This may limit the role of blue collar trade unionists in the Democrat Party, with Open Borders Billionaires , the Teaching lobby, Racialist colored groups and various grains of SJW gaining the corresponding party share.

But this is a victory nonetheless

[AlbertP]

Sorry, but the first amendment overrules the public sector-union's power to collect money from people and use it for political purposes against their wishes.. If the reports are correct, then, obviously, most members are happy to support their public-sector union This is also as it should be. And yes, in my time I was a member of both public and private sector unions.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Now, annual reports filed with the federal Department of Labor show that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) lost 98 percent of it's agency fee-paying members during the past year. Another large public sector union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), lost 94 percent of their agency fee-paying members.

Ok, so 2 and 6% of the members of these public sector unions are happy to support them.

[AlbertP]

"...112,233 agency fee payers (compared to 1.3 million dues-paying members), but that figure dropped to just 2,215 in the union's 2018 report. The SEIU reported having 104,501 agency fee-payers in 2017 (compared to 1,919,358 dues-paying members), but just 5,812 of them at the end of 2018...."

It would appear that most actual members, rather than fee-payers, are happy, at least for the moment with their union representation.

[mpercy]

And that there's 2,215 AFSCME agency fee payers and 5,812 SEUI agency fee payers who have procrastinated doing the necessary paperwork to get out from under.

Actual members are far more fearful of the ire of their section head and other members if they tried to leave?

[Unicorn Abattoir]

No, they're probably too lazy to fill out the forms.

[Rossami]

Albert is correct that you have massively screwed up your math, QUT. Since the dues-paying members are essentially unchanged (and they were the majority even before the decision), the total number of payers who are still "happy to support them" is 92% and 95% respectively.

And since the agency-fee payers only paid about 75% of what a dues-paying member does, that means the unions' actual money is still at about 94% and 96% of their old numbers respectively.

So while I completely support the rights of non-members to opt out, I don't think this is the death-knell for unions that they claimed it would be.

[Brett Bellmore]

Paying dues and being happy to be a member aren't the same thing.

As somebody noted up-thread, there's generally a very narrow window to apply to leave the union, without much in the way of advance notice. And there's the omnipresent threat of retaliation if you do try to leave.

It's not an accident that unions have a reputation for violence. A court ruling had even exempted them from RICO for using violence, if it was to further a legitimate union purpose!

There are plenty of reasons why you might not leave the union even if you're unhappy about being a member. After Janus? There's one less reason.

[Rossami]

Fair. I was rhetorically rebutting QUT's comment that only "2 and 6% of the members of these public sector unions are happy to support them". That statement was clearly incorrect because the percentages were calculated solely from the drop in non-member payers without factoring in the much larger number of members who are still members.

[Brandybuck]

Unions would still be popular if unions had just stick to their core mission of collective bargaining. But the more they got involved in politics the more they lost support. The purpose of politics is to divide people into us and thems, and the thems didn't like being shit upon by the people they were paying dues to.

[Brett Bellmore]

Public sector unions were never about collective bargaining in the first place: They were disallowed until the Democrats realized they'd be a great way to launder money from government funds to their campaigns.

That's been the core mission of government sector unions from the beginning.

[Scott Free2016]

Agreed, they were created by executive order (JFK) and can (and should) be eliminated by same.

[DarrenM]

I used to think unions were supposed to be for the purpose of collective bargaining and supporting members having certain types of difficulties. Then I learned they were just another type of PAC with the privilege of forcing membership and dues payments.

[Rockabilly]

Gee so sorry, let the man play a sad tune on his tiny violin for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxauqa7rJgI

[Bowerick Wowbagger]

Great news!!!

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

In Seattle, the City leaders rushed to sign a Union contract that did an end-run around the Supreme Court ruling. This will be the way forward. You think you won something with this ruling? You didn't.

In the memorandum of understanding with more than a dozen unions, including those representing office workers, electrical workers, plumbers and police officers, the city has agreed to deduct union dues from the paychecks of employees who authorize such deductions.

In return, the unions have agreed to hold the city harmless from lawsuits related to the deductions.

Suck it, supreme court.

[Brett Bellmore]

"of employees who authorize such deductions."

If you think Janus was undid by that, you don't understand Janus. Hint: What about the employees who DON'T agree to authorize such deductions?

[Dillinger]

intimidation and arson.

[MatthewSlyfield]

If that's what the contract says, they screwed the pooch and didn't manager an end-run around Janus. My understanding is that Janus did not prohibit employer deduction of union dues or agency fees, it only prohibited MANDATORY agency fees, so the employees have to have an option to NOT Authorize such deductions, and the agreement is effectively a nullity.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

We'll see, but I was waiting for the 'special contract' that would get around the decision and I saw that article right on time. People think pub-sec Unions were going to go away quietly, they're mistaken.

[Scott Free2016]

This is actually a solution to a different problem. There are similar decisions that say that an employer does not have to deduct does from union members and forward them to the union. They are allowed to provide this service to the union, but not required. This would make the collection of dues much more labor intense and costly for the union.

[LarryA]

In return, the unions have agreed to hold the city harmless from lawsuits related to the deductions.

"In return?" How is this a "bargain." Essentially, the unions promised not to sue the city for giving them money.

[Allutz]

The core problem with the side arguing against the result in Janus was that they argued that because of a statute, the Court ruling against them (based on the Constitution) would burden them. The correct answer is to say, "well then go change the statute because it doesn't overrule the Constitution."

[Brett Bellmore]

In any event it was a statute the unions had lobbied for in the first place. Basically they press ganged a bunch of employees who didn't want to be represented by them, and then demanded that those employees be forced to pay them for the service.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Government jobs, with typically safe workplaces, are especially vulnerable. The drop-out rate might be notably lower had the workers involved been, for instance, miners, iron workers, or steel fabricators?people who do their work in places where mutual care is critical for personal safety. I doubt there are so many opponents of unionism in the ranks of workers experienced in dangerous toil.

As always, it is almost incomprehensible how the mentality survives that it is either fair or constructive to bargain employment terms between well-capitalized employers and their employees on a person-by-person basis. I get that these are public sector unions, which seem different. They even seem different to me. But I have little doubt that the cheering on this site would be just as loud had the counter-party been private industry, or had the principle at stake been so-called right to work laws.

Anti-unionism has certainly accounted for a notable share of the declining prosperity among this nation's ordinary and skilled workers. That is nothing to cheer about.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me give my perspective: I've twice worked at union shops, and both times it was an unhappy experience, because I was working my way through college, and in both cases the union called strikes which cost me more lost wages than I could possibly have made up even if I'd kept working there the entire year. In one of the cases it was a seasonal agricultural job, and everybody else was in the same position: We were NEVER going to make up those lost wages.

Don't get me wrong, the threat of unionization is very useful, it keeps employers in line, and gets employees most of the benefits of unionization without the rather substantial costs of having a union. But threats like that only work as long as their plausible, and some poor suckers have to suffer the costs so that the rest of us can benefit.

But just like you don't want to have to have a nuclear war every year just because the threat of one can deter wars, you don't need everybody unionized to keep the threat real. Just enough people that employers will be deterred from pissing their employees off enough to drive them to unionize.

[Rossami]

The drop-out rate was trivial. Total payers for each union were 94% and 96% of the prior year respectively. Per the article above, the "drop-out" rate was essentially entirely contained to the subset of people who already thought that the union did not represent them adequately - that is, the people who were already paying only because of the mandatory "agency fees".

As many people have said (and the Supreme Court held), there is nothing wrong with convincing members that it is in their own best interests to be members of a union. Janus merely held that unions may not coerce those who do not want to be members into paying for it anyway.

And, no, that principle is not changed by the fact that the coercion was in the name of a public-sector union rather than a private-sector union.

[Brett Bellmore]

Almost everybody who wasn't a member stopped paying. The agency payers were the people who were willing to risk annoying the union in order to not pay, (And annoying a union IS a risky thing to do! US v Enmons rendered their use of violence legally shielded, and has only been overturned a few years.) so this isn't a shocking development.

The next step is when the people who are more risk adverse see that the former agency payers aren't subject to retaliation. That's when they'll really start hemorrhaging members.

Indeed, that's so obvious, I expect they'll be desperate to find some way to visibly retaliate.

[RabbitHead]

And a lot of those paying members will make a different value judgement: comparing the trivial benefit of membership ( representation in disputes and the like) with the true cost of membership.

It used to be that you either paid 80% for nothing or 100% for not much. The 20% difference might make "not much" sort of worth it, but now that there's a 0% option?

[DeleteGrossLiberals]

My wife works in a heavily unionized field, and stopped paying union dues. If they want to try violence, let them. I'll be glad to stoop to their level.

[Uncle Jay]

The Janus rule is long overdue.
The fascist filth in the unions were forcing employees to contribute toward the union goon's slush funds for way too long.
The one thing fascists and other tyrants hate more than anything is freedom of choice.

[Dillinger]

^this

[DarrenM]

allows all workers to do as they please

This can't be tolerated. It's a slippery slope from workers doing as they please to outright rejection of union prerogatives.

[Vernon Depner]

There shouldn't even be public employee unions. Even FDR understood that.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I've never understood what their purpose is. After all, the progs tell us time and again that the government is the source of all fairness and wisdom. So, people who work for the government don't need protection, unlike those of us who work for rapacious private employers, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Their purpose is to launder tax money into the campaign coffers of Democrats. That's been well understood for decades.

[ToddP]

So glad. I watch union members at my job take advantage and encourage non union workers to not work as hard. They are pathetic. Any issue I have had regarding management was taken care of by me. I didn't have to pay someone to look into it for me for a few years. Got it resolved in a half hour. Unions are outdated.

[Enemy of the State]

Great! Now if only those folks who want federal government services can be forced to pay taxes for them...

[Leslie the Bard]

I'm not surprised; AFSCME and SEIU are a couple of govt.-bureaucrat unions that never did should have existed in the first place and never did any good for their members. *Real* unions aren't bothered by "right to work" laws, and don't lose membership either, because they perform *real* work for their members. When they do real work for their workforce, they charge non-members -- who get the benefit of that work -- an "agency fee", while the members only pay dues as they have all along. AFSCME and SEIU deserved what they got.

[FlameCCT]

Slight disagreement about the "agency fee" part. There is no charge for non-members however when a union does real work for their workforce then those non-members have a tendency to see the worth of the union and join. Unfortunately I've seen too many unions that don't support the workforce hence the loss of real and potential union members.

PS: I've worked in union shops in a State that did not require agency fees. Seen both good and bad.

[sammyk]

To walk the walk the non union members should forego the raises and benefits the union gets them. Let them ask management directly. Only those greedy unions want cost of living raises and vacation days.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Yeah, because nobody's ever negotiated a salary and benefits without a union.

[Agammamon]

Funny how no one seems to think the raises and benefits are worth the money you had to lay out up front in order to get them.

[FlameCCT]

Hate to burst your bubble however government agencies are required to have pay scales whether they have a union or not. I've lost raises and benefits because of ignorant union so-called leadership. Then they finally agreed to a contract, that other unions had agreed to, after losing 3 years of pay raises.

[Michael Q. Rudnin]

When the unions collapse, corporations grow powerful and wages drop ... people are shortsighted.

[Rossami]

And yet, aggregate union membership in private companies is nearly at all-time lows while wages are stable or up depending on the industry sector (and after controlling for factors such as experience and education).

It's also worth noting that the two unions in the article above are public-sector unions. In other words, they could collapse completely and it would not affect any corporation at all.

[steavan]

Google pay me $280 to 390$ each hour for internet working from home.i have made $35K on this month on line do business from home.i'm a ordinary understudy and that i paintings 2 to 5 hours in keeping with day in my greater time efficiently from home..every body can perform this interest and win extra dollars on-line in low renovation via truly take after this connection and take after subtle factors

HERE>>>>>>>> wwww.GeoSalary.com

[steavan]

Google pay me $280 to 390$ each hour for internet working from home.i have made $35K on this month on line do business from home.i'm a ordinary understudy and that i paintings 2 to 5 hours in keeping with day in my greater time efficiently from home..every body can perform this interest and win extra dollars on-line in low renovation via truly take after this connection and take after subtle factors

HERE>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

[John C. Randolph]

About a century ago, unions existed to save workers' lives. Today, their only purpose is to skim workers' paychecks to buy hookers and blow for mobsters and politicians.

-jcr

[FlameCCT]

Big Union = Big Government: both have their Elitist Masters & Uncle Tom Overseers living the good life off the work of the Proletariat Serfs.

[?rboles de la Barranca]

A Corporation is not a person. A Union is not a person.

[Hank Phillips]

Both are artificial persons in the sense used by JFK in his March 4, 1933 fines-and-imprisonment order banning individual ownership of gold. What they are not is individuals.

[Richard Rider]

The bad news that this huge drop in payments described in this article occurred only among the tiny subset of NONUNION public employee "agency shop" members -- people who were forced to pay union dues who were not union members.

Most government workers can't withstand union pressure to join and remain in the union. The overall union membership remained stable.

One other notable point: As pointed out in the article, only 20%-30% of union dues are going for political purposes. At least, that's the OFFICIAL figures the UNIONS present without any audit by anyone. The union bosses are lying, and the courts allow it to happen.

The truth is that it's more likely that the percentage is the opposite -- 70% to 80% of union dues go for political purposes. Only 20% to 30% of union dues are spent on worker-related efforts.

[LarryA]

70% to 80% of union dues go for political purposes. Only 20% to 30% of union dues are spent on worker-related efforts

I think your math is off. You left out the overhead, spent to maintain the union's bosses lifestyle.

[Richard Rider]

No, the math is not off. When allocating such expenses by category, you take the "fixed asset" costs and assign them by the percentage of use method. That means that if 80% of the time union bosses are working on political issues, then 80% of their salary, benefits, coke and prostitutes are allocated accordingly.

But of course, when the UNIONS calculate the money spent on politics, they "forget" to use this common allocation method of accounting for costs.

[Richard Rider]

Here's a workable solution to the public employee labor union problem. Have government pay their workers "parity" compensation -- wages and benefits equal to the NON-government average in the region.

You'd THINK the unions would welcome such a formula pay scale. After all, isn't their mantra that "public servants" are paid less than the private sector? Of course, that's total BS -- especially when you include benefits. And that parity doesn't factor in the rock-solid job security and low performance standards that government workers enjoy.

[Richard Rider]

A side benefit of parity compensation is that it eliminates the employees' need for a labor union -- and labor union dues. Bust the public employee unions!

[DeleteGrossLiberals]

Even excluding benefits, it's BS. It's only true if you make dishonest comparisons. For example, they'll say "Teachers make less than other professionals with similar education." So they'll compare the salaries of teachers with bullshit "master's in education" degrees with doctors, lawyers, and MBAs.

[Richard Rider]

Correct. Not to mention the fact that govt teachers work 3/4 the time of most private sector workers.

[RodgerMitchell]

Yes, those "bullshit" teachers do nothing but teach our kids. Far less important than lawyers and MBA's, right?

[xupomawadu]

I am making 80$ an hour? After been without work for 8 months, I started freelancing over this website and now I couldn't be happier. After 3 months on my new job my monthly income is around 15k a month? Cause someone helped me telling me about this job now I am going to help somebody else?
Check it out for yourself ..
CLICK HERE?? http://xurl.es/reason2321

[CGN]

There was a time when unions were needed. Big corporations using Pinkerton men, all of whom carried guns, to crack down on those wishing to form a union. These days, unions used similar, if less deadly, means to "convince" employees to join the union. Thank God the Supreme Court made that illegal!!

[Oxford Comma]

"...lost 98 percent of it's agency fee-paying members during the past year"

*its

[Mrs. Premise]

Thank you, Oxford.

[awildseaking]

let freedom ring. about time 21st century boss tweed gets shut down for good

[nicuk]

This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
Check For info Here,
CLICK HERE???????? http://www.Aprocoin.com

[Hank Phillips]

Believe it or not, after Gorbachev told communist buffer-state dictators no Russian troops would again invade and murder their dissenters, non-communist citizens rose up and threw the bastards out. In the case of Ceausescu, Nixon and Ford's favorite pro-life communist, security forces riddled him and his disgusting wife with bullets. The situations are exactly parallel. The difference is the exemplary restraint on the part of the formerly coerced workers in These States.

[YMCA University]

J.C. Bose University of Science and Technology, YMCA, Faridabad.
NGF College of Engineering & Technology (NGFCET) is being run under the aegis of New Green Field Educational Society, Delhi. The society is in the field of education since 1964. The college is approved by AICTE, DTE, Govt of Haryana. The college is spread over 26 acres of land and located at a 71Km stone on NH-2, Palwal, Faridabad.
For More Details:- https://www.ngfcet.com/

[uwyroiaullu79436583]

Daniel. true that Esther`s storry is surprising... on tuesday I got a great Smart ForTwo since getting a check for $5857 this last 5 weeks and a little over ten grand this past-month. this is actually the nicest work I have ever had. I actually started 9-months ago and straight away started to bring in over $73.. per-hour. I follow the details here,

[RodgerMitchell]

It will be interesting to see if union members are given raises and perks that don't go to non-union members. Then what?

[DanielP]

*its

[anna mull]

as Elizabeth replied I'm amazed that a mom can earn $7438 in four weeks on the computer. did you see this site............................ http://www.geosalary.com