<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Workers shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to not fund union politics	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/09/workers-shouldnt-have-to-jump-through-hoops-to-not-fund-union-politics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/09/workers-shouldnt-have-to-jump-through-hoops-to-not-fund-union-politics/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:18:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: MattS		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/09/workers-shouldnt-have-to-jump-through-hoops-to-not-fund-union-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-327838</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MattS]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=55490#comment-327838</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/09/workers-shouldnt-have-to-jump-through-hoops-to-not-fund-union-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-327831&quot;&gt;Mojo&lt;/a&gt;.

You are wrong.  The opt out approach for Union political actions was created by the courts.  Congress / state legislatures wrote the laws with no opt out option at all.

However, after numerous lawsuits were filled by non-union members in open shops opposed to political activities that the union was funding with their mandatory fees, SCOTUS declared that this was a violation of the non-member&#039;s 1A rights and that the unions had to refund that portion of the fees used for political activities if the non-members objected.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/09/workers-shouldnt-have-to-jump-through-hoops-to-not-fund-union-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-327831">Mojo</a>.</p>
<p>You are wrong.  The opt out approach for Union political actions was created by the courts.  Congress / state legislatures wrote the laws with no opt out option at all.</p>
<p>However, after numerous lawsuits were filled by non-union members in open shops opposed to political activities that the union was funding with their mandatory fees, SCOTUS declared that this was a violation of the non-member&#8217;s 1A rights and that the unions had to refund that portion of the fees used for political activities if the non-members objected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mojo		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/09/workers-shouldnt-have-to-jump-through-hoops-to-not-fund-union-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-327831</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mojo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:23:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=55490#comment-327831</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[“acceptance of the opt-out approach appears to have come about more as a historical accident than through the careful application of First Amendment principles.”

Horse puckey. It was deliberate - the unions had their minions in the legislatures write it that way.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“acceptance of the opt-out approach appears to have come about more as a historical accident than through the careful application of First Amendment principles.”</p>
<p>Horse puckey. It was deliberate &#8211; the unions had their minions in the legislatures write it that way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
