This will be a running post for a bit as I know that the repercussions are going to last for a while – there’s a whole dump truck load of pebbles that are going to be launched in to the pond and ripple for a long, long time (most will be reformatted, emphasis mine). Let’s start off with this one from the Union Leader :
The court ruled that forcing non-members to pay agency fees to unions whose views they may oppose violates their rights to free speech and free association under the Constitution’s First Amendment. Workers in the public sector who do not want to pay agency fees could start withholding them immediately, said Bill McQuillen, president of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire.
“The Supreme Court has spoken and that’s the law of the land,” he said. “It’s an unfortunate decision, as it now makes it more difficult for people to represent the middle-class workers. That having been said, I don’t believe it’s going to have a big impact on our organization because by and large our members want to affiliate with the PFFNH.”
No, it won’t make it harder to “represent the middle-class workers”. Sorry, but most middle-class workers aren’t in unions – only those that work in the public sector because of the insidious agreements made with Democrat elected leaders that covet union political contributions (direct and in-kind forming a never-ending slush fund for Progressive campaigns). As to the second supposition, it was clear that the Wisconsin teachers unions and other public unions thought the same thing – about 40% of their membership left and didn’t pay their dues when the coerced compulsion to pay dues or lose one’s job went away. I predict that similar things will happen here in NH as your membership starts to realize that their money has better purposes for their needs over your Collectivist needs.
And then Mr. Wonderful (Dan Williams, banned once again) had this over at the Concord Monitor. Actually, it is clear he’s a government public sector unionist – he’s had lots to say and all of it is from the union talking points. Here’s one exchange:
“Sam Hyde #1) Forced unionization is a fallacy foist upon stupid, gullible people by the Kleptocracy. “
Sidenote: Because he blocked me on Facebook, he now thinks I’m “Sam Hyde”. Yes, I’ve already told him that I’m not and that if I have something to say, it will be under my name and not anonymous.
But back on point: Forced unionization? What does he think a “close shop” is all about?
Really Dan? So what WOULD you call an employment situation where you COULDN’T be gainfully employed unless you joined the union that forced that place to be a closed union shop?
To a reasonable person, that IS the definition of “forced unionization”. Trying to redefine the common language again?
And of course, no answer at all. And the redefinition is what Progressives do (even if they are teachers that should know that words have specific meanings as they teach our young’uns….oh wait!).
He also had this to say with the ad hominem attacks (if you can’t win in the Arena of Ideas, slander them):
Sam Hyde Hmmm . . . The same week I 1) Block GG’er Skip Murhpy, 2) Get banned from GG . . . is the same week that “Sam Hyde” shows up and starts harrassing me online. GO FIGURE!!! And Sam . . . whoever you are . . . are you STILL going to THREATEN me with that old news?!?!? You guys are pathetic. Whoever you are – you’re an alt-right, rich, selfish, greedy A-hole . . . and you are of NO CONSEQUENCE in the real world.”
I think poor old Dan has a problem in figuring out what real harrassment is versus someone out debating him:
No Dan, I am not “Sam Hyde”. If I have something to say, you will know it. And I don’t need an alias or another account to see what you are saying.
Like this: you are starting to sound really unhinged today. SCOTUS got you upset that much?
Methinks it did – badly. Well, imagine it this way – he’s safely ensconced in his “closed shop”/exclusive work shop (hey, I thought that Progressives were ALL about that magical word: “inclusive”? What, they can’t stomach someone working next to them that is literally a “free agent” (and not a “free-rider”) and not beholden to a union?
And of course, look at his words – it is clear that those that don’t want to be part of a union are just plain dirt. You know, the same as he views Libertarians.
And such an example his verbiage and descriptions set for his students, too!