monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

As an attorney, I often pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of my own money to random people who make unsubstantiated accusations against my client, with no expectation of repayment, while binding my clients to agreements that they know nothing about. It's just good business.

One is the law.

The other is a gross infringement on personal rights.

The amount of dues collected from employees represented by unions is subject to federal and state laws and court rulings. The NLRA allows unions and employers to enter into union-security agreements which require the payment of dues or dues equivalents as a condition of employment.

Federal law allows unions and employers to enter into "union-security" agreements which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired. Employees may choose not to become union members and pay dues, or opt to pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer union members, but are still protected by the contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right.

I’d support an assault weapons ban.

maporsche wrote:

I’d support an assault weapons ban.

Do you have any justification for banning pistol grips?

If not, why do you want to violate people's rights for no reason?

My understanding of these suggests that further restrictions on union charges are a likely result.

...and I was bullied into promising on paper to vote as the union told me to on a state proposition.

I believe you have misstated the facts with respect to the Beck right and requirements for non union members to pay a "representation" share ( i.e. subset) of normal union dues. In the 20-some states with Right to Work laws, worker who choose not to join unions are free of any and all obligations to the union. In (only) states with so called "free rider" laws", which compel nonunion member workers to pay a "fair" share of the union's cost of representation and negotiations, non members can be compelled to pay this share. There are however several cases pending in the Federal courts regarding alleged deficiencies in Union accounting for just what these representation costs include, specifically excluding union political activity, costs and contributions. My understanding of these suggests that further restrictions on union charges are a likely result.