Supreme Court deals sharp defeat to public employee unions, banning mandatory fees
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
BOOYEAH.....The Trifecta.
The Supreme Court dealt labor unions a sharp defeat Wednesday, ruling that teachers, police officers and other public employees cannot be forced to pay dues or fees to support their unions.
By a 5 to 4 vote, the justices overturned a 41-year-old precedent and ruled that the 1st Amendment protects these employees from being required to support a private group whose views may differ from theirs.
The decision, in Janus vs. AFSCME, strikes down laws in California, New York and 20 other mostly Democratic-leaning states that authorize unions to negotiate contracts that require all employees to pay a so-called fair share fee to cover the cost of collective bargaining.
In 1977, when public sector unions were getting established, the high court said teachers and other public employees may not be forced to pay full union dues if some of the money went for political contributions. But the justices upheld the lesser fair share fees on the theory that all of the employees benefited from a union contract and its grievance procedures.
But today’s more conservative court disagreed and said employees have a right not to give any support to a union. These payments were described as a form of “compelled speech” which violates the 1st Amendment.
The anti-union National Right to Work Foundation, which funded the challenge, predicted the ruling would free more than 5 million public employees from supporting their unions.
For the unions, which traditionally support Democrats, the ruling will mean an immediate loss of some funding and a gradual erosion in their membership. Union officials fear that an unknown number of employees will quit paying dues if doing so is entirely optional.
The ruling is likely to have a political impact in many states where these unions have been strong supporters of the Democratic Party.
The ruling split the court along ideological and partisan lines. The five justices who formed the majority were all Republican appointees. The four dissenters were appointed by Democratic presidents.
The outcome comes as no surprise to the unions or their lawyers. Three years ago, the justices had before them an identical free-speech challenge to union fees brought by Rebecca Friedrichs, a California teacher. The five conservative justices appeared set to strike down the union fees, but Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in February 2016. A month later, the court announced it was divided 4-4 and could not issue a ruling.
President Trump’s victory allowed him to replace Scalia with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch who, as expected, cast the fifth vote for the conservatives.
The current case was launched by Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner shortly after he took office. He sued to stop the forced collection of union fees, but a federal judge in Chicago said he had no standing to sue since he did not have to pay the fees. So Mark Janus, a state employee from Springfield, stepped forward as a plaintiff. He said he did want to pay $45 a month to support the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
As expected, he lost in the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago because such union fees were legal under the court’s previous precedent, now overturned.
Tags
Who is online
120 visitors
not tired of being right just yet.
(this was actually an easy prediction to make)
the DNC coffers are drying up
The supreme court tells "American Citizens" they can keep their own money.
I guess it angers conservative minded laborers that they should have to help pay into the system that benefits them in the long run. They will be the first to cry foul when they are excluded from the benefits of collective bargaining.
Didn't read the story ?
The case was in reference to "NON-MEMBERS".....not "MEMBERS".
I understand how the system works better than you understand how to read, I guess. Where did I mention the words "member" or "nonmember"? If collective bargaining results in a benefit to all laborers, then all laborers who benefit should have helped to finance the system that they are benefitting from.
Trying to market yourself ?
I'm skeptical.....go figure !
So true or false: if a prolonged collective bargaining campaign results in a company receiving a better health plan, non-due paying employees deserve to share in that benefit.
Genius, how do you think that the collective bargaining came about? Is the process financed by a magical cash fairy? Or is it financed by the DUE PAYING MEMBERS? I can't believe you are this dense. Or maybe you think that when employees want something, all they need to do is ask and it shall automatically be received, profit margins be damned.
All the employees will have access to the same health insurance plans. There is no mechanism that allows for an employer to provide shitty plans for some employees and better ones for others.
After yesterdays farce with you not understanding the obvious mistake you made, despite it being pointed out by multiple people, I should have learned that discourse with you is like beating my head against a brick wall. [deleted]
I won't argue with that. However, that is where the employer needs to step in and motivate those who are not pulling their weight by offering merit pay for over achievers.
even if I could have retired at 45 in a union? which I did in a right to work state/ non-union of course..
there is no world where funding the dnc is a benefit to me. id rather work until I was 80.
We need a nationwide general strike to wake some people the fuck up.
Didn't the "Million man march", "OWS", the "Pussy Crew", "Hogg Protest" and the "Maxine Waters Crew" try that already ?
Hell....even the "Look at Chucky Cry for Illegals" protest didn't do so well. Fit right in there with the LGBT "Chick-Fil-A" protest.
And this ...… it's "All about the Children" cry fest for "Illegals" from Liberals.....is falling on it's face.
How's it going so far again ?
WTF is that picture.....((((((brrrrrrr)))))))
Donkeys in human form ?
WOW !
Actually, what we need to do is bust the State and Federal versions of unions. They don't do anything except stick their noses in and then collect money to send to Democrats. The LOCAL unions are what need to be bolstered as they usually are the ones doing the bargaining. However, until we get rid of the State and National unions, the Local unions are always going to get the shaft and will pay the price for the one-sidedness of the National and State unions. Plus, in today's world, most unions are archaic and should be put away as they tend to price themselves out of jobs instead of maintaining the jobs for their members. Or, did you not see what happened to the USA's steel manufacturers over the years?
The Local unions are always told what to do by the National and State unions as those two levels are far more powerful than they should be. Do you remember the Teamsters Strike against UPS during Clinton's Administration? UPS gave them a deal, the Teamsters National Union bosses rejected that deal so the incumbent Teamsters President could win the Union election. In the end, that President was forced out of office and the Teamsters ended up accepting the original deal that UPS gave them. The National and State Unions didn't get the message then, I doubt they will now.
Why? They only thing that will happen is that all the Starbucks will have to close due to lack of employees and no one else will notice any changes in the workforce.
Thank God McConnell had the guts to roll the dice in a very risky move and hold out for Gorsuch. None of these wins would've happened if Crooked Hillary had won and put another leftist on the court.
Nothing but good news