Supreme Court considers major change in public employee unions/ Court Split Ideologically

[KoKo]

Supreme Court considers major change in public employee unions

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-considers-major-change-in-public-employee-unions/2014/01/21/6b4d2adc-82c4-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html



By Robert Barnes, Tuesday, January 21, 6:20 PM E-mail the writer

The Supreme Court on Monday debated what one liberal justice said would be a “radical” restructuring of organized labor by prohibiting states from requiring public employees to pay fees to the unions that represent them.

The case from Illinois concerns home-care workers and whether those who do not join the public employees union must pay compulsory fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining. The Supreme Court since 1977 has said states have the power to require such payments — about half of them use it — so long as the fees are not used for political purposes.

The Supreme Court on Monday debated what one liberal justice said would be a “radical” restructuring of organized labor by prohibiting states from requiring public employees to pay fees to the unions that represent them.

The case from Illinois concerns home-care workers and whether those who do not join the public employees union must pay compulsory fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining. The Supreme Court since 1977 has said states have the power to require such payments — about half of them use it — so long as the fees are not used for political purposes.

But William L. Messenger, an attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said the court should reconsider that precedent. Forcing public employees to support a union with which they might disagree violates their constitutional rights of association and free speech, he said.

“Our position is that in the public sector when government is involved, compulsory fees are illegal under the First Amendment,” Messenger said.

The case pits right-to-work supporters against labor unions and the Obama administration, and just as predictably mostly split the justices along ideological lines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-considers-major-change-in-public-employee-unions/2014/01/21/6b4d2adc-82c4-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommend

[madrchsod]

2. well good luck to those won`t pay for collective bargaining.

you`ll be back to making minimum wage,shitty benefits,and be fired at will.why? because the unions won't be there to protect you and negotiate wages and working conditions.

this ruling will directly effect the union my wife`s union. she`s also a afscme union treasurer. this is cock bros wet dream. bust the only union in illinois who is gaining membership.

[seveneyes]

5. Looking for numbers

Any idea what percentage of American workers are represented by unions that collect dues?

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. It is clear that the Constitution is a document written with sand on running water...

We like to think those indelibly inked words really mean something, but this Walrus court particularly has shown a willingness to define the Constitution to mean exactly what they want it to mean, neither more nor less.

[0rganism]

4. SCOTUS split ideologically? well we know how this ends

5-4 in favor of us getting screwed back to the age of child labor and no workplace safety laws.

[Bettie]

7. Hey, come on we'll also lose

vacation, sick pay, overtime pay, and weekends too!

[Triana]

6. We know how this will end.

The Koch Bros Usurping Crap Court (their two buddies there) will see that those "big" "bad" unions get demolished.