General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court considers major change in public employee unions/ Court Split Ideologically
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
(68,644 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)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
(4,631 posts)Any idea what percentage of American workers are represented by unions that collect dues?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)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
(23,916 posts)5-4 in favor of us getting screwed back to the age of child labor and no workplace safety laws.
Bettie
(16,058 posts)vacation, sick pay, overtime pay, and weekends too!
Triana
(22,666 posts)The Koch Bros Usurping Crap Court (their two buddies there) will see that those "big" "bad" unions get demolished.