US High Court weighs anti-union fund fight

[Omaha Steve]

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/18/scotus



AUDIO story: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/popup.php?name=marketplace/pm/2008/03/18/marketplace_cast2_20080318_64&starttime=00:08:36.0&endtime=00:10:34.0

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether California employers can spend state money on anti-union activities. It's a battle between free speech and taxpayer rights, but with a twist. John Dimsdale reports.

TEXT OF STORY

KAI RYSSDAL: It was guns in the Supreme Court today -- the biggest Second Amendment case in 70 years was on the docket. Tomorrow, it's going to be money. The justices will hear a challenge to a California law that prevents employers from spending public funds on anti-union activities. Nine other states, including New York and Ohio, have similar statutes.

From Washington, Marketplace's John Dimsdale has our preview.

John Dimsdale: The Bush administration has joined national business groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in challenging California's restrictions on using state money to fight union organizing. Attorney Mike Carvin, representing the Chamber, says the state ban directly contradicts national policy.

Mike Carvin: Federal law makes it clear they not only allow employers to engage in that kind of speech, they want them to engage in that kind of speech -- because it's of great benefit to the employees on making an informed decision about whether or not to join a union.

The ban affects only companies that do business with states and collect taxpayer money. That's mainly health care providers -- hospitals and nursing homes -- that rely heavily on income from state Medicaid payments. Jeffrey Sherrin represents health care companies that are challenging New York's law.

FULL story at link.

[rpannier]

1. Thanks for the post

Keep us informed.
It's an important fight

[Earth Bound Misfit]

2. k & r...

An ENORMOUS story, thanks Steve!:yourock: