- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,874
I was kind of surprised that there wasn't a thread on this yet. For anyone, conservative or liberal, who is not familiar, I truly hope that you review this development or at the very least read the rest of this OP.
For legal scholars, public union members (teachers, prison guards, etc.), and labor activists, this has been feared ever since the GOP unconstitutionally refused to vote on Obama's most recent Supreme Court nominee.
This ruling will effectively (a) trample states' rights to determine their own public fee sharing arrangements, and (b) severely weaken and most likely lead to the eventual demise of public unions. Up to this point, public unions have endured against right-wing de-unionization efforts better than private unions, which used to dominate.
Currently undergoing arguments, the Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling on Janus v. AFSCME, a case initiated by Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner in an effort to destroy state unions by overturning 40 years-old precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that, while dissenting public union members cannot be required to pay dues towards their union's political activities (such as lobbying), they must pay agency fees or "fair share" fees that go entirely to collective bargaining on their behalf.
In (very) short, the conservatives' argument is that, simply because the employer is the government and the union is public, requiring the beneficiaries of public unions to pay anything toward their own collective bargaining is an abridgment of their First Amendment rights to oppose political speech: that any sort of public unionization is itself political speech.
By issuing this ruling, the Supreme Court will effectively institute the most stringent form of Right to Work law across all public employment and make it practically impossible for unions/collective bargaining units to regulate or deter "free riding." Under this apparently-imminent legal regime, a public employee who personally benefits through their wages and working conditions from a union cannot be required to support that union and can simply opt out and free ride the union's benefits. It would basically make public unions only exist via charitable contribution from scrupulous beneficiaries, while their oh-so-principled colleagues reap the benefits and don't pay toward their accrual, having their cake and eating it to.
This is especially hilarious given that the Court's core conservative Justices, namely Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy (Gorsuch has only been on the bench for a matter of months) have been much, much less protective of and deferential to free speech protections than their liberal colleagues in most areas of free speech challenges. That's right: while the liberal judges have continually protected American citizens' right to free speech in such areas as assisting foreign social groups, protesting government abuse, and insulting public figures, these great libertarian conservative Justices NOW are finding their rigid regard for free speech....now that it kills workers' ability to aggregate their economic concerns and improve their lives.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...e-likely-permanently-weaken-public-ncna851376
Of course, there is the surface-level partisan aspects to this story as well: unions and union members largely support Democrats. So, Republicans want to lower their wages and dissolve their ability to aggregate their political voice in support of Democrats. Unsurprisingly, Democrats want the unions to stay in their already-limping state, having already been assaulted by right-wing suits of yore.
However, if we are to be less cynical, this can be detached from partisanship on the simple bases that this ruling will gravely injure, both financially and politically, millions of lower middle class citizens. This is NOT, by any rational appraisal, a soapbox for free speech, since the past 80 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence has repeatedly shown that the conservative court doesn't give two shakes about free speech.
For legal scholars, public union members (teachers, prison guards, etc.), and labor activists, this has been feared ever since the GOP unconstitutionally refused to vote on Obama's most recent Supreme Court nominee.
This ruling will effectively (a) trample states' rights to determine their own public fee sharing arrangements, and (b) severely weaken and most likely lead to the eventual demise of public unions. Up to this point, public unions have endured against right-wing de-unionization efforts better than private unions, which used to dominate.
Currently undergoing arguments, the Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling on Janus v. AFSCME, a case initiated by Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner in an effort to destroy state unions by overturning 40 years-old precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that, while dissenting public union members cannot be required to pay dues towards their union's political activities (such as lobbying), they must pay agency fees or "fair share" fees that go entirely to collective bargaining on their behalf.
In (very) short, the conservatives' argument is that, simply because the employer is the government and the union is public, requiring the beneficiaries of public unions to pay anything toward their own collective bargaining is an abridgment of their First Amendment rights to oppose political speech: that any sort of public unionization is itself political speech.
By issuing this ruling, the Supreme Court will effectively institute the most stringent form of Right to Work law across all public employment and make it practically impossible for unions/collective bargaining units to regulate or deter "free riding." Under this apparently-imminent legal regime, a public employee who personally benefits through their wages and working conditions from a union cannot be required to support that union and can simply opt out and free ride the union's benefits. It would basically make public unions only exist via charitable contribution from scrupulous beneficiaries, while their oh-so-principled colleagues reap the benefits and don't pay toward their accrual, having their cake and eating it to.
This is especially hilarious given that the Court's core conservative Justices, namely Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy (Gorsuch has only been on the bench for a matter of months) have been much, much less protective of and deferential to free speech protections than their liberal colleagues in most areas of free speech challenges. That's right: while the liberal judges have continually protected American citizens' right to free speech in such areas as assisting foreign social groups, protesting government abuse, and insulting public figures, these great libertarian conservative Justices NOW are finding their rigid regard for free speech....now that it kills workers' ability to aggregate their economic concerns and improve their lives.
At issue in the case are the laws in 22 states which allow public unions to require that public employees who are not union members to pay so-called “agency” or “fair share” fees. The idea is that even public employees who are not members benefit from the collective bargaining of that union, and therefore should pay for the union’s representation. Without the ability of unions to charge these agency fees, unions would be spending a great deal of time and money negotiating contracts that benefit both members of unions and non-union members. This creates the problem of non-union “free-riders”— workers who benefit from the union’s collective bargaining efforts but don't pay for them.
The Supreme Court blessed this arrangement in a 1977 case called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the court found that public employees could be forced to pay for expenses associated with collective bargaining and other related activities, but not for political activities. Despite the court’s ruling in Abood, Mark Janus, a public employee who is not a member of a public union, claims that the state law allowing unions to require him to pay agency fees violates his First Amendment rights. Janus specifically argues that by forcing him to pay for union activity with which he disagrees, he is being compelled to speak for and associate with the union.
At first blush, Janus’ argument seems to make some sense. Even if he does benefit from the public union’s collective bargaining, there’s something problematic about forcing him to spend money to support activities he doesn’t endorse.
The problem is that Janus isn’t actually forced to pay for these activities. Instead, what Janus and other public employees are forced to do is to sign a letter, usually once per year, asking to opt-out of the union’s political spending and then wait for the refund of the percentage of agency fees that were spent on political activity.
The state laws that currently allow public unions to compel non-members to pay agency fees are far from perfect. For example, it can be difficult to separate union political spending from spending on collective bargaining. The idea that we can treat those two types of spending as distinct assumes something that Janus urges us to reject: that spending on collective bargaining isn’t inherently political. The current framework also puts the burden on employees to opt out of union political spending, as opposed to putting the burden on unions to trying to get employees to opt in.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...e-likely-permanently-weaken-public-ncna851376
Of course, there is the surface-level partisan aspects to this story as well: unions and union members largely support Democrats. So, Republicans want to lower their wages and dissolve their ability to aggregate their political voice in support of Democrats. Unsurprisingly, Democrats want the unions to stay in their already-limping state, having already been assaulted by right-wing suits of yore.
However, if we are to be less cynical, this can be detached from partisanship on the simple bases that this ruling will gravely injure, both financially and politically, millions of lower middle class citizens. This is NOT, by any rational appraisal, a soapbox for free speech, since the past 80 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence has repeatedly shown that the conservative court doesn't give two shakes about free speech.
Last edited: