Unions brace for Supreme Court Janus decision: RULING= "Right to Work" Law of the Land, Unions Lose

[Lord Coke]

Tomorrow is the last day of the Supreme Court term and there is one last major last case to be ruled on. That is Janus. I just can't wait friends. This has been an exciting term this year. The entry of Neil Gorush really shook thing up. I've noticed that the Court has only ruled on thing when absolutely necessary this term but I don't see a way for the Court to get out of the merits on this one. The conventional wisdom here is a GOP win 5-4 but I don't know Kennedy has been acting pretty conservative recently and he does not like to act that way for a long stretch. We could see a upset.

https://www.marketplace.org/2018/06/25/economy/unions-brace-supreme-court-janus-ital-decision

Supporters and opponents of organized labor are on tenterhooks this week awaiting a landmark Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME.

The case was brought by Mark Janus, a child support worker in Illinois, who chose not to join the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union that represents state employees. Janus also objected to paying a $45 union fee (known as an “agency” or “fair share” fee) that was automatically deducted from his paycheck every month under AFSCME’s contract. A union’s right to collect such fees was affirmed under the Supreme Court’s previous Abood decision, which allowed unions to charge only for services that nonunion members benefit from, such as negotiating and administering a collective bargaining agreement and handling grievance procedures.

The Janus case boils down to this: Can public-sector unions compel nonunion members to pay these fees? Or is that a violation of those workers’ First Amendment rights, and thus impermissible under the Constitution because the fees may also support the union’s political speech and legislative agenda?

A lot is at stake for labor unions nationwide if AFSCME loses, said Celine McNicholas, director of labor law and policy at the progressive Economic Policy Institute.

“Unions will still be required to represent everyone in the collective bargaining unit, regardless of whether a worker is paying that "fair share" fee or not,” said McNicholas. “This is going to make effective collective bargaining very difficult for unions that are going to be asked to do the same with fewer resources — potentially dramatically fewer resources.”

 

[Fawlty]

Odd that people would be happy about enforced theft of union benefits through free riding, but it do.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

the two faced Roman God?

 

[irish_thug]

This has the potential to be very very bad. You pay your share, the Union has your back. That's how it works.

 

[Quequeg]

Conservatards cheer the destruction of Unions as they complain about the decline of the middle class, American non millionaire Conservatives are dumbest creatures in existence.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I don't know why people think they can golf on my golf course, without paying green fees.

You don't have a right, to golf on my private golf course. That is what a union is, a private golf course.

 

[irish_thug]

I don't know why people think they can golf on my golf course, without paying green fees.

You don't have a right, to golf on my private golf course. That is what a union is, a private golf course.

But a golf course open to all. Just pay the green fee.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The Janus case boils down to this: Can public-sector unions compel nonunion members to pay these fees? Or is that a violation of those workers’ First Amendment rights, and thus impermissible under the Constitution because the fees may also support the union’s political speech and legislative agenda?

If the unions are extracting taxpayer funded dues then it's sticky. If the union is engaging in political speech on the taxpayer's dime and forcing the workers to donate then that doesn't sound very First Amendmenty.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Conservatards cheer the destruction of Unions as they complain about the decline of the middle class, American non millionaire Conservatives are dumbest creatures in existence.

There isn’t a group dumber and more self hating than those folks.

 

[phipps66]

This is already a thing. The public sector union that represents my line of business has dues paying and non dues paying members. Even if you don't pay in, you're still represented by the union and covered under the contract. Totally up to the individual. I guess the rub here would be the scale and size of the unions involved.

Guess the supreme court decides if people don't have to pay their fair share and can get something for free on the back of others. Doesn't sound like something most "conservatives" would get behind. Then again the counterpoint is the whole union busting aspect. Interesting for sure.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Conservatards cheer the destruction of Unions as they complain about the decline of the middle class, American non millionaire Conservatives are dumbest creatures in existence.

As a conservative, I do cheer the destruction of public sector unions (FDR opposed them to), but I am becoming increasingly in favor of private sector unions.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

????

I thought the Janus project was a secret project of the Council of Judges, where they would take the best, most fit Judges and replicate their DNA to create a force of super Judges?

I am not Justice expert tho, just what I heard.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

On the for reals, let us just hope they do away with teacher and police unions. M I rite?

 

[Johnny Mac]

Unions have bankrupted too many companies in America. Hopefully the Supreme Court does the right thing.

 

[Prutfis]

????

I thought the Janus project was a secret project of the Council of Judges, where they would take the best, most fit Judges and replicate their DNA to create a force of super Judges?

I am not Justice expert tho, just what I heard.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Right to work type things have me in all a state of both sides ism. I don’t feel a person should be forced to pay into a union to work a job, but that person shouldn’t be getting the benefits of that union without paying his fair share for the work they do

 

[Amerikuracana]

Conservatards cheer the destruction of Unions as they complain about the decline of the middle class, American non millionaire Conservatives are dumbest creatures in existence.

The Ds weren't very pro-union this last time around. It hurt.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Scalia had been waiting to overturn Abood for years. Gorsuch didn't really change that. It depends on Kennedy. I'm 80/20 that it's overturned and public sector unions are finished (not a good thing, imo)

 

[Seano]

I'm not sure how it works for everyone but you still get the benefits of the union when you pay the dues where I work , even if you aren't a member. You just don't have any say in the voting and decision making process. Its a benefit, weird that people don't want it.

The effectiveness of their union is another point but its not a whole lot different than when a place requires you to have health insurance, is it?

 

[luckyshot]

"Right to Work"= Law of the Land... Unions Lose

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/27/17501724/supreme-court-unions-janus-opinion

The Court had no reason for overturning the 40 year-old Abood precedent except that it didn't like the decision in the first place.

Once again, the Republican SCOTUS shows that it doesn't care about states rights or voters decisions-- only a narrowly interpreted but broadly applied form of individual rights that can be used to undermine every social institution and attempt at collective action.

The dissent is poetic and true:
"There is no sugarcoating today's decision - the majority has overthrown a decision entrenched in this nation's economic life for over 40 years... The majority has overruled Abood for no special reason but because it never liked the decision. It overruled Abood because it wanted to. Because, that is, it wanted to pick the winning side in what should be-- and has been until now-- an energetic policy debate [between strong union and "right to work" states]. And maybe most alarming, the majority has chosen the winners by turning the First Amendment into a sword and using it against economic and regulatory policy."