Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
Author Message
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 18,295
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1535
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #1
Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/...ecide.html

Quote:A $45 monthly fee could end up costing big labor billions. Public unions are getting nervous, while those who don’t like how they operate are claiming the free lunch may be over soon.





An explosive case regarding government employees and the First Amendment that the Supreme Court will hear on Feb. 26 could redefine the relationship between public unions and workers.

Petitioner Mark Janus works at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and didn’t like that a certain amount was deducted from his paycheck — he didn’t believe he should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to be allowed to work for the state. He didn’t agree with the 1.3 million-member AFSCME union’s politics, and so believed, under the First Amendment, he couldn’t be forced to contribute.

In his court filing, Janus quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said to “compel a man to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

Quote:If the Supreme Court finds for Janus, it could have a major effect on labor unions. Without compulsory fees, union funding could decrease precipitously. States might attempt workarounds — paying employees less rather than deducting from their paychecks, and passing along the savings to unions — but that sort of thing could be politically difficult to pull off.

Quote:The central question in “Janus” is this: Should the court overrule its 1977 decision “Abood v. Detroit Board of Education”? In “Abood,” the Supreme Court declared that schoolteachers could be required to pay fees to public unions as long as the money was spent on the costs of collective bargaining and related issues, and not on ideological causes.

Court watchers may be getting a sense of déjà vu from “Janus” -- in the past several years, the Supreme Court has already looked at this question a couple of times.

There was “Harris v. Quinn” (2014), where the court determined that non-union employees couldn’t be forced to pay fees to labor unions, even though they received compensation from government sources that was determined through collective bargaining. The case was decided 5-4, with the five justices generally considered conservative — Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — comprising the majority, and the four Justices generally considered liberal — Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — dissenting.

More on point was “Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association” (2016), which asked if a school district requiring employees to join a union or pay a fee infringed on their First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. In other words, the court was being asked to reconsider “Abood.”

And they might have done just that, except that Associate Justice Scalia died before the case could be decided. This left the court split with four liberals and four conservatives, so they simply put out a one-line opinion that affirmed the lower court decision, leaving the question for another day.

And now, with “Janus,” that day has come.

The biggest change since “Friedrichs” then, is not the facts of the case, but the makeup of the court. Scalia has been replaced with Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, and many believe he’ll be the fifth vote to overturn “Abood.” (If President Barack Obama’s choice to replace Scalia, Merrick Garland, had been seated, it’s possible the court wouldn’t even be hearing the “Janus” case.)

In fact, many experts see the decision to take up the case as a sign that the court is ready to side with Janus and overrule their precedent.

Quote:Many states might not be happy with such a ruling, but, as Napolitano notes, the First Amendment supersedes state arrangements with labor. Indeed, Napolitano, a civil libertarian, would hail a decision on behalf of Janus, and hopes “everyone who believes that the First Amendment means what it says would applaud.”

Quote:For his part, Napolitano can’t summon up too much sympathy for these unions, since they’ve gotten themselves into this situation. As he puts it, “some labor leaders believe this will be almost a fatal blow — you know what, that’s their fault….No one is saying that labor unions [shouldn’t] exist; they just have to make themselves attractive so that people join voluntarily, rather than under the state’s compulsion.”
02-09-2018 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

hoopfan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,230
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 109
I Root For: hoops
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
We can only hope.
Public sector unions are abhorrent.
02-09-2018 03:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 18,295
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1535
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #3
RE: Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
(02-09-2018 03:26 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  We can only hope.
Public sector unions are abhorrent.

Agree. The accounts I would hear from colleagues up north about the amount of control unions had over their departments would astound you.
02-09-2018 06:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,512
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 576
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #4
RE: Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
#popcorn
02-09-2018 06:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

bullet Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,373
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
(02-09-2018 06:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 03:26 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  We can only hope.
Public sector unions are abhorrent.

Agree. The accounts I would hear from colleagues up north about the amount of control unions had over their departments would astound you.

And then they try to entrench the party that put them there.
02-09-2018 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 34,076
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 1300
I Root For: StL Blues & USM
Location: who knows?
Post: #6
RE: Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
kill the unions.....kill 'em all off......just kill 'em.....

they have outgrown their useful intent.....

they rank right up there with many a lobbyist.....

pick 'em off one at a time.....

[Image: fun-fair_anim_11.gif]
02-11-2018 12:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Domestic Terrorist and Iconoclast
*

Posts: 34,586
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 687
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #7
RE: Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
(02-09-2018 03:26 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  We can only hope.
Public sector unions are abhorrent.

I agree. There is no collective bargaining in this paradigm. I as a citizen can not be involved in the bargaining.
02-11-2018 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

NIUAlum90 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,851
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 67
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
PATCO vs Reagan.

Enough said.
02-12-2018 08:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
*

Posts: 21,762
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 519
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
I agree. There is no collective bargaining in this paradigm. I as a citizen can not be involved in the bargaining.


BS....


You are a citizen and can vote and this is why Gorsuch was such a huge deal. It's a stolen seat.
02-12-2018 08:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
*

Posts: 21,762
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 519
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Could Supreme Court case spell the end of public sector unions?
Workers in the private sector had used the strike as a tool of leverage in labor-management conflicts between World War II and 1981, repeatedly withholding their work to win fairer treatment from recalcitrant employers. But after Patco, that weapon was largely lost. Reagan’s unprecedented dismissal of skilled strikers encouraged private employers to do likewise. Phelps Dodge and International Paper were among the companies that imitated Reagan by replacing strikers rather than negotiating with them. Many other employers followed suit.

By 2010, the number of workers participating in walkouts was less than 2 percent of what it had been when Reagan led the actors’ strike in 1952. Lacking the leverage that strikes once provided, unions have been unable to pressure employers to increase wages as productivity rises. Inequality has ballooned to a level not seen since Reagan’s boyhood in the 1920s.


Inequality will continue to increase.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinio...nions.html
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2018 08:37 AM by Machiavelli.)
02-12-2018 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.