- 27 Feb 2018 16:22
#14892289
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry
This seems to be an interesting case and if the court rules in favor of Mark Janus, which it looks like it might, I think this could have a greater impact on American politics than people realize.
What is everyone's thoughts on this case?
http://www.governing.com/topics/workfor ... -dues.html
Also good coverage:
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/58253988 ... unions-dry
What is everyone's thoughts on this case?
Supreme Court Justices Clash, Again, on Public Union Fees
The high court revisited an issue that has divided its members several times. The viability of public-sector unions could hang in the balance.
For the third time in four years, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court clashed over the rights of government employees who don’t want to pay for the union services they receive in labor-friendly states.
But one judge's voice was conspicuously absent.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court last year after being appointed by President Donald Trump, remained silent during arguments on Monday. That’s notable because Gorsuch has seemed eager to spar with his colleagues during previous arguments and, more importantly, because he was the only member of the court not to participate in a similar case that ended in a 4-4 tie two years ago after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Gorsuch has voted reliably with the court’s conservative bloc, which wants to invalidate mandatory fees for union services and, in the process, overturn a 1977 decision called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that allowed for unions to collect them. That's left many observers to conclude that the Abood ruling is hanging by a thread.
Both inside and outside the courtroom, the arguments in Monday’s case centered on two distinct but very much interconnected themes.
The first is the heart of the legal argument: Does it violate a public employee’s First Amendment rights to be forced to pay an “agency fee” for services that unions provide on his behalf? Agency fees, sometimes called “fair-share fees,” are different from union dues. They pay for services like collective bargaining and grievance resolutions but do not pay for direct lobbying or political donations.
The challengers to the agency fees argue that they violate the constitutional right to free speech because they are a form of forced speech that requires non-union members to back union positions on the size, scope and operations of government.
The second main theme deals with political reality: Would eliminating unions’ ability to collect agency fees cripple their ability to represent workers and the ability of governments to manage their workplaces?
Unions and their supporters claim that getting rid of the agency fees would create a “free rider” problem. People would stop paying union dues because they were getting the services from the unions anyway. That, in turn, would drive up the price of union dues, prompting more people to leave the union. Eventually, the unions would not be financially viable or represent enough workers to collectively bargain on their behalf.
The political implications were not lost on the judges.
http://www.governing.com/topics/workfor ... -dues.html
Also good coverage:
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/58253988 ... unions-dry
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry