"... in which the justices will consider whether an Illinois law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment,"
SCOTUSblog notes, pointing us to various previews (so go there for the links). Excerpt:
At Reuters, Robert Iafolla and Lawrence Hurley report that “[t]aking away mandatory agency fees could have profound implications for public-sector union coffers.” For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that although “[a]ttitudes about the value of public-sector unions underlie the case,” “[t]he specific legal question before the court … is more abstract.”... For The New York Times, Noam Scheiber and Kenneth Vogel report that “[t]he case illustrates the cohesiveness with which conservative philanthropists have taken on the unions in recent decades.”...
The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal maintains that a ruling for Mark Janus “wouldn’t be a death blow to government unions, though they might have to prioritize resources and reduce political spending.” At The Nation, David Cole and Amanda Shanor argue that “[t]he First Amendment protects the right to speech, but not the right to get something for nothing.”...
LII summarizes the case drily:
This case will decide whether public-sector workers represented by a union can be required to pay agency fees. Janus argues that requiring public-sector workers to pay agency fees constitutes compelled speech and association, imposing undue restrictions on workers’ First Amendment rights. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (“AFSCME”) argues that imposing agency fees on all workers allows unions to appropriately and fairly represent all workers’ interests, which unions are legally required to do. This issue affects every dues-paying, public sector worker. Accordingly, this case will impact the way unions organize and represent public-sector workers.
Posts
59 comments:
The unions are looking at what Walker did and are trembling in their boots.
Unions have been thugs from the beginning, there may be some exceptions but I'm not aware of them.
Small steps.
But FDR was right. Public-sector unions are an outrageous conspiracy against the public and should be banned forthwith.
I thought John Roberts settled this one years ago. Just discover the mandatory union dues pay government taxes. And if you don't like it, move to a right to work state.
"public-sector unions"
Note the argument is much weaker with Fed Unions who can't bargain over wages, benefits etc.
”"... in which the justices will consider whether an Illinois law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment," SCOTUSblog notes,”
Non-members are also charged for a lot of political activity they may not agree with. Isn’t that the crux of the issue?
At The Nation, David Cole and Amanda Shanor argue that “[t]he First Amendment protects the right to speech, but not the right to get something for nothing.”...
I've never bought the free rider argument. So no limits on what someone could consider a benefit and obligate others to pay for?
What about 'protection' rackets?
I absolutely think it is wrong to require workers to pay unions to "represent them" if the worker does not believe that the union is representing the worker's interests, as that worker sees them.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced this violates the 1st Amendment ( or any other Constitutional rights ). Not every government policy that is wrong is unconstitutional.
"...Council 31 (“AFSCME”) argues that imposing agency fees on all workers allows unions to appropriately and fairly represent all workers’ interests ..."
I read somewhere this morning about 35% of union members are Republican but more than 90% of money unions give to political parties goes to Democrats. Can Supreme Court decide to keep obligatory dues while directing union to distribute cash more evenly or is it too late for that now?
Original Mike said...
Non-members are also charged for a lot of political activity they may not agree with. Isn’t that the crux of the issue?
Officially non-members can opt out of fees used for political activity. You can probably dispute the union's accounting methods to argue that they are using "negotiating money" to subsidize political activities, but that is not the issue before the court today.
Unions provide two roles-wage and benefit negotiation and political activism.
People receiving the former should not have to pay for the latter.
I don't know if the SC can disambiguate the two. If not, then I'd side with the plaintiff and make it perfectly clear that unions collecting dues for all those under collective bargaining is ok as long as dues for political activities are voluntarily. History can be a guide-if AFSCME spent 25% of dues collected on lobbying the past year, then the mandatory dues would be 75% of current, and the voluntary contribution to political activities would be 25% (and these would not be deductible, unlike the union dues.)
Drums don't grow on trees you know.
Public sector unions are nothing but government sanctioned labor monopolies with a charter to steal from the public.
Labor law already limits freedom of association.
X and Y can join forces and acquire more rights against Z than they had individually. In particular they can require Z to negotiate with them.
All you have to do is look at how much membership in a union drops when people don't have to join to be able to have a job to know how much a lot of workers think union membership benefits them. When I went to my first teachers' union meeting after I was forced to join if I wanted to teach, in a school with a large enough faculty to teach 2500 students, ten people showed up, and other than the shop steward, everyone of us was a new teacher. Union dues and administrative fees are nothing short of extortion.
Public unions are interest groups, not unions, in any case.
Of course, if free-riding is really a problem, unions could advocate for changing federal law such that the union only represents the people who join the union. Problem solved.
But of course, unions don't want that, because they need the power to negotiate everybody's wages and benefits. Otherwise, above-average workers could opt out of the union and negotiate a better deal on their own. At which point, the average value of the union worker drops, so the deal the union can negotiate drops, and more workers opt out. Death spiral.
jwl - absolutely not. That would be compelled speech by the government on the unions, and could not be allowed under the First Amendment.
I agree with Janus position as well, BTW, and expect the court will as well (5-4, of course!)
Michael K said...History can be a guide-if AFSCME spent 25% of dues collected on lobbying the past year, then the mandatory dues would be 75% of current, and the voluntary contribution to political activities would be 25% (and these would not be deductible, unlike the union dues.)
and
- all the union no-show make work jobs for Dem organizers?
- the rabid pro-Dem news letters?
- GOTV drives?
- Demonstrations for Dem causes?
At The Nation, David Cole and Amanda Shanor argue that “[t]he First Amendment protects the right to speech, but not the right to get something for nothing.”...
I've never bought the free rider argument. So no limits on what someone could consider a benefit and obligate others to pay for?
What about 'protection' rackets?
rehajm said...
I've never bought the free rider argument. So no limits on what someone could consider a benefit and obligate others to pay for?
Federal law (the NLRA) requires unions to represent all workers at the company, not just union members. They are required to do this both when negotiating contracts and when resolving grievances.
But, as I mentioned above, that requirement exists because the union wants that requirement to exist. If they wanted to solve the free-rider problem they could, without compelling payments from anyone, just by agreeing to change the law.
The unions have brought this on themselves by using the dues to support the Democratic Party's candidates and politics.
Unions have been thugs from the beginning, there may be some exceptions but I'm not aware of them.
You obviously know nothing about the history of labor relations in this country. Yes, there has been violence by unions, and in the middle of the last century there was substantial infiltration of unions by organized crime (aided and abetted by both management and the government), but in the grand scheme of things, management has much more blood on their hands (using both private and government force) than the workers.
What's disturbing is the number of people who think government unions are okay.
but in the grand scheme of things, management has much more blood on their hands (using both private and government force) than the workers.
Spoken like a person who obviously knows nothing about the history of labor relations in this country.
"[B]ut in the grand scheme of things unions have been thugs from the beginning."
That be true.
Freder Frederson
I grew up in Detroit and have a great Uncle who was a local UAW president. Don't presume what I know.
Freder Frederson drips both condescension and ignorance. It's an intoxicating aroma.
I was an ILWU member for a year or two.
The ILWU has a history of violence & corruption at the top.
If you have a union with a lot of member turnover it tends to be run as a plantation by union leadership. They have a bigger stake in the union than the workers it represents (the SEIU, for example).
Here's to hoping the hammer drops hard on the PUBLIC EMPLOYEE unions, which are totally unecessary.
As for traditional trade unions (Teamsters, longshoremen, etc), I kinda like those guys.
Field Marshall Freder: "...and in the middle of the last century there was substantial infiltration of unions by organized crime (aided and abetted by both management and the government),..."
LOL
"infiltration"
Yeah, like the union leadership didn't specifically go to the mob and partner up and then hand over the retirement funds to the mobs for their nefarious purposes.
The union leaders act like Soviet commissars off the backs of the workers. Which should surprise absolutely no one.
Eugene Volokh in Reason: Why There's No First Amendment Problem With Compulsory Union Agency Fees
Shareholders of corporations ... Citizens United ...
readering said...
Shareholders of corporations ... Citizens United ...
The "shareholders" of Citizens United formed Citizens United for the explicit purpose of pooling their resources to engaging in political speech.
I'm pretty sure that most people who apply for jobs, and choose not to join the union, were not taking the job for the purpose of empowering the union to speak for them.
Since IANAL, I have no grasp of why anyone would treat this as a First Amendment issue, instead of the obvious issue that it is immoral to make people pay fees for unions they don't want to be part of. And corrupt, as it leads to exactly what we see: union fees funneling to those politicians who support them.
MikeR said...
Since IANAL, I have no grasp of why anyone would treat this as a First Amendment issue, instead of the obvious issue that it is immoral to make people pay fees for unions they don't want to be part of.
It is being treated as a 1st Amendment issue because if the court decides that it is a first amendment issue, then the court can remedy that by overturning the law.
If the court decides it is merely immoral and corrupt, then they have no authority to overturn the law.
“[t]he First Amendment protects the right to speech, but not the right to get something for nothing.”...
For that, you need a union.
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
Eugene Volokh in Reason: Why There's No First Amendment Problem With Compulsory Union Agency Fees
2/26/18, 9:53 AM
where Volokh errs is his equating union dues with taxes. Just because the state can compel me to pay for speech with which I disagree, it does not follow that a union can compel me to pay for speech with I disagree as a condition of employment.
Lewis Weitzel-- wouldn't bar association dues be an equivalent?
Is this the case where they tried to unionize mothers who were caregivers to their physically- or mentally-disabled children?
Or did they try to replace home caregivers with unionized people?
Vile either way.
Blogger Robert Payne said...
Lewis Weitzel-- wouldn't bar association dues be an equivalent?
2/26/18, 10:27 AM
The language in Abood speaks only of labor unions: "constitutionally justified by the legislative assessment of the important contribution of the union shop to the system of labor relations," (from Prole's link to Volkh's article).
I understand that relabeling government unions "professional associations" is a fallback position some unions are considering. I am not sure that will work, though, since the only thing the "professional association" members will have in common is an employer.
Seeing Red said...
Is this the case where they tried to unionize mothers who were caregivers to their physically- or mentally-disabled children?
You are thinking of Harris v. Quinn, which was decided against the union. The reasoning given in the majority opinion of that is the reasoning that, if followed, will likely result in the union losing this case as well.
The Mob still controls many unions including the laboreres, carpenters, iron workers and of course the Teamsters. If you think the FBI and the government were able to get the boys out of the Unions......well think again. Sure they have clean as a whistle front men but take a look at a few of the Vice Presidents.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Frontmen like Tony Scotto, John Zaccaro and Charlie Raffa have lng been a part of our political landscape.
A burning question is will the main stream media investigate the extensive family ties to the Mob of a very prominent Democratic candidate for President. Will they give him the same level of scrutiny that they give to every porn star that gave Trump a blow job?
Nah. What amI thinking.
Interesting, compulsory support of an organization that disenfranchises Americans and captures the wages of an involuntary association. This reminds me of Planned Parenthood et al and the compulsory support of progressive liberals' selective-child doctrine. Also immigration reform that displaces and replaces Americans of select color and sex in the spirit and action of institutional diversity.
Ignorance is Bliss at 9.11 is spot on. Congress should amend the NLRA so unions only represent members.That would make being a member valuable and would force the unions to be relevant to the members. Politically it would alter the kneejerk support from the unions to the Democrats as the unions would demand their needs be met and that may not necessarily be the Democrats that will do so.
In this case, Afscme was greedy, charging 80 percent of full dues to negotiate contracts. I worked for a union for a while, and its financial reporting was a big game of hide the ball -- exaggerating the cost of negotiations while understating expenditures for political lobbying and networks of "professional" field reps. The claimant was charged $45 a month for "negotiating" on his behalf when, for the same money he could have hired his own attorney to work out a multi-year contract that addressed his personal concerns. No wonder he didn't care to surrender his autonomy for the good of the collective.
There's a saying in business: Pigs get fat; and hogs get slaughtered. If Afscme loses this one, it will have only itself to blame.
“Federal law (the NLRA) requires unions to represent all workers at the company, not just union members. They are required to do this both when negotiating contracts and when resolving grievances.“
There is no federal law that requires the unions to negotiate on behalf of all workers. Look it up. The unions can always limit their agreements with employer only for the union members.
"At The Nation, David Cole and Amanda Shanor argue that “[t]he First Amendment protects the right to speech, but not the right to get something for nothing.”..."
Hey, no problem! The Unions can stop "representing" those people who don't want to be under the Union.
Which means competent people can quit the Union, and get paid more, because they will no longer be under the Union pay scales.
The Unions having the power to "represent" workers who don't want to be part of the Union is a benefit for the Union, not the workers. They are entitled to nothing in exchange for it.
Hyphenated,
Has that law changed recently? I studied labor relations and collective bargaining in the 70s and taught it until about 10 years ago. I was pretty familiar with the NLRA.
The NLRA most definitely does require the union to represent all members of the bargaining unit regardless of whether they are union members or not.
Or at least it used to. I have not kept current with any changes.
NLRA does not cover government employees, though so perhaps you are right as to federal law requiring the union to represent state employees.
John Henry
You think the left had - and is still having - a tantrum over Citizen United?
Just wait.
This will make the lawlessness and violence in Madison over Act 10 seem like a prayer circle.
Yes, there has been violence by unions,
Yeah. Like killing a governor.
But it's those icky bosses who are really bad.
Non-members are also charged for a lot of political activity they may not agree with. Isn’t that the crux of the issue?
How is this different from, say, NARAL claiming that they work on my behalf to secure abortion rights for me, since I'm a woman, and I shouldn't get "something for nothing" so being entitled to some of my money against my strenuous objections to everything they stand for and do not to mention parting with my dough?
My wife, a conservative, must (no choice allowed) pay $1,000 a year in dues to the California Teacher's Association (CTA), which is an organization that endorses and funnels all of its political support $ to the Democratic Party.
"If you have a union with a lot of member turnover it tends to be run as a plantation by union leadership. They have a bigger stake in the union than the workers it represents (the SEIU, for example)."
More true than you know. SEIU leadership is like a ghetto rent-to-own TV & Appliance store.
“Has that law changed recently? I studied labor relations and collective bargaining in the 70s and taught it until about 10 years ago. I was pretty familiar with the NLRA.
The NLRA most definitely does require the union to represent all members of the bargaining unit regardless of whether they are union members or not. “
I remember debating this with liberals for years... not a single one was able to prove that any law requires the unions to negotiate on behalf of all workers. In reality, the law requires the unions to negotiate on behalf of non-union workers only the union forced the employer to agree that the union is the exclusive representative of all workers. In other words, the union is “forced” to negotiate on behalf of all workers, when the unions make sure that non-union workers are not allowed to negotiate on their own behalf.
If people have a first amendment right to not support the union, then the union has a first amendment right to not represent non-members.
"If people have a first amendment right to not support the union, then the union has a first amendment right to not represent non-members."
But the union does not the workers to have the right to represent themselves. Which is why unions demand that they would be the EXCLUSIVE representatives of all the workers.
Post a Comment