(Supreme Court) Argument preview: New threat to public employee unions

Scotus Blog ^ | 01/04/2015 | Lyle Denniston

[aimhigh]

Next Monday, January 11, when the Supreme Court returns from its holiday recess, it will devote an expanded argument to a case that has made unions which represent government workers deeply fearful for their financial future and their public stature. A significant blow to their treasuries could come if non-union workers are able to turn broad hints by the Supreme Court into final victory in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.

Since 1977, the Court has allowed public-sector unions to charge the non-members whom they represent fees to cover the cost of bargaining over working conditions that will benefit those non-members as well as the union’s own ranks on the payroll. . .

Here is their logic: because unions cannot charge non-members for political activity and since non-members argue that everything a public-sector union does — even bargaining — is political in nature, it follows that any fees violate their First Amendment right not to pay for activity to which they object. Their target, in union parlance, is the “agency fee.”

[WMarshal]

I hope the Supreme Court will rule against the unions. Even FDR knew that giving unions access to government employees was a recipe for disaster.

JFK initially allowed unionization by federal employee with a presidential executive order, I do not know if Congress has passed any laws since that put into law the relationships of public-sector unions to government. If Congress has not passed any law backing up the EO then all the next president has to do is rescind it

[Lurking Libertarian]

SCOTUS.

[marktwain]

“Here is their logic: because unions cannot charge non-members for political activity and since non-members argue that everything a public-sector union does — even bargaining — is political in nature, it follows that any fees violate their First Amendment right not to pay for activity to which they object. Their target, in union parlance, is the “agency fee.”

They are exactly correct. Everything about public sector unions is political, because they operate entirely in the political arena.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. that EO by JFK needs to be overturned .. on January 20, 2017.

[elpadre]

It seems to me that if public employees are allowed to unionize, as they are, that they are not standing against a particular governmental agency, but against the people of the USA. This cannot be supported by the Constitution.

[fella]

There should be no unions controlling the working of government.

[Fledermaus]

Public sector unions should be illegal.