Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Right-to-Work law could be headed for more delays after Supreme Court arguments (WV)
WV Metro News ^ | September 5, 2017 | Jeff Jenkins

Posted on 09/05/2017 4:41:27 PM PDT by buckalfa

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — It’s possible there could be additional delays before a decision is made on the constitutionality of the West Virginia Workplace Freedom Act following an hour of oral arguments Tuesday before the state Supreme Court.

Justice Margaret Workman questioned the decision by the office of state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey to bring the right-to-work law to the Supreme Court before there’s been a full hearing on the merits of the case in circuit court.

“I just think you all are taking a shortcut coming up here wanting all of the answers without the lower court having made any substantive ruling on a lot of issues,” Workman told Tom Johnson, who argued the case on behalf of Morrisey.

Morrisey wants the Court to vacate a preliminary injunction entered by Kanawha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey in August 2016. Bailey sided with labor unions that claim the law, approved by the legislature in 2016, would harm them by allowing non-members to benefit from collective bargaining while not having to pay union dues.

“It would invite freeloaders,” attorney Bob Battress, arguing the case for the West Virginia AFL-CIO, told Supreme Court members Tuesday. “Workers can ask, ‘Why should I pay for services that I could get for free?'”

Justice Workman continued to urge a full hearing on the law at the circuit court level.

“In my mind this is the appeal of the granting of the temporary injunction, nothing more,” Workman said. “There ought to be a decision on these substantive issues by the circuit court.”

Johnson argued the injunction should be overturned because there’s not a substantial likelihood of success on appeal. Justice Menis Ketchum said that’s another reason the case should be sent back to circuit court.

“It still goes back to the circuit judge for the union to develop the constitutional arguments,” Ketchum said.

Right-to-work legislation was such a priority during the 2016 session that it was officially Senate Bill 1. It was introduced in the Senate and sent to Judiciary on the very first day of the that year’s legislative session, Jan. 13, 2016

It passed both houses and was sent to then-Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin by Feb. 8. He swiftly vetoed it Feb. 11, and both houses overrode his veto the very next day.

The law went into effect July 1, 2016. Judge Bailey approved a temporary injunction supported by unions on Aug. 10. The law has been on hold since then.

The overriding issue is whether employees who join a workplace represented by a union have to pay some form of dues, whether they embrace union representation or not.

Tuesday’s arguments were the first of the fall term for the Supreme Court. The Court could make one of any number of decisions with the case. An order is expected sometime later this year.

West Virginia Josh Sword urged the Supreme Court to allow Judge Bailey the time to make a ruling on the merits of the case.

West Virginia Josh Sword urged the Supreme Court to allow Judge Bailey the time to make a ruling on the merits of the case.

“It is our hope that the Supreme Court justices will allow the temporary injunction to remain in place so that Judge Bailey can take the time she needs to make a determination,” Sword said in a statement released after the arguments were made Tuesday.

In a prepared statement, Morrisey said the law needs to be allowed to go into effect.

“Today my office vigorously defended the Workplace Freedom Act. We believe this is plainly constitutional legislation. Courts have repeatedly upheld similar laws, and we remain hopeful the court will agree with our arguments,” Morrisey said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: West Virginia
KEYWORDS: biglabor; lawsuit; righttowork; ruling; unions; wv
Unions fighting for their power and finances in WV. Funny how a county level non appellate judge can block progress on job creation in a state that so desperately needs employment. Side note, Morrissey(R) is challenging Joe Manchin for a US Senate seat.
1 posted on 09/05/2017 4:41:28 PM PDT by buckalfa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

“It would invite freeloaders”, like union members who get paid even when they’re not working, because they’re on standby.

Those kinds of freeloaders?

Why is there a case about this at all? Texas is (largely) anti-union and has been for a long time.

Down with unions.


2 posted on 09/05/2017 4:43:53 PM PDT by TheZMan (I am a secessionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

What gives the unions the idea that they own those jobs?


3 posted on 09/05/2017 4:45:54 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ( "If fascism ever comes to America, it will be called liberalism." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
What gives the unions the idea that they own those jobs?

Democrat party

4 posted on 09/05/2017 4:48:24 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

Meanwhile, unions would fight to the death any effort to modify the National Labor Relations Act, so that union agreements in a mixed workplace would cover ONLY their members.


5 posted on 09/05/2017 4:50:33 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Socialists want YOUR wealth redistributed, never THEIRS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; All
"Meanwhile, unions would fight to the death any effort to modify the National Labor Relations Act, so that union agreements in a mixed workplace would cover ONLY their members."

Thank you for posting SauronOfMordor. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Patriots are reminded that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect labor unions or grant the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate labor.

The following clarification by a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices is evidence that the feds have no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate labor.

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So the National Labor Relations Act is based on state powers that post-17th Amendment ratification career federal lawmakers stole from the states imo.

In fact, other than their power as ordinary voters, labor unions have no express constitutional protection from 10th Amendment-protected state powers.

Corrections, insights welcome.

If schools were teaching the Constitution as they should be, as the Founding States had intended for it to be understood, especially the Constitution’s division of federal and state powers, then it wouldn’t surprise me if school children came up with the same conclusion about this issue.

6 posted on 09/05/2017 6:53:22 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson