Posted on 09/28/2017 1:29:39 PM PDT by PROCON
In what is all but certain to be a terrible blow to organized labor, the Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it will hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case seeking to defund public sector unions. The case presents an issue that was recently before the Court, and where the justices split 4-4 along party lines.
Now that Neil Gorsuch occupies the seat that Senate Republicans held open for more than a year until Donald Trump could fill it, he holds the fifth vote to deliver a staggering blow to the union movement.
The issue in Janus involves what are sometimes referred to as agency fees or fair share fees. As ThinkProgress explained when this issue was last before the Court:
Unions are required by law to bargain on behalf of every worker in a unionized shop, even if those workers opt not to join the union. As such, non-members receive the same higher wages (one study found that workers in unionized shops enjoy a wage premium of nearly 12 percent) and benefits enjoyed by their coworkers who belong to the union.
Absent something else, this arrangement would create a free-rider problem, because individual workers have little incentive to join the union if they know they will get all the benefits of unionizing regardless of whether they reimburse the union for its costs. Eventually, unions risk becoming starved for funds and collapsing, causing the workers once represented by a union to lose the benefits of collective bargaining.
(Excerpt) Read more at thinkprogress.org ...
The source is a pro-union source.
“The plaintiff in Janus asks the Supreme Court to declare these agency fees unconstitutional, at least in contracts involving public sector unions, under what can charitably be described as an aggressive reading of the First Amendment.”
I’m not familiar with this case. But I can imagine Republican workers contributing their time (evenings and weekends) to a Republican candidate, only to see their money (forced union dues) going to the opposing Democratic candidate. I think the Beck (1988 Supreme Court decision) addressed that, but was never enforced.
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. Ok, I get it.
Even that Commie Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed public sector unions.
Why do unions need funds to negotiate contracts?
The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect unions regardless what union bullies probably want low-information members to think.
So if all Supreme Court justices respected the 10th Amendment, which they take an oath to do when they swear to protect and defend the Constitution, then wed probably be seeing more relevant Supreme Court cases concerning unions and everything else decided unanimously in the states favor.
And if we had a Congress that actually respected state sovereignty then wed have a state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court sooner than we might think.
So patriots need to pink-slip as many incumbent members of Congress as they can in the 2018 elections, replacing them with state sovereignty-respecting patriots who will support Trumps vision for MAGA.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting patriots on the primary ballots.
Bad memories?
You are on the right track.
It is a leftist myth that all workers have common interests.
That myth does not survive contact with the real world.
A long story, but let’s just say free-market economists and college teacher unions don’t mix. After $50K in legal bills and a fun 2 years leading to a favorable Arbitration when I politely refused to the Union — I did get my position back.
I can laugh now, but at the time it was unpleasant (and eye-opening) to say the least. They really are a bunch of collectivist jerks - stupid, too....
We need a go fund me page to raise enough money to buy him.
I sure hope so.
Roberts, our Mclame on the Supreme Court.
GOOD!
The union-thug bureaucRATs always "collectively bargain" against the taxpayers....who never have a seat at the table.
Awesome. The feds, in particular, need to disbanded...
The case that needs to be brought is that no union can contribute to a politician who can vote, approve or negotiate their pay or benefits or working conditions. That’s where the conflict of interest is.
Elizabeth Warren (Fauxahontas) has intorduced a bill in Congress that would BAN RIGHT TO WORK states.
That has to die & quickly.
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.