Breaking: Supreme Court sides with Illinois state worker Mark Janus in his (and @GovRauner's) case against AFSCME. "Fair share" union fees are deemed unconstitutional, a First Amendment violation, parting with 41 years of caselaw. Opinion: https://t.co/vCIOvwuxnt
JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize
a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly
object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining
and related activities. We conclude that this
arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers
by compelling them to subsidize private speech on
matters of substantial public concern
- The Dude Abides - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:13 am:
It will be interesting to hear the details. I would hope that the court will address whether the Unions will have to continue to negotiate for workers who refuse to join the Union or pay dues.
Alito opens with,”Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions.”
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:13 am:
What is more worrisome than losing fair share feepayers is losing exclusive representation. If someone like Rauner can bribe people not covered by unions with higher pay and benefits, that could spread to union members. Now the non-members must abide by what the unions negotiate—if I understand correctly.
Bruce Rauner will be a hero to many but the opposite to many. The question is who will prevail in November and in other elections.
So is it a done deal or does it go back to lower court?
===Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018)
Opinion of the Court
was wrongly decided and is now overruled. The
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered. ===
I am old enought to remember when conservatives thought judicial activism was a terrible thing. Keep in mind the court has simply said “opt outs are now allowed. The rest will be up to the state. There are many plans across the country. There certainly will be more struggles along the way. The end result may be simple. The union will negotiate for its members. The rest might be on their own. But the state would probably say, we will give everyone what the union wins in negotiations. We shall see.
“…the nonmembers were told that they had to pay for “lobbying,”
“social and recreational activities,”
“membership meetings and conventions,” and
as well as other unspecified “services” that “may ultimately inure to the benefit of the members of the local bargaining unit.”… The total chargeable amount for nonmembers was 78.06% of full union dues.”
Of course none of that has been political, in the 40 years since Abood.
For my part I will represent all members and non members willingly.
No better way to get someone to join
Than to be there when they need you
I will have to adjust to being big about it.
there will be a lot of folks who will have to learn the hard way why you need the union
I’m confident though
Unions can negotiate all they want, but they can’t keep so called “free riders” out of any concessions won. The key language below particularity the words “nonconsenting” and “affirmatively” should help..
For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.
Honeybear is right. A lot of people have forgotten the history, what the workplace was like before unions.
- My wallet's gone! My wallet's gone! - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:04 am:
Goodness, people. Don’t act like there wasn’t a viable constitutional argument on the winning side of this Both sides of the case had a certain moral high ground here, and the timing of WHEN it came up to the Supreme Court certainly an effect on the outcome…as it has in many cases over the past century.
I honestly don’t have a dog in this hunt, but sheesh; many of you are making it sound as if the primordial forces of the universe have been disrupted by an evil overlord. If you can’t understand that this case could have gone either way even before Gorsuch joined the Court, you’re living in a dream
I’ll shut up now and take my lumps.
- Mike Cirrincione - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:04 am:
And I wonder…..
- A customer of a big corporation using this customers dollars to plead in court to take away an employees right to sue sand force arbitration. Sure seems like a First Amendment issue for the courts to decide.
- A Sincerely Held Religious Belief (someone who is Pro Life, for the Whole Life) that opposes tax dollars being used to fund the War Departnent.
This was inevitable. Public employee unions must work much harder to demonstrate their relevance. If they do, those who choose to remain in the union will be more committed, vocal, and active. Unions are monetarily strengthened by the assessment of fair share fees, but in my opinion it politically weakens them because they can always be criticized as “forcing” workers to contribute to a cause (i.e. the Democratic Party) they don’t support. This weakens the labor movement in the eyes of the general public, most of whom work in professions where unionization is impractical, unnecessary, or impossible.
I’m a union member and come from a labor-connected household. I’ve seen the benefits of union membership firsthand. But the dues-for-service model is rendered weak by the passivity it breeds. Unions are effective when workers identify with, support, and utilize the union to affect change. They also need to win the “hearts and minds” of voters outside of the union. This is especially true with regard to public sector unions, as taxpayers think of themselves as paying the bill for their members salaries and benefits. This means being politically active and putting boots on the ground to place direct pressure on employers, lawmakers, media, and the public when you aren’t being properly treated of compensated.
The decision forces unions to alter their strategy. It also has the potential to galvanize labor opposition to Rauner and mobilize it in support of JB in spite of his negatives. Ideologically, it’s fraught. But politically, it is necessary.
My wallets gone- we are going nuts
But here’s why
If they get enough of us to leave a bargaining unit
They could decertify the union.
If they decertify it
Then nothing can stop the employer from saying
Your job gets paid x now
And no benefits or grievance process
If I’ve worked my whole career at a job
And I suddenly get my salary cut to what I made in year one,
You can see why that gets people jacked up
Is there a single government employer out there
We could trust not to do that?
Remember local and state governments
Are controlled mostly by Republicans
There’s the game