Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: This just in…
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Last year, the National Right to Work Foundation backed a federal lawsuit against the state over the unionization of personal care assistants. Assistants in the state’s rehab program voted to unionize in 2003 after a gubernatorial executive order mandating an election. Personal care assistants in the state’s disabilities program rejected union membership in 2009 after another executive order.
The disabilities assistant union election became a cause célèbre on the Right. Michelle Malkin was particularly involved.
* The lawsuit claimed the First Amendment rights of rehab assistants were violated because they were being forced to pay union dues. The disabilities assistants said their 1st Amendment rights were harmed by the possibility that the union might win a future representation election.
The plaintiffs lost the first round and they appealed. Yesterday, the appellate court ruled against them as well…
[B]ecause of the significant control the state exercises over all aspects of the personal assistants’ jobs, we conclude that personal assistants are employees of the State and reject the plaintiffs’ arguments that the State’s interests in collective bargaining do not apply to the unique circumstances of personal assistants. As such, the fair share fees in this case withstand First Amendment scrutiny—at least against a facial challenge to the imposition of the fees itself. […]
The [disability assistant] plaintiffs feel burdened fighting to prevent what they view as an unconstitutional collective bargaining agreement. But many individuals and organizations spend considerable resources fighting to prevent Congress or the state legislatures from adopting legislation that might violate the Constitution. The courts cannot judge a hypothetical future violation in this case any more than they can judge the validity of a not-yet-enacted law, no matter how likely its passage. To do so would be to render an advisory opinion, which is precisely what the doctrine of ripeness helps to prevent.
* In other labor news, the Congress Plaza Hotel strike hit its 3,000th day this week…
The union still hopes to reach an agreement with the hotel and has proposed wages just below industry standards. Congress Hotel’s lawyer and negotiator, Peter Andjelkovich referred all questions to the legal proceedings against the union and said negotiations do not take place in the press.
Holding the picket line for more than eight years, many of the union members actively campaigned companies and expos to choose other venues. The union boasts of costing the hotel at least $700,000 over the last few years. The figure could actually be closer to $1 million, but the hotel refuses to acknowledge it. At least a dozen companies or events changed locations because of the strike. As a result, the hotel has filed suit alleging secondary activities, an illegal maneuver, by the union.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 8:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: This just in…
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Will the plaintiffs get a pay raise like the state’s PSAs received when they entered the union? Or will they be forced to take a pay cut via union dues?
Comment by Joe from Joliet Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:36 am
Incredible to think that the strike has lasted so long. It is like the episode of “Seinfeld” in which Cosmo Kramer returns to work at a bagel bakery after years of striking for a five cents hourly raise.
Comment by Esquire Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:38 am
I’m not an anti-union person at all, but I don’t understand why someone can be forced to join a union. You’re not forced to take a job, you can quit at any time. It should be the same way for union positions. If you want to represent yourself and take that chance, you should be allowed to. Today’s labor laws are just way to screwed towards unions, it’s almost like subsidy.
Of course I can understand this when you actually work for the union hall, but again, thats your choice, you make the decision to work through them.
Comment by Ahoy Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 10:06 am
===Today’s labor laws are just way to screwed towards unions===
LOL
Yeah, that’s why private sector union membership has soared in the past 30 years.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 10:09 am
Rich has it right I am sorry to say.
I am someone who has worked in the field as a labor organizer. Often an organizing campaign would start with a call to our group by workers upset with conditions where they were employed. During our first meetings with these folks a large amount of our time was spent telling them how tough a row they were about to hoe.
Before you can file for an election for the right to bargain with the employer you must have a least 35% of the work unit sign authorization cards. My group would not even think about going into an election without 75% of the work unit signed up. Once you file for an election thru the USDOL the company has between 30 and 60 days to change minds. Quite often some of your support no longer works there come election time. Some union busting firms have people that go daily to the local USDOL office to check those notice of election files. Within days the company in question is contacted with offers to help keep the union out. Of course everyone plays by the rules. RIGHT!
Now if you can hold the election and have 50% plus one in your favor you have now gained the right to have the company bargain with you ” In Good Faith” for the next year. Those Union Busters already know how to work that system. Talk and say nothing when you have to, delay when you can and the whole time put pressure on the Union Trouble Makers. After a year try to hold a decertication election and problem solved.
In a small example of the above I started with a work unit of 12 people, all signed cards. At the election we won, 7 yea to 4 nay. I will not go into the rules that were ignored. After a year of worthless meetings about four of the original group were still working there. See Ya. If you look at USDOL records a small number of campaigns reach a contract.
Once again the above is a private sector situation. IL public employees are a different kettle of fish.
As to a closed shop where all have to be Union, without it you might as well sit in a corner and mumble to yourself.
Comment by Bemused Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 12:35 pm
As to a closed shop where all have to be union, you can stand in the corner and mumble to yourself and make $30 hour with no skills
Comment by Fed up Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 1:53 pm
Rich,
Sure, union membership has decreased in the private sector. It also grew in the public sector over the same 30 years.
Did it decline in the private sector because of a change in labor law over the past 30 years?
Comment by Ahoy Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 2:04 pm
ahoy,
Yes, every change in labor law over the past 30 years has been directed at reducing Unionization rates.
Public sector union growth over the past 30 years has only been a tiny fraction of the rate of loss in the private sector.
As private sector participation has fallen, so have private sector wages. But hey, corporate profits and bonuses for top executives have gone through the roof. So, huzzah!
Comment by jerry 101 Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 3:56 pm