Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* As we’ve discussed before, the Illinois Policy Institute’s legal arm is attempting to overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the US Supreme Court upheld government union “fair share” fees for those who didn’t want to pay full union membership dues.
Seventh Circuit US Appellate panel, led by Judge Richard Posner, today shot down the group’s attempt with some pretty basic logic…
Of course, only the Supreme Court has the power, if it so chooses, to overrule Abood. Janus and Trygg acknowledge that they therefore cannot prevail either in the district court or in our court—that their case must travel through both lower courts —district court and court of appeals — before they can seek review by the Supreme Court. […]
Janus’s claim was also properly dismissed, though on a different ground: that he failed to state a valid claim because, as we said earlier, neither the district court nor this court can overrule Abood, and it is Abood that stands in the way of his claim.
The judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint is therefore
AFFIRMED.
I assume this will be appealed. The opinion is here. A press release touting the victory is here.
…Adding… Press release…
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Mark Mix released the following statement regarding the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to affirm the judgement of the district court in Janus v. AFSCME.
“The court’s ruling is no surprise but simply allows the next step forward in the journey to end forced unionism for public employees across the country. No one should be forced to pay a union dues or fees just for the privilege of working for their own government and this decision means the case can now move up to the United States Supreme Court.”
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:06 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
And now I’m going back to bed.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:07 pm
The GOP is for Unfair Share.
That sounds about right.
Comment by Blue Bayou Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:12 pm
Note to union mouthpieces: It’s either “So Called Right to Work” or “Free Rider”
Stop using the language of your oppressors.
Comment by Signal and Noise Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:14 pm
He didn’t shoot down their appeal. He shot it up. Up where Republican SCOTUS can grab it and get to work with another decision, like Citizens United, that will hurt the Democratic Party’s ability to compete in elections against Republicans.
Gorsuch once confirmed with join the other Republican judges in striking down Abood once he is seated. Public unions were gifted one last chance to stop this with Scalia’s death right before they were to rule on the last Abood challenge before SCOTUS. They failed. And so the era of public unions will come to an end.
Even if AFSCME defeats Rauner in the current impasse case, SCOTUS will make sure Rauner wins.
As a labor supporter and a Democrat, I worry even more for my country’s future when this comes down.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:32 pm
Supreme Court. Gorsuch. R.I.P. Abood
Comment by BK Bro Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:37 pm
The unions should not be forced to represent people that do not pay!!!
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:40 pm
“No one should be forced to pay a union dues or fees just for the privilege of working”
Translation: Certain multimillionaires and billionaires, including Bruce Rauner, want permanent political and economic power.
Bruce is some kind of friend to state workers, putting his arm around them with one arm and weeping crocodile tears over their ongoing pay issue (as a ploy to keep holding the state hostage and not be forced to pass a budget), and with the other hand fighting with all his might to plunge the knife in them.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:41 pm
Just so we’re clear, this is what the plaintiffs wanted and expected here. They want to fast track this. They know they’re going to likely win at the SCOTUS, which is what would have happened last year in Friedrichs if Justice Scalia hadn’t had the temerity to die on the bench.
Comment by A State Employee Guy Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:50 pm
So much for precedent and settled law if Gorsuch wins the nomination to SCOTUS.
Bad things are happening to our State and Country.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 4:57 pm
“Supreme Court. Gorsuch. R.I.P. Abood”
Gorsuch has called Roe settled law. Perhaps he feels the same way about Abood.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:00 pm
===Supreme Court. Gorsuch. R.I.P. Abood===
(Sigh)
Yeah, Justice Roberts stopped ObamaCare in its tracks too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:12 pm
Nick Name - Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:00 pm:
“Supreme Court. Gorsuch. R.I.P. Abood
Gorsuch has called Roe settled law. Perhaps he feels the same way about Abood.”
It’s cute that you believe Gorsuch on Roe v. Wade.
Comment by TominChicago Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:13 pm
There has to be some way for them to write a decision overturning Abood and eliminating fair share but solving the freerider problem at the same time.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:15 pm
P.S., I don’t purport to know what it is. I’m not on the Supreme Court.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:16 pm
Anon, the middle ground is exactly what Abood does. It says you cannot be required to join the union against your will, but you can be required to pay the union’s cost of representing you, i.e. fair share. If the US SC overturns Abood, then maybe I should consider a lawsuit against my condo association for requiring me to pay $501 per month in condo fees even though I intensly dislike such associations. What, you say, don’t buy a condo? Well I say if you don’t like unions then don’t get a job in a unionized workplace. What is the philosophical difference?
Comment by Andy S. Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:34 pm
“- Nick Name - Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:00 pm:
“Supreme Court. Gorsuch. R.I.P. Abood”
Gorsuch has called Roe settled law. Perhaps he feels the same way about Abood.”
He did not say that about Roe. You are mis-informed.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:54 pm
If they don’t want to pay fair share, then get a different job.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:59 pm
If Abood happens to be overturned, does that mean those who elect no to be part of a Union or pay their fair share have no protections that were the result of Union negotiations?
Comment by Frank Ambrose Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 5:59 pm
==The unions should not be forced to represent people that do not pay!!!==
That’s how the unions wanted it. That “forced” representation is also a monopoly on representation.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 6:01 pm
-NickName-
“Supreme Court. Gorsuch. R.I.P. Abood”
Gorsuch has called Roe settled law. Perhaps he feels the same way about Abood.
—
You might want to look into the text of Roe v. Wade. It’s a lot more complicated of a legal decision than you think (further complicated by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the early 90’s). Gorsuch’s statement today still gives him room to side with anti-abortion folks on certain state regulations.
Several cases have chipped away at Abood already (Knox v SEIU, Harris v Quin, etc.). Friedrich’s v California Teachers Assoc. would have dismantled Abood but for one vote (Scalia). Abood is on a shoestring.
Also, LOL @ any SCOTUS judge leading us to believe any law is “settled.” Anyone who’s followed the SCOTUS should disregard that completely.
Comment by BK Bro Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 6:33 pm
Oh - BK Bro -, “LOL”
Explain Roverts vote on ObamaCare and then explain how you go from “R.I.P.” to…
=== Abood but for one vote (Scalia). Abood is on a shoestring.===
Can’t have it both ways. Either your ignorance is based on “guessing”, or your cover is now based on shoestrings and the unknown.
Your argument is comical, watching you agree and disagree and “R.I.P” and “shoestrings.
You may want to sit out a few plays.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 6:45 pm
“Roberts”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 6:45 pm
By the time the case goes up there will no longer be a 4/4 Friedrich decision. Hello 5 to 4
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 7:09 pm
Can AFSCME cut the freeriders loose by withdrawing its exclusive representative status? Leave them free to try to get a better deal on their own or compete with another union?
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 7:11 pm
If the plaintiffs have been working for the state for a long time, this case should be tossed because they have no standing. What would the harm be to them? They obviously would have benefited for years. If fair share fees were oppressive, they would have left the state or suffered otherwise.
How do you go before a court and say something is oppressive and you’ve lost your freedom and rights when you’ve been at that employer for a long time and have a solid middle class career?
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 7:46 pm
feel better Rich
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 8:32 pm
City-
Not sure if that it true. And quite frankly the history of how this became the way it is is not the point . The point is. If you arent paying for that service you shouldn’t receive that service for free. Period. If you want representation. Fine great. Pay for it. If you don’t. That’s Fine too. don’t pay for it - but you shouldnt receive the benefits
benefits anyway
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 8:48 pm
I can’t wait until I can go fair share and remove union protections and wages, so I can get paid $10/hour with minimal benefits.
Comment by Shanks Tuesday, Mar 21, 17 @ 11:56 pm
Don’t you have to be a union member to receive a union negotiated pension?
Comment by Rabid Wednesday, Mar 22, 17 @ 6:16 am
The supposed “free-rider” issue can be eliminated if unions want to eliminate it. State law can be changed so that government workers can choose to join the union and pay union fees, or opt out of the union completely and opt out of union representation.
The idea is “workers’ choice” addressed below.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-state-workers-have-few-options-if-they-wish-to-opt-out-of-a-union/
Comment by Lucci Wednesday, Mar 22, 17 @ 6:32 am
Employers want exclusive representation as much or more as unions do. No employer wants the headache of negotiating and administering a dozen different agreements for each bargaining unit with a dozen different unions.
Comment by chi Wednesday, Mar 22, 17 @ 7:33 am
== Don’t you have to be a union member to receive a union negotiated pension? ==
The unions don’t directly have anything to do with the pensions.
Indirectly, the unions can lobby to get the pensions improved (revised formula, AAI are two examples) but those changes had to actually be passed by the GA and were applied to ALL employees under a pension plan (SERS, for example). The health insurance on retirement was actually a State idea designed to encourage career employees.
The only pension “benefits” that have been directly tied to union contracts were the State or School District doing a pick-up of the employee pension contribution in lieu of a raise.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Mar 22, 17 @ 8:17 am
Even fairshare members have union protections. I’ve been represented by the union in grievances while fairshare. Fair share members forget that.
Comment by non Wednesday, Mar 22, 17 @ 8:56 am
Put fair share in the strike fund so it don’t go to politicians, but to coworkers.
Comment by Rabid Wednesday, Mar 22, 17 @ 9:34 am
If the unions have little to do with pension, can they merge with another union or reorganize?
Comment by Rabid Wednesday, Mar 22, 17 @ 10:04 pm