Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner extends DC trip
Next Post: Janus react
Posted in:
* As expected…
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
— Hannah Meisel (@hannahmeisel) June 27, 2018
More in a bit.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:06 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner extends DC trip
Next Post: Janus react
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
We at least the Governor can come back to Illinois now
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:08 am
It’s a step. An important one, but just one step.
Comment by Ole General Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:09 am
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
Comment by Texas Red Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:10 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.
Comment by The Dude Abides Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:13 am
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.”
Comment by anonymous Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:13 am
Expected.
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.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:13 am
Rauner got his press pop for being lucky. It’s laughable seeing all the union haters praise Rauner for an action that was foreordained prior to the Janus case was filed.
Now it’s up to AFSCME to work harder on membership recruitment.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:14 am
Hope Pat Quinn learned his lesson by now.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:15 am
=== We at least the Governor can come back to Illinois now ===
Yes, and his campaign fund should be charged for the cost of this purely political trip.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:15 am
=whether the Unions will have to continue to negotiate=
Looks like yes.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-issues-devastating-ruling-against-labor-unions_us_5af9ec8fe4b09a94524b2ae9
Comment by Robert the 1st Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:16 am
==Yes, and his campaign fund should be charged for the cost of this purely political trip.==
Pretty sure he paid out of pocket.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:17 am
==Yes, and his campaign fund should be charged for the cost of this purely political trip.==
I don’t know whether it’s true, but Rich has suggested a couple times now that Rauner paid for this trip out-of-pocket.
Comment by Chris Widger Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:17 am
I wonder if Rauner still thinks all judges are corrupt or is it just all Illinois judges.
Comment by Trapped in the ‘burbs Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:18 am
Janus is finally free from that mean old union negotiating better pay and benefits. Why didn’t he just take a job as a greeter at a big box if it was so reprehensible?
Comment by Mike Cirrincione Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:18 am
Finally, Rauner can get his TV pop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdCaf22UyQ
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:20 am
So is it a done deal or does it go back to lower court?
===Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018)
49
Opinion of the Court
*
*
*
Abood
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. ===
Comment by TServo Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:20 am
Pretty simple: any worker who opts out of paying dues shouldn’t have their contract negotiated via-collective bargaining.
Comment by DaleyMail Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:21 am
==So is it a done deal or does it go back to lower court?==
Goes back to the lower court for them to issue an order.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:27 am
= 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.=
=Pretty simple: any worker who opts out of paying dues shouldn’t have their contract negotiated via-collective bargaining.=
You both need to take a minute to at least read the summary before you play judge for the morning.
The decision said that the the union is still obligated to represent non-payers.
Comment by Simply Dense Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:31 am
“Pretty simple..” Rule #243: When someone says “Pretty simple” or “all you have to do is…” or “simply a matter of…” it rarely is simple.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:31 am
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.
Comment by HL Mencken Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:32 am
==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==
They did. And they do have to represent them. The law will have to be changed or a case brought to ask that representation ends.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:34 am
Another shocker from Alito,
“…the nonmembers were told that they had to pay for “lobbying,”
“social and recreational activities,”
“advertising,”
“membership meetings and conventions,” and
“litigation,”
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.
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:35 am
Queue the AFSCME-SEIU merger in 3-2-1…
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:37 am
- Mittuns - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:17 am:
Liam, you are not even trying to understand the case
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:41 am
It’s game time
It’s all up to frontline stewards like me.
We’ve been trained
We’ve been preparing
We’re ready
One on one fight for every member
Good practice
For November
Bring it on.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:43 am
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
Regardless
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
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:48 am
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.
Comment by Texas Red Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:52 am
Honeybear is right. A lot of people have forgotten the history, what the workplace was like before unions.
Comment by Cailleach Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:59 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.
Comment by My wallet's gone! My wallet's gone! 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.
Comment by Mike Cirrincione Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:04 am
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.
Comment by Dr. M Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:24 am
I’m shocked that in his tweets about Janus, Bruce didn’t thank Murashko for filing the initial case. Shocked, I tell you. /snark
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:47 am
=whether the Unions will have to continue to negotiate=
Looks like yes.–
In the private and public sectors, Rauner has always been about not paying for services rendered.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:17 am
This is in no way some kind of “accomplishment” by our Governor. So sad that he must play it that way. lacking anything else.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:52 am
Unions will have to defend non-union members because a poorly represented worker who loses a case will have implications for the entire union membership.
Comment by Glenn Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:53 am
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?
Nope
Remember local and state governments
Are controlled mostly by Republicans
There’s the game
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 12:08 pm