Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: WIU lays off 24 teachers, eliminates 62 vacant teaching positioins
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Our sorry state
Posted in:
* Hmm…
In the wake of #Janus ruling, SCOTUS also today granted, vacated & remanded a lesser known case of Riffey v Rauner. The decision could open the door for Riffey & other home care workers to file class action to claim past 'fair share' dues from @SEIU. https://t.co/XUD95UD9a3
— Mark Maxwell (@WCIA3Mark) June 28, 2018
SEIU could be on the hook for “$32 million it unconstitutionally seized from over 80,000 personal assistants without their consent,” according to the petition.
AFSCME fought SEIU over which union should represent those workers. I’m betting the folks at AFSCME are breathing a sigh of relief right now that they lost.
*** UPDATE *** The Illinois News Network has a story up entitled “Foundation: Janus decision could prompt refund of ‘billions’ in forced union fees”…
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said this is good news for workers.
“We’re going to be able to get the money back for those home healthcare workers in Illinois and we may be able to get the money back for every government employee across the country that has been forced to pay these fees,” Mix said.
* However, this is from the petition…
To allow unions to profit from unconstitutional fee seizures will beget more unconstitutional fee seizures. This ramification will be especially problematic if the Court rules this term in Janus that it is unconstitutional to force public employees to pay agency fees. Under the Seventh and Sixth Circuits’ decisions, public sector unions will have little incentive to comply with that ruling and cease their agency fee seizures. Instead, unions will have a strong financial incentive to keep seizing fees from nonmembers until a court forces them to stop, because the unions will be able to retain most of the illegally seized monies. It is thereby imperative the Court establish that unions are not free to keep monies they unconstitutionally seize from nonmembers who have not expressed an objection.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 1:59 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: WIU lays off 24 teachers, eliminates 62 vacant teaching positioins
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Our sorry state
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
When it rains it poors. spelling intentional!
Comment by Texas Red Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:08 pm
Rich — that quote is not from the ruling — it is from the plaintiff’s petition.
Comment by Bud Keyes Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:18 pm
There is no ruling form the SC — just a blurb to remand. See page 2 of this. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062818zr_k425.pdf
Comment by Bud Keyes Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:19 pm
Umm…pretty sure it is going to be the taxpayers who would be on the hook for the refunds since it was the State that took the money out of the paychecks and sent it to the union. So more fine fiscal conservatism on display from the Rauner administration.
Comment by Juice Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:21 pm
I meant no ‘written’ ruling — of course a ruling to vacate decision and remand but only a paragraph long.
Comment by Bud Keyes Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:22 pm
Looks like JB and Raoul will have to find $32 million more in contributions !
Comment by Texas Red Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:23 pm
Rich, afscme’s relief is temporary at best. Don’t you think there may already be a class action in the works against afscme from Janus and friends on the very same theory?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:24 pm
I’m no lawyer but that sure sounds like Ex Post Facto.
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:34 pm
Rich — I think the Petition is from 2017
Comment by Bud Keyes Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:34 pm
Why would the State be on the hook. Follow the money. SEIU received the money and assuming the plaintiffs prevail the Union is the entity responsible
Comment by Sue Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:58 pm
The fees were legal until yesterday. SEIU shouldn’t have to give back anything.
Comment by Raccoon Mario Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 3:22 pm
The Janus decision overturned the Abood ruling, which was the law of the land and which legally allowed the deduction of fair share fees until yesterday. SEIU can also agrue the fees were spent performing a service for those who paid them. Seems like the plaintiffs would have a pretty high bar to jump in order to get refunds.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 3:47 pm
Court rulings are generally applied prospectively only, so I don’t see how refunds will be available.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 3:50 pm
==and we may be able to get the money back for every government employee across the country that has been forced to pay these fees==
So their next fight is going to be to attempt to sue for the return of all fair share fees ever paid by a government employee?
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 4:01 pm
===When it rains it poors. spelling intentional!===
Mocking people who might have a much harder time making ends meet through no fault of their own tells me all I need to know about you.
Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 4:02 pm
Personal Assistants are public sector employees??? The last time I read the US Supreme Court Decision, Harris vs Quinn, I believe the Decision clearly stated that Personal Assistants are NOT State of Illinois employees. I guess this is something Lisa Madigan has overlooked since she has received several thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from SEIU.
Comment by Exit Illinois Stage Left Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 4:16 pm
Exit Illinois Stage Left, they are seeking a refund of their dues that were paid prior to the Harris v Quinn. No one ever said that the State has not been in compliance with that, but your jumping to that conclusion without actually reading any of the relevant info is noted.
Comment by Juice Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 4:28 pm
@Roman is absolutely right. It would be absurd to say that the fair share fees were taken unconstitutionally since Abood explicitly permitted it. Therefore such actions were Constitutional up until the Court’s ruling yesterday.
Comment by Shevek Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 5:07 pm
There’s a presumption that every decision is retroactive. The presumption can be overcome, but retroactive by default. Put differently, the Court held that fees are always in violation of the Constitution, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 5:22 pm
Wrong, the presumption is against retroactivity.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 6:06 pm
You may be thinking criminal cases.
For civil cases, check out this article: https://lawexplores.com/retroactivity-and-prospectivity-of-judgments-in-american-law/.
Here are the abstract:
“In every American jurisdiction, new rules of law announced by a court are presumed to have retrospective effect – that is, they are presumed to apply to events occurring before the date of judgment. There are, however, exceptions in certain cases where a court believes that application of the new rule will upset serious and reasonable reliance on the prior state of the law. This chapter summarizes these exceptional cases. It shows that the proper occasions for issuing exclusively or partially prospective judgments have varied over time and that there are still substantial differences in approach according to the particular jurisdiction and the kind of law under consideration. The chapter concludes with a brief survey of some of the still unresolved jurisprudential and constitutional problems raised by recognition of the power of courts to issue non-retroactive judgments.”
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 7:05 pm
== the new rule will upset serious and reasonable reliance on the prior state of the law.==
That’s game, set and match. Abood was not an obscure district court ruling.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 9:57 pm
“The Maginot Line is holding strong.”
“They’re already in Belgium, you fools.”
This is a national war against unions, that happened to pass through our state. It isn’t at al about such fine concepts as free speech.
Comment by walker Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 10:02 pm
Lost in the discussion is the exclusivity provision. If the union gives up its exclusivity it doesn’t have to represent non-members for free. When unions compete, workers win.
Comment by Frank Grimes Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:21 pm