Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Pritzker roundup: Strong endorsement and strong criticism; Exhausting schedule; Another Biss hit
Posted in:
* Lynn Sweet…
WASHINGTON — Gov. Bruce Rauner, making his first official visit here since taking office — and faced with a primary challenge from the right — headed to the Trump White House Sunday and Monday on to the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the anti-union Janus v AFSCME, a case launched by Rauner.
Here’s an overview of Rauner’s official visit to the city that he has gone to lengths to avoid since being sworn in as governor in January 2015.
• Rauner has been doing everything possible to put distance between himself and President Donald Trump. He even skipped the 2016 GOP convention. Yet on Sunday night, Rauner and his wife, Diana, were going to the White House for the annual National Governors Association Governors’ Ball.
Rauner, according to his spokesman, Patty Schuh, was aiming to go to the White House on Monday morning for a working meeting Trump will have with Democratic and Republican governors here for the NGA 2018 Winter Meeting.
However, the timing may not work for Rauner to do both. He will have a seat in the Supreme Court for the Janus v AFSCME oral arguments, to start 9 a.m. Chicago time.
* He made it to the White House…
Attended infrastructure briefings in the White House this morning. pic.twitter.com/CajyrFPOAd
— Bruce Rauner (@GovRauner) February 26, 2018
* AFSCME yesterday…
Two new stories published today in the New York Times and the Guardian reveal that the Janus v. AFSCME case — although fronted by a lone state employee from Illinois — is actually part of a “broad campaign against public-sector unions, backed by some of the biggest donors on the right.”
NEW YORK TIMES: Behind a Key Anti-Labor Case, a Web of Conservative Donors
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/business/economy/labor-court-conservatives.html“Conservative donors have created a symbiosis between groups aiming to overturn Supreme Court precedent favorable to unions and groups that take advantage of those rulings to drain unions of members.”
“Tax filings show that [Richard] Uihlein has also been the chief financial backer in recent years of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents Mark Janus … And Mr. Uihlein has donated well over $1 million over the years to groups like the Federalist Society that work to orient the judiciary in a more conservative direction. They have helped produce a Supreme Court that most experts expect to rule in Mr. Janus’s favor.”
GUARDIAN: Fears Grow As Rightwing Billionaires Battle to Erode US Union Rights
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/24/rightwing-billionaires-union-rights“Conservative activists and thinktanks, backed by corporate donors including the Koch brothers and the Bradley Foundation, have long been preparing for this moment, as part of a larger campaign to tilt the democratic process to the right. …
“A Guardian review of public records shows that the Bradley Foundation, a Wisconsin-based mega-donor to rightwing causes, has invested heavily in the anti-union campaign. Since the 1990s, the donor has given $30.5m to 24 conservative groups that have supported the legal assaults against public sector unions that have reached the supreme court. The two sponsors of the Janus case, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Illinois Policy Institute’s Liberty Justice Center, have between them received $1.6m in Bradley donations since 2003.”
FURTHER READING:
McClatchy: Web of secret money hides one mega-donor funding conservative court
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article185832013.html“When a small nonprofit called the Judicial Crisis Network poured millions into a campaign to stop the Senate from confirming Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick last year, and then spent millions more supporting President Donald Trump’s choice for the same seat, political observers assumed conservatives from around the country were showering the group with donations.
“Newly obtained tax documents show that JCN’s money came almost entirely from yet another secretive nonprofit, the Wellspring Committee, which flooded JCN with nearly $23.5 million in 2016.
“Most of Wellspring’s funds, in turn, came from a single mysterious donor who gave the organization almost $28.5 million — nearly 90 percent of its $32.2 million in revenues. …
“Illinois Policy Action was another organization that benefited from Wellspring’s grants in 2016, receiving $2.5 million; it’s the lobbying arm of the Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative Chicago think tank in Chicago that has ties to the state’s billionaire governor, Republican Bruce Rauner …”
In These Times: Behind Janus: Documents Reveal Decade-Long Plot to Kill Public-Sector Unions
http://inthesetimes.com/features/janus_supreme_court_unions_investigation.html“The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTWLDF) supplied attorneys for most of these cases and is the lead attorney in Janus. Founded in 1968 with a mission to ‘eliminate coercive union power,’ the foundation (along with its advocacy arm) is an SPN member with $14 million in annual revenue. NRTWLDF is funded by the usual suspects: Donors Trust and Donors Capital, the Bradley Foundation, and the anti-public-school Walton Foundation, run by Walmart’s founding family.
“A long list of amicus curiae briefs from a variety of think tanks may make it seem as if the Janus side has broad national support. In fact, 13 of 19 briefs filed by organizations (rather than governments or individuals) for the plaintiff come from current or former members of SPN. Seventeen were filed by groups that have received funding from Bradley, Donors Capital and Donors Trust.”
* IEA…
Today the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the Janus vs. AFSCME case. The lawsuit aims to take away fair share fees for all public unions, including education employee unions like the Illinois Education Association (IEA), which means it will likely have a dramatic impact on public education.
“Nationally, about 70 percent of teachers belong to a union and here in Illinois that number is even higher. Nearly every preK-12 teacher in Illinois is in a union,” IEA President Kathi Griffin said. “The IEA alone has 135,000 members in Illinois. That’s why we have such outstanding schools. Our teachers and our education employees have a voice, and we are able to do what’s best for our students.”
Gov. Bruce Rauner originated this case in a lawsuit he filed against AFSCME Council 31 to try to weaken the union by banning fair share fees in state government. When the federal court said Rauner did not have standing to bring such a suit, he found a lone state employee-Mark Janus-to allow the legal challenge to proceed in his name. The suit is backed by the Liberty Justice Center (an arm of the Illinois Policy Institute) and the National Right to Work Foundation which is part of a network funded by corporate billionaires.
The Janus case is an attempt to take away the right of public unions to collect fair share fees from all employees and an attempt to take away the collective power of all public unions. Fair share fees are collected from all employees who join a workplace that is unionized. Those fees are used during the collective bargaining process to help fight for fair contracts that attract and retain quality employees. In the case of the IEA, those contracts also help improve learning conditions in schools by helping to keep class sizes low, implement new technology and training and by making sure schools are implementing practices to educate the whole child.
“The Janus case could affect our ability to fight for our students with our voices; our ability to negotiate fair contracts for teachers, support staff; our ability to take a look at what’s best for students, whether it’s classroom environments or curriculum decisions,” IEA member and teacher Unique Morris said. “It’s an attempt to break up unions and strip away the voice that we have that fights not just for students, but for parents and the communities that we service.”
* Pritzker campaign…
As the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME today, JB Pritzker released the following statement:
“The future of the labor movement is under siege by Bruce Rauner and Donald Trump, and we must be relentless in the fight to protect unions and working families,” said JB Pritzker. “Our failed governor is going to extreme lengths to implement his far right-wing agenda to destroy our labor movement, and he’s partnered with none other than Donald Trump to make it a reality.
“In Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court will hear radical arguments to undercut unions on a scale unlike anything we’ve seen before. While Trump and Rauner attack the freedom of working people to come together and fight for a better future, we must defend the hardworking men and women of the labor movement. As governor, I will fight alongside unions every day to raise wages, protect workers’ rights, and create jobs across Illinois.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:27 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Pritzker roundup: Strong endorsement and strong criticism; Exhausting schedule; Another Biss hit
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So Rauner’s “first official visit” to DC after three years as governor is nothing but a self-promoting publicity stunt before an election.
Shocking. He seems like such a workhorse back in Illinois….
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:38 am
=== aiming to go to the White House on Monday morning for a working meeting Trump will have with Democratic and Republican governors ===
“Working” with others is not a Rauner strong point.
The money men behind the kill union movement will unfortunately get their dividend this year. This is unfortunate for the lower classes.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:41 am
The ruling from the USSC should center around personal freedom. If a person does not want to belong to a union, they should simply not receive the benefits from the union. No grievance procedures, no raises, no negotiated days off, etc. They will need to negotiate for themselves for all the above. They can save their money, and spend it anyway they want. They just won’t get anymore raises in the future. As a matter of fact, I think any benefits they have received to date, should be reduced.
Comment by Retired Educator Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:44 am
Rauner tweet this morning: “SCOTUS hears oral arguments on #JanusvAFSCME this morning. Court will decide if they agree with us: Free speech is violated when non-union members are forced to pay union dues that are used to support political activity.”
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but is this not a flat out lie? Aren’t such individuals already allowed to choose not to pay for political activity and only for the cost of representation for bargaining, grievance representation and associated administrative costs?
Comment by Moe Berg Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:47 am
It’s all about the benjamins. Super rich interests are trying to break their most powerful competitors and have a political and economic monopoly.
They found someone in Janus who is willing to sell out his colleagues all over America and disproportionally punish them for fiscal sins whose blame is widespread in Illinois and includes the super-rich like Rauner, who paid low state income taxes for decades.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:47 am
Rauner is already guilty by default in the eyes of Dems for his relationship with Trump. This was the last thing he needed.
Comment by Thomas Zane Stepp Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:48 am
While Diana Rauner has gotten her uber-left, costal limousine liberal social agenda passed and signed by Bruce, and kept her social service flush with donations from JB Pritzker his family and their foundations, making her happy as social services overall languished under Bruce, today is Bruce’s “day” to get return on his investment of owning the ILGOP and reaping a possible “personal” victory, being the “person” to take down AFSCME… if they rule in favor of Janus in the late spring or fall.
If Diana and Bruce Rauner lose Bruce’s re-election in November, but Diana got her agenda, with Raunerism, and Bruce would get to have Janus and a discussion or pushing if RTW Zones, they both MAY feel the destroying of social services, less Diana’s, and crippling higher education completely worth the money.
It can’t be over emphasized how important Janus is to Bruce. The RaunerS need their duality. They need that social agenda signed… and the destruction of labor and then it will all be worth the phony “Republican” posturing and making former GOP legislators useless only to the color of buttons Diana and Bruce wanted pushed on the floors of the chambers, and how little respect they have for a brand they used to propel Raunerism, and a case like Janus, so Bruce can have his personal vendettas pay off.
Labor, take notice…
Bruce calls himself “not anti-labor”… as he sits with glee… rooting for Janus to prevail.
And I hear those in labor, talking while wringing their hands at the possibly of “X” being the Dem nominees against Bruce, or “Y” is someone that wouldn’t get their vote… over Bruce who is giddy he’s going to be at the Janus case airing in front of the Supreme Court.
Some people, you just can’t help, I guess.
One last thing. Remember.
Bruce Rauner, when given the softball of all softballs by the Trib…
The second term difference…
Not infrastructure, not higher education, not municipal cooperation, not investments… Rauner pointed to first Janus, then RTW Zones… then taking on AFSCME again… and if any of all hit snags, more hostages. That’s what Bruce Rauner said. It’s who he is. Personal vendetta… against organized labor… like the Decatur PowerPoint showed.
Bruce wants his ROI, like Diana now has. Janus is part and parcel of that return Bruce wants.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:49 am
Was on a school board which had teachers file unfair labor practices over the most trivial of things. Probably past time for the pendulum to swing back towards management.
Comment by logic not emotion Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:50 am
Its not clear where to even start with this.
But as a teacher, let me suggest that if people think there is a teacher shortage now, wait until the bargaining power of teacher unions further erode and wages drop. This will have long term repercussions for the quality of our teachers, our schools, and the global competitiveness of our workforce.
The avarice displayed by Rauner and like-minded plutocrats is painful to watch and I worry about our schools, democracy, and society.
I also know that Janus is really about undermining the Democratic Party, but if unions are weakened, and teachers are undermined, we will all suffer in the long run.
Comment by Scamp640 Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:50 am
==I think any benefits they have received to date, should be reduced.==
So these individuals already paid their fair share (literally) for those benefits, and now you want to take them away? Do you feel the same about pension pension benefits?
Comment by City Zen Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:55 am
–Probably past time for the pendulum to swing back towards management.–
You mean this lawsuit isn’t about personal liberty?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:56 am
Would the “Janus” case even be on the table if the union bosses followed a prior SCOTUS decision and stopped using member dues or fair share payments to support candidates and political parties opposed by their individual members? Why should people be compelled to indirectly support candidates that they dislike simply because of a union?
Comment by Rhetorical Question Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 9:58 am
===Please correct me if I’m wrong, but is this not a flat out lie?===
Yes, it is a flat out lie. Not one dime of union dues goes toward political activity.
Comment by Nick Name Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:01 am
Janus is a case about what the Constitution demands, which is something decided by the Supreme Court. It’ll be a 5-4 decision and it’ll make a lot of people angry either way. It’ll be another great illustration that the debates here and elsewhere around politics are not about principle but about profit. You will see little reference to the First Amendment (critical to the case) and a lot of reference to motives. It’s not like people are much better about guns or abortions (two other things the Constitution clearly guards), but in this realm, you will see a lot of cafeteria constitutionalists.
Comment by Chris Widger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:03 am
PEOPLE is the opt-in program that is used by AFSCME for political activities. Regular union dues do not go towards those operations.
Comment by Fixer Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:04 am
- Rhetorical Question -
Explain what fair share is.
This is not rhetorical. Do you know what fair shar is?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:04 am
Free speech is violated when non gun owners are forced to subsidize gun manufacturers political activity.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:07 am
=They will need to negotiate for themselves for all the above.=
Great plan, except for the fact that the unions have fought that very idea. The reason for fair share is because unions need to represent those individuals.
Otherwise, if you’re a hard worker and a fast riser, why be in the union waiting for raises based on seniority? You can jump from the union and get raises based on performance.
Plus it would be very easy for anti-union employers to give raises to non-union employees to discourage membership.
Comment by m Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:07 am
Unions need to hold back wage increases and benefits that could be accrued because it weakens them?
That’s a new one.
“As a union, we need to hold back raises and stagnate. That’s what we negotiate.”
Whew.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:12 am
===Would the “Janus” case even be on the table if the union bosses followed a prior SCOTUS decision and stopped using member dues or fair share payments to support candidates and political parties opposed by their individual members? Why should people be compelled to indirectly support candidates that they dislike simply because of a union?===
Sigh. For the gudzillianth time, not a penny of union dues — or fair share fees — goes toward political lobbying. It’s federal freaking law, for crying out loud.
All union political activity is funded from voluntary — voluntary — contributions from members. Not dues.
Comment by Nick Name Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:12 am
m, have you even looked at the AFSCME contract?
Newer employees get larger percentage increases in pay than more senior employees do.
Comment by Juice Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:16 am
It’s funny to see people who hate unions do somersaults to claim they don’t hate unions and then crow when their efforts to kill unions work. Walker in Wisconsin did this. At first, he pretended his thing was about “free speech,” then took credit after it destroyed their unions for killing unions. Rauner’s doing the same thing now. Like he cares about the freedom of workers. Puh-leeze.
Comment by Albany Park Patriot Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:16 am
M
And it would be just as easy for a non union employer to reduce pay and increase health insurance costs or reduce health insurance benefits at any time
Or add additional job duties on a whim with no additional pay for it
Swings both ways
Comment by Nick Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:23 am
Juice….. there is no current AFSCME contract. Step increases and COLA haven’t been honored since Rauner was elected.
Comment by Theq Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:25 am
“Would the “Janus” case even be on the table”
Yes. For those who are pushing this, it has nothing to do with employees’ free speech. It’s about politically and economically crippling and, they hope, killing opponents—dealing a death blow to the entire left. There are always a few like Janus to be found, who would backstab their colleagues in the entire state (and country) and blame them disproportionally for fiscal woes but completely disregard that Rauner and other super-rich paid low state income taxes for decades.
Rauner spent tens of millions of dollars in politics, including giving millions as sitting governor to Illinois Republicans. It’s massive hypocrisy for Rauner and his supporters to blame public unions for so-called incestuous repationships with politicians when Rauner puts astronomical amounts of money into politics and the ILGOP, to do his bidding.
Janus should have no standing. From what I read, he’s a long-time state employee. If true, how was he injured enough to merit a hearing before SCOTUS? He’s been getting great pay, benefits and job protections for years. If he was harmed he wouldn’t have been able to work at the state or would have suffered in some other major, demonstrable way. He would have had to quit or suffer some other harm.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:26 am
Theq, sorry. I was referring to the most recent contract.
(And not that it really matters, but is the tolling agreement still in effect since the court determined that the negotiations are not at impasse?)
Comment by Juice Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:34 am
Pretty much unrelated, but per the photo on a friend’s Facebook post, Rauner flew coach. Had an aisle seat at least.
Comment by Ann Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:40 am
–Pretty much unrelated, but per the photo on a friend’s Facebook post, Rauner flew coach. –
Wow, what a man of the people. Such a sacrifice, for that almost two-hour flight Chicago to DC.
Tell me he flew coach Chicago to Tokyo a few months back, and I’ll be impressed.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:44 am
Anyone know if we can listen to the oral argument live? If so, where?
Comment by California Guy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:53 am
Wisconsin and Michigan are adding union jobs at a very healthy clip in RTW states where we are being led to believe organized labor has been “decimated and destroyed”.
https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/news-release/unionmembership_wisconsin.htm
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:57 am
Funding any part of a public employee union is always funding politics because the unions negotiate with politicians for their salary and benefits, lobby for laws that affect unions and taxpayers and organize their members to support candidates that will deliver the most benefits to the unions. It is nonsense to claim this dollar goes towards bargaining while this dollar goes to politics just like it is nonsense that planned parenthood claims their tax dollars don’t pay for abortions. I don’t care how you divide your books, it is all the same organization, all the same green.
Comment by Stuck in Illinois Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:04 am
===Funding any part of a public employee union is always funding politics because the unions negotiate with politicians for their salary and benefits, lobby for laws that affect unions and taxpayers and organize their members to support candidates that will deliver the most benefits to the unions.===
Don’t let the actual facts of fair share get in the way of your “oh yeah, but” argument that fully doesn’t understand what the fair share issue is… while you just don’t like labor and see “is always funding”… when in actuality, it’s not.
But, it was a fun read.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:09 am
https://capitolfax.com/2017/10/20/rauner-finally-takes-a-stand-on-a-federal-issue/
Rauner’s actions demonstrate his priorities.
Comment by Earnest Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:13 am
Retired Educator said: If a person does not want to belong to a union, they should simply not receive the benefits from the union. No grievance procedures, no raises, no negotiated days off, etc. They will need to negotiate for themselves for all the above.
My solution is a middle ground. Unions can still negotiate salaries, benefits, etc. for all people of the bargaining unit, whether or not they are dues-paying members. That preserves the exclusive bargaining unit concept.
But those who are not paying simply get no access to ANY of the items negotiated — the union has no duty to represent, no obligation to protect. So for example, as a union member I would now negotiation that RIFs go in order of seniority in the bargaining unit, not at the job level. So you want the benefits, you pay for the benefits. You want the low-level basics, that’s all you get.
Comment by xxtofer Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:13 am
Rich has provided a great list of current coverage of the case, many thanks for that.
Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog has exhaustive coverage/links (current through today) - the list is now very long and growing by the hour.
One of the most helpful pieces I read was Moshe Marvit’s “legal explainer” for The Century Foundation, with summaries of the more than 70 amicus briefs filed on behalf of both petitioner and respondent. These may play a more important role in the justices’ reasoning because the case itself is a “ghost” - no paper trail, because it’s never been tried.
One of the more interesting amicus briefs was filed, strangely enough, on behalf of respondent by two libertarian legal scholars, Eugene Volokh and William Baude. They argue that “fair-share” fees are in fact not a question of free speech (First Amendment) rights, and that Abood (1977) was wrongly decided on these grounds; rather, this is a case of “compelled subsidies,” the commonest being the payment of taxes to our various levels of government.
The extension of Volokh and Baude’s argument is that, should Janus be decided in favor of the petitioner, it will open a veritable Pandora’s Box of “free speech” cases in which plaintiffs will argue that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon by … you name it.
Rachel Cohen at The Intercept details how this scenario has been anticipated in three lawsuits already filed (2 in Illinois, 1 in Wisconsin).
Comment by dbk Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:22 am
i am a union member have been for over 25 years was actually a local president. the facts are that unions do fund politics. the facts do not get in the way i have witnessed it first hand it is very much like the governor saying this is a free speech issue. we all know that is bs but ….
Comment by any_one Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:30 am
Turns out not even audio recorders/broadcasters are allowed in SCOTUS court chambers. Looks like we’re all going to have to wait until tomorrow to read about how AFSCME’s going away party went down.
Comment by California Guy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:32 am
===…the facts are that unions do fund politics.===
Did you have a fair share prong, how did that work?
===… the facts do not get in the way i have witnessed it first hand it is very much like the governor saying this is a free speech issue.===
Please, as a former “president” of a local, how fair share dues are used in campaigns.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:33 am
It will be fun to see react if court sides with Janus and GovJunk starts ripping wages, benefits and work rules from the non union members — yikes
Comment by Annonin' Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:37 am
it is very much like defining pornography i cannot give you a good definition but i sure know it when i see it
Comment by any_one Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:38 am
Rich has provided a great list of current coverage of the case, many thanks for that.
Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog has exhaustive coverage/links (current through today) - the list is now very long and growing by the hour.
One of the most helpful pieces I read was Moshe Marvit’s “legal explainer” for The Century Foundation, with summaries of the more than 70 amicus briefs filed on behalf of both petitioner and respondent. These may play a more important role in the justices’ reasoning because the case itself is a “ghost” - no paper trail, because it’s never been tried.
One of the more interesting amicus briefs was filed, strangely enough, on behalf of respondent by two libertarian legal scholars, Eugene Volokh and William Baude. They argue that “fair-share” fees are in fact not a question of free speech (First Amendment) rights, and that Abood (1977) was wrongly decided on these grounds; rather, this is a case of “compelled subsidies,” the commonest being the payment of taxes to our various levels of government.
The extension of Volokh and Baude’s argument is that, should Janus be decided in favor of the petitioner, it will open a veritable Pandora’s Box of “free speech” cases in which plaintiffs will argue that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon by … you name it.
Rachel Cohen at The Intercept details how this scenario has been anticipated in three lawsuits already filed (2 in Illinois, 1 in Wisconsin).
California Guy @11.32: Amy How just tweeted over at the SCOTUSblog twitter account that arguments are over and that Gorsuch didn’t open his mouth. That sounds … ominous. Let’s see how others interpret it.
Comment by dbk Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:41 am
===it is very much like defining pornography i cannot give you a good definition but i sure know it when i see it===
LOL
No… you said…
===the facts are that unions do fund politics. the facts do not get in the way i have witnessed it first hand it is very much like the governor saying this is a free speech issue.===
Funding indicates a dollar amount, something you saw first hand.
lol
If you see monies, then you see them.
Also, explain fair share, the rules, and how as a “president” you may have handled it if you had those fair share obstacles…
Actual funding with actual measurable dollars that can be traced to actual accounts… can’t be described, not unlike pornography, that had to have been snark, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:42 am
@California Guy 11.32
Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog was taking notes and issuing occasional tweets. She’s promised a summary, probably today.
Comment by dbk Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:51 am
Shouldn’t Rauner be here working on a budget and dealing with flooded areas?
Comment by A Jack Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:57 am
California Guy- “Looks like we’re all going to have to wait until tomorrow to read about how AFSCME’s going away party went down.”
Ever heard of the PBS Newshour, NPR, or even any of the 3 major networks??? I’m sure Marcia Coyle will be giving a rundown on the Newshour and possibly this afternoon on All Things Considered. Not to mention that new social media thingee called the Internet;)
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:03 pm
@dbk thanks for the update maybe Rich will post her summary as an update to this blog post. Numerous CapFax addicts depend on her….
Comment by California Guy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:05 pm
I have been a union member for 20+ years. I have served as a member of my local exec board and bargaining team (including president) and I serve on a local labor council and visit Springfield where I work with the political lobbying team. Through it all, the division of money is crystal clear. Union money is spent on union business. Political money is spent on political business. This is the case at all levels.
Frankly, it takes a lot of money to negotiate and enforce contracts and to keep members informed. Robust unions save employers money and grief on personnel issues. If our local were to go away, the employer would need to hire at least one, if not two more people in HR.
Fair share is just that, a fair share of the costs for non-members to pay. Unfortunately, the collection of fair share fees has resulted in some locals coasting instead of explaining to members where the bulk of their dues goes. It is my hope that if the Janus ruling takes away fair share (as it appears will happen), that the unions pivot to a stronger recruiting message that makes members more likely to join and ultimately vote their interests.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:09 pm
Janus v AFSCME on SCOTUSblog-
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/janus-v-american-federation-state-county-municipal-employees-council-31/
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:17 pm
Nina Totenberg has posted some updates on what was said at the hearing today in this article-
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582539884/supreme-court-could-bleed-unions-dry
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:37 pm
Politico update- Kennedy was on the warpath
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/26/supreme-court-public-employee-unions-424688
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:43 pm
And Alito invokes Sir Thomas More.
Maybe he just meant burning heretics at the stake.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:55 pm
“It’s who he is. Personal vendetta…”
O.W., I’m not sure that Schock or Rutherford would agree with you. /s
Comment by regnaD kciN Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:13 pm
The benefits of being in AFSCME or paying fair share fees are overwhelmingly demonstrable. For under $800 per year in either dues or fees, state employees get a myriad of economic protections in the contract. Upward Mobility is free college for those who stay with the state two years after completing school.
Rauner himself already indicated how lousy state workers would be compensated, with a loss of thousands of dollars a year just through health insurance hikes alone.
So ending fair share fees clearly disregards the benefits free riders would get if they can pay zero. That’s a huge problem, turning public sector employment Jim Crow, where in full union states, private sector unions can collect fair share fees but public sector unions can’t.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:20 pm
- regnaD kciN -
Well, if I ever see them, again, I’ll ask them.
How about that?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:23 pm
“Well, if I ever see them, again, I’ll ask them.”
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more.
Comment by regnaD kciN Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:51 pm
I know the common wisdom is that Abood will be overturned. I’m going to be a contrarian and predict the court will punt on it.
I think the smart thing for the court would be to remand it back to the lower court for a determination of fact; specifically, order the lower court to determine if, in fact, any fair share fees were actually used for political purposes. In other words, the union would have to open up their books to a forensic audit.
That would be a solution that would split hairs on this subject. And if the union was found in violation, the resolution would be reimbursement of damages, fines, and possibly future Prohibition on union lobbying. Not the outcome Rauner wants, but that seems closer to the intent of tue law … and it wouldn’t open up the free speech issue can of worms everyone is speculating about.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:01 pm
=stopped using member dues or fair share payments to support candidates and political parties opposed by their individual members? Why should people be compelled to indirectly support candidates that they dislike simply because of a union?=
This was the false premise that Janus originally used to bring the suit but had to change his position once this was debunked.
Now the strawman is that he should be free from union interference to negoitate his own pay and benefits.
Comment by Rhetorical Misinformation Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:07 pm
RNUG, that’s a brilliant alternative, albeit unlikely.
And here all I’m thinking about is if Rauner got the Lincoln Bedroom.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:26 pm
Grandson of man
Exactly. Why would anyone want to take a chance and lose that bargain
What does Janus have to gain from this
Comment by Radio star Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 4:33 pm