in the vicinity
Supreme Court sides with non-union workers in the case of fees
Supreme Court blow to unions, ruling 5-4 that public sector unions could not collect mandatory fees from non-members.
The Supreme court ruling last week that the government workers can not be forced to pay union fees for collective bargaining, and other activities that may hurt Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections – although some experts suspect it could be a galvanizing effect for union members to get and vote.
The 5-4 decision in Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees scrapped a 41-year-old decision that allowed it to require the States to pay public employees “fair share” fees to the unions that represent them.
“This procedure is a violation of the First Amendment and may not be able to continue,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. To collect “neither a placement fee may still apply to be a payment by the union is deducted, by a member, or may be made a other attempt, such payment, except to pay the employee expressly consents to this.”
Supreme Court rules in favor of non-unionized workers, support now, as an example, in the situation to, a candidate of his choice, without those, decide the control of the Union. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2018
Republicans and opponents of forced Union dues, welcomed the decision, with President, Trump claimed that it would be a “great loss for the coffers of the Democrats.”
Government, the trade unions reacted with anger, but even in spite of. United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew said: “we will not be silenced.”
To achieve “everything that we have been able, for our members and our students come from our ability to work together, and we will continue to fight for the rights of workers, their families, and for public education,” he said.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka also vowed that the union would continue to fight, despite the disappointing decision.
“We have never depended on to decide any politician or judge our fate, and we are not about to begin now,” he said.
SUPREME COURT RULING IN JANUS-UNION CASE SPARKS REACTIONS OF TRUMP, OTHER LEGISLATORS
While it is not allowed the trade unions, Agency fees for political activity, the lack of money for collective bargaining, some unions may move to enforce, the money for the political activities on collective bargaining.
This, in turn, could blunt the unions as a fundraising and activist force for the Democrats in the midterm elections and beyond.
“If you look at it from Republican vs. democratic… because of some crazy phenomenon when the blue collar trade Union members tend to be more Republican, but their trade Union leaders tend to be more democracy, this is a disaster for the Democrats,” Fox News Senior judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano said on “America’s Newsroom” last week.
“This is a political disaster for the democratic party,” Taylor Dark, “author of “The unions and the Democrats: An Enduring Alliance”, told TIME. “The reason is simple: the public employee unions are large, with huge sums of money, and they were able to get their money and staff to the promotion of Democratic ideas, candidates, and legislation.
The Janus ruling, that makes everything much more difficult.”
SUPREME COURT BLOW FOR UNIONS, RULES AGAINST FORCED-FEES FOR GOVERNMENT WORKERS
Democrats spent $3.1 billion in the 2016 election, of which $189 million came from the unions, according to a study in February by Politico. The financing is likely to be limited by the Janus decision.
Unions in States that pass right-to-work laws have seen drops have been adopted in the composition according to any one of such laws. Between 2011 to 2016, four States, the “right-to-work laws” in the mid-West: Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, according to Politico.
All four of these States voted for President Trump in the election of 2016.
A Washington Post analysis identified that, after such laws were passed in Michigan and Wisconsin, the teachers union charges fell by between a third and a half. Such a tightening of funds is forcing the unions to make fewer contributions to the Democratic candidates and their associated campaigns.
However, others are not so sure.
John Beck, an associate professor at Michigan State University’s School of Human Resources and labor Relations, told Fox News that Janus has the potential to galvanise the trade unions and the union to the voters, especially as a replacement for the retiring judge Anthony Kennedy as yet unconfirmed November.
“It is probably more a spur to action, as a large dead bell,” he said.
He also said that it can cause, to organize unions, better than in the last few years, and this, in turn, could help the trade unions as a force – and therefore the Democrats.
“What it forces you to do is to act as an organization union, to be added as a Union to get work every single day the people pay their dues and become a member and you are part of and stand in solidarity,” he said. “It is a Wake-up call in this sense.”
Democratic strategist Brad Bannon agreed, saying that the unions are likely to be more aggressive in recruitment, and communication.
“The feeling I get talking to people that I know, Janus is a fire under your butt, and you will force more innovative part of the national dialogue – a lobbying.”
Bannon said that Janus was a similar Wake-up call for the Democrats, and he advises to move the democratic customers of on union donations, and follow the model of the former presidential hopefuls Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders in the fundraising of small donations instead of relying on money from the unions.
“I don’t think it’s exams, a lot of influence on resources, but it can have an impact on 2020, unless Democrats and adopt the modern way of fundraising,” he said.
Fox News’ Bill Mears and Andrew O’reilly contributed to this report.
Adam Shaw is a reporter covering the American and European politics for Fox News.. He can be reached.